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

[kltye]

Pack voltage at 10% SOC is only 330V:

And Polestar's much closer to 400v:

From

(The picture on the left has higher voltage because much more power is being pumped into it than the right side, but it still makes the point)

Sponsored

 

[Mach-Lee]

Kyle classifies the MME as a 400v car but, as I understand it, its nominal voltage is lower than average, being like 375v or something.

I don't know the benefits of a lower pack voltage but a higher voltage allows for more power with the same current. So on 200A chargers we only get 70-75kW but a Polestar 2 or Rivian gets over 80kW of charging power.

"400V car" is used pretty broadly to define a range of nominal voltages anywhere from about 350 to 450V. Ford designed the Mach-E to always stay below 400V, that's what the components are spec'd for (capacitors and such). Rivian and Tesla went up to a higher voltage spec level, which is slightly more expensive. Here's a comparison of the pack voltages:

Vehicle	Parallel/Series	Nominal Voltage	Max Voltage	V Increase
Mach-E	4P-94S (ER)	348V	395V
Rivian R1T	72P-108S	392V	454V	+15%
Tesla Model S	72P-110S	407V	462V	+17%

So the higher voltage they have is worth about a 15% increase in charging power. The other factor that cripples the Mach-E charging is the cable size. The DC cables from the charge port on the Mach-E are only big enough to support about ~265A continuous, which is about 100 kW. The Rivian must have much larger DC cables because they allow continuous charging at 500A. Model S will do the same and more, it will even go up to 630A of current briefly on CCS.

So it's mostly the larger DC cable size that allows the Rivan and Teslas to charge at 200+ kW. Mach-E was just designed to be a budget EV with moderate charging speeds, the DC hardware isn't big enough for more than about 100 kW continuous.

Having said that, I think Ford can still do more optimization with the charging curve to get it closer to the 100 kW sustained level.

 

[HuntingPudel]

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

@Jimrpa has a 2021 Job 1 car. No remote frunk release available yet on those. The code was factory installed on ‘21 Job 2 cars and newer. Ford has released a package available through FDRS that will allow an ‘21 Job 1 to release the frunk latch via the center screen (if the car is also modified using FORScan). It will not, however open remotely via the FordPass app. A repurposed F150 Lightning key will release the frunk.

But the sad fact remains that Ford has it in for Jim. There is prohibit code in the FP servers that prevents the activation of the frunk release for any car on his FP account.

 

[silverelan]

"400V car" is used pretty broadly to define a range of nominal voltages anywhere from about 350 to 450V. Ford designed the Mach-E to always stay below 400V, that's what the components are spec'd for (capacitors and such). Rivian and Tesla went up to a higher voltage spec level, which is slightly more expensive. Here's a comparison of the pack voltages:

Vehicle	Parallel/Series	Nominal Voltage	Max Voltage	V Increase
Mach-E	4P-94S (ER)	348V	395V
Rivian R1T	72P-108S	392V	454V	+15%
Tesla Model S	72P-110S	407V	462V	+17%

So the higher voltage they have is worth about a 15% increase in charging power. The other factor that cripples the Mach-E charging is the cable size. The DC cables from the charge port on the Mach-E are only big enough to support about ~265A continuous, which is about 100 kW. The Rivian must have much larger DC cables because they allow continuous charging at 500A. Model S will do the same and more, it will even go up to 630A of current briefly on CCS.

So it's mostly the larger DC cable size that allows the Rivan and Teslas to charge at 200+ kW. Mach-E was just designed to be a budget EV with moderate charging speeds, the DC hardware isn't big enough for more than about 100 kW continuous.

Having said that, I think Ford can still do more optimization with the charging curve to get it closer to the 100 kW sustained level.

if we could just get the MME to plateau at 100kW to 80% instead of 75-80kW. That’d save an appreciable amount of time. Oh well.

It’s so funny how the 5s thing is not an issue for me and I have such a blast driving it, but then I watch @OutofSpecKyle drive it on YouTube and I become convinced that my poor MME is an overpriced paperweight.

 

[JohnFoxeSheets]

"400V car" is used pretty broadly to define a range of nominal voltages anywhere from about 350 to 450V. Ford designed the Mach-E to always stay below 400V, that's what the components are spec'd for (capacitors and such). Rivian and Tesla went up to a higher voltage spec level, which is slightly more expensive. Here's a comparison of the pack voltages:

Vehicle	Parallel/Series	Nominal Voltage	Max Voltage	V Increase
Mach-E	4P-94S (ER)	348V	395V
Rivian R1T	72P-108S	392V	454V	+15%
Tesla Model S	72P-110S	407V	462V	+17%

So the higher voltage they have is worth about a 15% increase in charging power. The other factor that cripples the Mach-E charging is the cable size. The DC cables from the charge port on the Mach-E are only big enough to support about ~265A continuous, which is about 100 kW. The Rivian must have much larger DC cables because they allow continuous charging at 500A. Model S will do the same and more, it will even go up to 630A of current briefly on CCS.

So it's mostly the larger DC cable size that allows the Rivan and Teslas to charge at 200+ kW. Mach-E was just designed to be a budget EV with moderate charging speeds, the DC hardware isn't big enough for more than about 100 kW continuous.

Having said that, I think Ford can still do more optimization with the charging curve to get it closer to the 100 kW sustained level.

Are the ~800V components so much more expensive that it wouldn't be worth the less copper needed for all the bus bars and such? (My thinking is higher voltage = lower current = < copper needed.)

