Out of Spec review of the 2023 Mach-E GT - driving characteristics

[GuliblGuy]

@OutofSpecKyle first vid is up!

 

[blkadr08]

liked the fact that most of his complaints about earlier models have been dealt with in this car.

Did not like the performance of the car once he started hot footing it up the road.

 

[Mach-Lee]

Totally agree with Kyle's criticisms regarding slow charging speed, lack of information display, lack of a global charge limit, 1PD still being weird, braking smoothness, bouncy rear end, and the power limitations on the GT models. This is good additional feedback for Ford.

And a reminder of why the 5 second rule exists - it's there to prevent overheating of the busbars, cell tabs, HVBJB, and contactors in the battery pack, which do not have temperature sensors. The battery pack is anemic in a GT because it was only designed to support about 165 HP continuous for a basic FWD no-frills EV (which is what the "Model E" was originally supposed to be). The busbars are simply not big enough to support the higher currents for sustained acceleration. The GT models should have had a different performance pack that was designed for higher continuous amperage output. Hopefully the next Mach-E will have a better-designed pack (800V would be nice) with higher sustained output capability so the GT can truly "rip".

 

[MBCook]

I understand limiting the number of customizations of charging and such (from Ford‘s perspective) but there’s no downside to giving us more data like the charge rate. I can’t make my cars battery wear out faster by looking at a number on the dashboard.

Also I want the little power meter as a non-GT.

Note: BlueCruise 1.2 will be another video. That’s what I really want to see.

 

[scoopman]

 

[scoopman]

Well, I think we all know that the thermal strategy and characteristics of the battery are just inappropriate for the application in a "performance" car.

I'd be shocked if this isn't the #1 item on Ford's list for their refresh, #2 being better non-magride suspension tuning.

 

[scoopman]

Totally agree with Kyle's criticisms regarding slow charging speed, lack of information display, lack of a global charge limit, 1PD still being weird, braking smoothness, bouncy rear end, and the power limitations on the GT models. This is good additional feedback for Ford.

And a reminder of why the 5 second rule exists - it's there to prevent overheating of the busbars, cell tabs, HVBJB, and contactors in the battery pack, which do not have temperature sensors. The battery pack is anemic in a GT because it was only designed to support about 165 HP continuous for a compliance car. The busbars are simply not big enough to support the higher currents for sustained acceleration. The GT models should have had a different performance pack that was designed for higher continuous amperage output. Hopefully the next Mach-E will have a better-designed pack (800V would be nice) with higher sustained output capability so the GT can truly "rip".

You can see how @OutofSpecKyle's enthusiasm waned as the jailbars on the power meter increased....

 

[kltye]

Totally agree with Kyle's criticisms regarding slow charging speed, lack of information display, lack of a global charge limit, 1PD still being weird, braking smoothness, bouncy rear end, and the power limitations on the GT models. This is good additional feedback for Ford.

And a reminder of why the 5 second rule exists - it's there to prevent overheating of the busbars, cell tabs, HVBJB, and contactors in the battery pack, which do not have temperature sensors. The battery pack is anemic in a GT because it was only designed to support about 165 HP continuous for a compliance car. The busbars are simply not big enough to support the higher currents for sustained acceleration. The GT models should have had a different performance pack that was designed for higher continuous amperage output. Hopefully the next Mach-E will have a better-designed pack (800V would be nice) with higher sustained output capability so the GT can truly "rip".

So, if 165hp (which is ~123kW) continuous is within spec for all of the abovementioned components, why can't we stay at that charging rate for much longer than we currently do? That's just about 1.2C charge rate, well within bounds of what modern Li-ion cells can do, at least with SoC < 70%. That's what irks me the most.

Also, can we get just a bit more power out of the rear motor for RWD? The AWD is pulling 346hp for seemingly unlimited amounts of time - it'd be nice to be able to push the RWD for 10-15% more HP/torque, even if we get our own version of the 5 second limit. I guess all I can do is dream...

 

[Mach-Lee]

So, if 165hp (which is ~123kW) continuous is within spec for all of the abovementioned components, why can't we stay at that charging rate for much longer than we currently do? That's just about 1.2C charge rate, well within bounds of what modern Li-ion cells can do, at least with SoC < 70%. That's what irks me the most.

Also, can we get just a bit more power out of the rear motor for RWD? The AWD is pulling 346hp for seemingly unlimited amounts of time - it'd be nice to be able to push the RWD for 10-15% more HP/torque, even if we get our own version of the 5 second limit. I guess all I can do is dream...

EDIT: Just looked and the charging current limit is probably due to the wire size used for the DC cables. They're only 70 mm^2 or about 2/0 gauge. That limits current to 269 amps continuous or about 101 kW.

I think the limitation on RWD is the amps through the rear pack connector. AWD can do a little bit more because it has two pack connectors for it to flow through.

 

[AlpaChino]

The GT models should have had a different performance pack that was designed for higher continuous amperage output.

They all should be equipped with busbars and connectors that allow higher continuous output. FTFY

 

[kltye]

EDIT: Just looked and the charging current limit is probably due to the wire size used for the DC cables. They're only 70 mm^2 or about 2/0 gauge. That limits current to 269 amps continuous or about 101 kW.

I think the limitation on RWD is the amps through the rear pack connector. AWD can do a little bit more because it has two pack connectors for it to flow through.

That would explain the time-based algorithm for charging power. They're "overboosting" the cable for a short period, where it'll still be safe temperature-wise. Makes sense for a much smaller, compliance-car sized pack where the C-rate will be much higher.

It's also crazy how low the nominal pack voltage is, which certainly doesn't help here. Sigh.

 

[Jimrpa]

Well, I think we all know that the thermal strategy and characteristics of the battery are just inappropriate for the application in a "performance" car.

I'd be shocked if this isn't the #1 item on Ford's list for their refresh, #2 being better non-magride suspension tuning.

I’m hoping that #0 on their list is a bloody remote frunk release after 2 years of pulling a hood release out of a 1969 Galaxie 500, it’s about time

 

[ctenidae]

I’m hoping that #0 on their list is a bloody remote frunk release after 2 years of pulling a hood release out of a 1969 Galaxie 500, it’s about time

Wait- you can't open your frunk remotely? Man, that must really burn.

 

[Mach1E]

Hopefully any of the “5 sec limit isn’t a big deal” people can see it in action in this video.

So he drives it about as hard as you can (cold weather, uphill, floored as much as possible) and the battery pack is still “stone cold.”

Honestly not surprised because by the end I would be shocked if it had more than 180 hp it was putting out.

Even with the crap bus bars yadda yadda yadda, they’re still way too aggressive pulling power in this car.

 

[Mach_Enrique]

I am so happy Kyle took the time to come back to the MachE. It was great to see him see it as a solid car and praise Ford for being "best of ish" of older OEM's in the EV area for making changes and tweaks. Won't even touch the 5 second gray bar jail problem...nough said above.

I agree with his assessment and often wish I would have splurged on the PE of my GT for "just" $5K more. I am over all happy with my GT non-PE choice as I personally like the GT seats over the GT PE seats (which is why I don't have a PE as I ordered my GT before they were released in 2020 and did not like the seats from early pics and the early range estimates on the PE bothered me, so I stuck with non-PE) but overall happy as I really only "care" about winning stoplight races. But sometimes wishing for mangneride smoother ride and cooler wheels...most days think I would have been slightly happier spending $5K more.

But hey, after 4 years of Ford Options, I will move on to something new (hoping a new MachE, EV Mustang sports coupe or next-gen Ford EV truck that is smaller than the F150 and cooler than a Rivian)