Range Test: Mach-E ER, BMW iX, Tesla Model 3 LR, Mercedes EQS (by Carwow)

[roamtheworld]

We are in Texas as well, and had the same thing happen, traveling from Denton to Austin last Christmas when the cold front came through the Ford Connected Navigation had us planned to stop at the EA station in Roundrock with 30 miles to spare, in temple it changed to a ChargePoint in George Town with 20 miles to spare we got there with only 10 miles to spare.
And that was driving for the last 30 miles at 65 in a 75. We had the heat set at 65 the whole time with seat heaters running.

Surprisingly the trip was 196 miles so that meant our ER AWD Premium only had 206 high mileage range in the cold. (Average temperature was 25°)

The only thing to add to it though was we did have a head wind, just not sure how much of one.

I think 65 mph is the sweet spot as we have done the same. It's hard on Texas highways since most everyone drives 75-80 minimum.
We have seen the same results as you at around 180-200 miles in both heat (100+) and cold (30s). The main problem is stretches of roads like traveling to Lubbock when no DCFC is present. Lubbock has Tesla superchargers but Zero CCS DCFC. Once the chargers begin going in as planned it will be much easier.

Sponsored

 

[Guss-E 2021]

So we can drive another 20mi on 0% battery? Lowest I've ever done is 8% and I was pretty nervous going that low.

Yah I think so. Tom from Inside EVs and State of Charge has done a few range test videos with his Lightning. He noticed similar additional range at 0% SoC. I guess it is kind of like having more miles left even when your ICE fuel gauge says you are empty. I'm not likely to ever willingly put that to the test though

 

[timbop]

I saw this, should have tested a model y instead of model 3. But not bad with mach e efficiency( I guess it was pretty decent temp , and not too cold)

Considering the Model 3 WITH THE UPGRADED LR BATTERY virtually tied the RWD ER, I would expect the Y and a ER AWD Mach-E to be close enough to call it a tie - regardless of the "gospel of Elon" that the Teslarati are continuously spewing.


*** EDIT ***
Looking at the WLTP ranges for the AWD ER and the MY LR is very telling since Tesla can't game the results with the overly optimistic 5 cycle EPA test. According to Tesla's own website, the MY LR dual motor has a WLTP range of 331 miles. The Mach-E ER AWD has a WLTP range of 341 miles. Assuming both would have underperformed their WLTP ranges by 77% and 75% as their counterparts did, then indeed the Mach-E would have gone marginally farther.

 

[timbop]

Yah I think so. Tom from Inside EVs and State of Charge has done a few range test videos with his Lightning. He noticed similar additional range at 0% SoC. I guess it is kind of like having more miles left even when your ICE fuel gauge says you are empty. I'm not likely to ever willingly put that to the test though

The speculation has been that most of the additional kwh Ford opened up last fall aren't reported in the displayed meter - they're essentially below the zero point so you don't count on them and end up stuck 2 miles from a charger.

 

[Guss-E 2021]

The speculation has been that most of the additional kwh Ford opened up last fall aren't reported in the displayed meter - they're essentially below the zero point so you don't count on them and end up stuck 2 miles from a charger.

Ah that makes sense and I appreciate that approach. DOH! Why did you tell me that

 

[HGxxx]

Considering the Model 3 WITH THE UPGRADED LR BATTERY virtually tied the RWD ER, I would expect the Y and a ER AWD Mach-E to be close enough to call it a tie - regardless of the "gospel of Elon" that the Teslarati are continuously spewing.

Yes I know as per them, Tesla can defy the laws of physics, and don't get me started on the heat pump ( they forget that they did PTC heater for many years and then switched). Agree Tesla is efficient but feel not by miles

 

[Guss-E 2021]

I'm fortunate the range and efficiency of my MME works just fine for me, even in the cold. Of course I knew this before buying the car. Basically, I just get to enjoy the driving experience.

Claimed range. So OEM not EPA. Looks like Mercedes has an expectation/honesty problem, maybe?

 

[timbop]

Yes I know as per them, Tesla can defy the laws of physics, and don't get me started on the heat pump ( they forget that they did PTC heater for many years and then switched). Agree Tesla is efficient but feel not by miles

A lot of that efficiency is from aerodynamics - with less than stellar aesthetics for the Y. I like the look of the 3, but the Y is clearly just a stretched-in-the-vertical-direction 3 resulting in a butt-ugly car.

Certainly some of the better efficiency is from optimized software and components but not a lot

 

[timbop]

I'm fortunate the range and efficiency of my MME works just fine for me, even in the cold. Of course I knew this before buying the car. Basically, I just get to enjoy the driving experience.

Claimed range. So OEM not EPA. Looks like Mercedes has an expectation/honesty problem, maybe?

The ranges he reports in that video are for the UK, which uses a testing protocol called WLTP. WLTP does an extremely bad job of computing real-world range, but all the countries in Europe follow it. That's why he reports the Mach-E's range so high, too.