 

[BigMach-E]

To be honest, I think the thermal derating thing at full throttle is an issue, but it’s not as terrible as Kyle makes it out to be here. My car does limit power if you stand on it. However, if you stab the throttle, release, then stab again, you get some limiting, but I’ve never gotten “no acceleration” as is mentioned here. At least not until you hit triple digit speed.

 

[scoopman]

To be honest, I think the thermal derating thing at full throttle is an issue, but it’s not as terrible as Kyle makes it out to be here. My car does limit power if you stand on it. However, if you stab the throttle, release, then stab again, you get some limiting, but I’ve never gotten “no acceleration” as is mentioned here. At least not until you hit triple digit speed.

Max, drive your car on CA-84 to Skyline Boulevard -- or some of the great roads nearer to you -- and you will have the meh face Kyle made too.

 

[HuntingPudel]

Max, drive your car on CA-84 to Skyline Boulevard -- or some of the great roads nearer to you -- and you will have the meh face Kyle made too.

Yep, and you don’t need triple digit speeds to experience it. If you go from a standing start you will see the power loss in 5 seconds or less.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

To be honest, I think the thermal derating thing at full throttle is an issue, but it’s not as terrible as Kyle makes it out to be here. My car does limit power if you stand on it. However, if you stab the throttle, release, then stab again, you get some limiting, but I’ve never gotten “no acceleration” as is mentioned here. At least not until you hit triple digit speed.

The issue for me is not the 5sec from stand still, but the massive drop in power after 72 mph regardless of long you're on the throttle.

 

[buzznwood]

The issue for me is not the 5sec from stand still, but the massive drop in power after 72 mph regardless of long you're on the throttle.

A blast through the canyons and the lethargic steering and sheer weight of the GT/GTPE spoil the fun long before the power limitations IMO.

At freeway speeds is where the instant torque & acceleration that an EV is supposed to offer should be of huge benefit but instead your 480bhp vehicle suddenly behaves like one with half the power as soon as you push the go pedal with any enthusiasm. If it was 5 seconds of full power at any speed it would at least be tolerable as you know what your getting but instead we get unpredictable and that is a lot worse.

 

[Todd]

I was super excited about the mach-e gt when first announced, I placed an order for one, it came in last December. I was about to drive to pick it up when I started seeing the YT videos on how 'slow' it was, and one video said it 'was the slowest performance EV ever tested'... ouch. I wish I had favorited that one.

To me, if you put the name 'Mustang' on a car, it better be performant. If you put "GT" on the car, the performance and handling expectations are incredibly high. Then, if you add a multi-thousand dollar "Performance" option after that, well, it better be mind-blowing.

Instead, Ford 'cheated' and gave a bit of a current boost for around 5 seconds before everything overheats.

Ended up cancelling the order and saving more money for a while.

Just picked up a Kia EV6 GT, and I have to say that after test driving a Mach-E to get a taste of the interior and 'performance', that I am so very glad I got the EV6 GT.

Kia put in dual power inverters, stabilizers, more wiring for the extra juice, a massive, custom EV motor for the rear axle that you can't get on any other trim, awesome brakes, a drift mode that actually works and is smart, and a ton of extra engineering JUST for the GT model.

It is amazingly fast, handles incredibly well - check out Kyle's review of the Kia EV6 GT.

The EV6 GT's performance is what I had in mind when Ford put "Mustang GT Performance" in the name.

So disappointing. Hopefully Ford has learned and version 'next' will be far better.

 

[Vulnox]

I was in the camp that said the 5-second issue wasn't "that" big a deal since after 5 seconds of full throttle, you are at or above 99% of the speed limits you would encounter. But seeing what Kyle encountered does bring me around a bit. I don't give it as much weight as he does because how he drives cars on public roads isn't what everyone should be doing, so if someone out there is, I am glad that the car is preventing them from killing someone. Selfish drivers on public roads absolutely suck.

That said, They call it a GT and also throw PE on there when optioned. It should not be getting out performed in this area by a Volvo or KIA. I also don't think what Kyle did was even that extreme, he did a 0-70 run, which is great and fun or whatever, if there is no traffic or pedestrians, no harm done. But then he was in jail for so long. Putting aside "enthusiastic" driving, if you just wanted to pass someone after that it seems it creates an unpredictable environment which is as dangerous as the enthusiastic driving would be on its own.

Setting EVs aside, vehicles in general should be predictable within reason. I know essentially what my F-150 is capable of in terms of passing power if on a two lane road and have good reason to pass. The transmission kick down is reliably quick, the acceleration is predictable. I can pass safely with that knowledge. But if I was in an GT-PE and had to pass someone earlier, and went to pass again and suddenly a 6 second pass is taking 11 seconds, that's enormous. That goes from safe pass to unsafe pass, and that's just "normal" driving situations.

I get it if you can't take a GT-PE out to the track and do pass after pass with full power. As Kyle covers they can overheat any EV. Overheating alone isn't an MME exclusive feature, it's how readily it happens.

 

[SWO]

I don't give it as much weight as he does because how he drives cars on public roads isn't what everyone should be doing, so if someone out there is, I am glad that the car is preventing them from killing someone. Selfish drivers on public roads absolutely suck.

Glad I'm not the only one who was thinking this. He needs to find a closed course instead of driving 90+ in a 35(?).

Sponsored