The manufacturers have to follow standard tests, but here in the US the EPA lets them run a 2 cycle test or 5 cycle test. It turns out that the 5 cycle test gives much more optimistic numbers than the 2 cycle test. You can guess who is the only manufacturer that runs the 5 cycle test so their cars report an unrealistically high range.

 

[AzCoronaDog]

I am really good at math, but I don't understand these numbers.
Is this saying 288 miles is only 77% of the claimed range?
Because that would mean the claimed range is 288 / .77 or 374 miles. Which ME has that much range?
Doing the math the other way around, 288 * .77 is 221 miles, which makes no sense either.
What am I missing?

 

[kkriskal]

It's a weird comparison.

iX and Mach-E don't fit with the two other sedans.

Fair comparison would have been BMW i4, EQS, Model3 LR and separately Model Y, Mach-E, iX.

I agree, Mach E had the smallest battery pack out of those vehicles, not fair to compare it with 108 KW battery pack of the EQS

 

[timbop]

I am really good at math, but I don't understand these numbers.
Is this saying 288 miles is only 77% of the claimed range?
Because that would mean the claimed range is 288 / .77 or 374 miles. Which ME has that much range?
Doing the math the other way around, 288 * .77 is 221 miles, which makes no sense either.
What am I missing?

That is WLTP-computed range: https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...3-lr-mercedes-eqs-by-carwow.25692/post-594759

Also, the 79kwh he mentions for the M3 is total battery size, not usable (they don't report "usable"). Assuming Tesla is accurately reporting the mi/kwh the usable size of the Tesla is ~70 kwh.

To answer the followup: they all "save" some juice in the battery; actually completely draining the battery destroys it quickly. They also don't charge to the 100% physical capacity because doing so can also damage the battery. The physical ER battery for the Mach-E is 99kwh with 91kwh usable : best guess is the lowest it will let you drain is down to 3 or 4 kwh and the max you can charge is around 95 or 96

I agree, Mach E had the smallest battery pack out of those vehicles, not fair to compare it with 108 KW battery pack of the EQS

Nope; the Model 3 did (79 kwh)

 

[AzCoronaDog]

That is WLTP-computed range: https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...3-lr-mercedes-eqs-by-carwow.25692/post-594759

Also, the 79kwh he mentions for the M3 is total battery size, not usable (they don't report "usable"). Assuming Tesla is accurately reporting the mi/kwh the usable size of the Tesla is ~70 kwh.

To answer the followup: they all "save" some juice in the battery; actually completely draining the battery destroys it quickly. They also don't charge to the 100% physical capacity because doing so can also damage the battery. The physical ER battery for the Mach-E is 99kwh with 91kwh usable

I have heard about the computed range, and knew about the usable vs actual battery size, but the chart specifically says "claimed". So they mean claimed by WLTP? So somebody is claiming the ME will go 374 miles on a charge? I raise the BS flag!

 

[timbop]

I have heard about the computed range, and knew about the usable vs actual battery size, but the chart specifically says "claimed". So they mean claimed by WLTP? So somebody is claiming the ME will go 374 miles on a charge? I raise the BS flag!

Yes, the WLTP results for the ER RWD are around 374mi and 341 miles for the ER AWD.
Again:

The ranges he reports in that video are for the UK, which uses a testing protocol called WLTP. WLTP does an extremely bad job of computing real-world range, but all the countries in Europe follow it. That's why he reports the Mach-E's range so high, too.

The manufacturers have to follow standard tests, but here in the US the EPA lets them run a 2 cycle test or 5 cycle test. It turns out that the 5 cycle test gives much more optimistic numbers than the 2 cycle test. You can guess who is the only manufacturer that runs the 5 cycle test so their cars report an unrealistically high range.

The manufacturers have to run specific set of tests and report the results. They can't just make up a number.

I suggest you search older threads about WLTP range as our European friends were unhappy about how far their cars can actually go

 

[Guss-E 2021]

The ranges he reports in that video are for the UK, which uses a testing protocol called WLTP. WLTP does an extremely bad job of computing real-world range, but all the countries in Europe follow it. That's why he reports the Mach-E's range so high, too.

The manufacturers have to follow standard tests, but here in the US the EPA lets them run a 2 cycle test or 5 cycle test. It turns out that the 5 cycle test gives much more optimistic numbers than the 2 cycle test. You can guess who is the only manufacturer that runs the 5 cycle test so their cars report an unrealistically high range.

Very interesting and yes I can guess

 

[AzCoronaDog]

Yes, the WLTP results for the ER RWD are around 374mi and 341 miles for the ER AWD.

I did a search, but I could not find a WLTP result of 374m for the ME.
I found 540 km on the Ford of Europe site, so the WLTP numbers are different depending on who is testing. I still say 374 is HIGHLY optimistic!

Sponsored