Real condition winter test Mach-E vs Tesla vs Audi E-Tron

[pt19713]

I did not actually consider the Model Y. I've heard too many negative things about Tesla quality, and I'm not on board with the idea they use their own proprietary connector (same reason I don't buy iPhones and won't until they use USB-C).

I bought the Mustang Mach-E because its what I've always wanted - an electric Mustang.

That's why I was so excited to find a community here to talk about it - I was very active on the Mustang forums before when I had my gas Mustang.

There are adapters to the standard J1772 (included with the car) and you can purchase for $35-40 the NEMA 6-50, 14-50 and other standard outlets. The only one that costs $$$$ is CCS, which I believe go for $350-400+. Not really necessary for most people unless you live in certain regions where the EV charging network is suspect. Obviously you have the car now so it's a moot point, but the nice thing about Tesla is that they can pretty much charge anywhere, but other brands can't use their network, at least not yet. Even if you get the adapter to plug into the supercharger, it's based off the VIN and Tesla account so there's no way to charge the owner.

Sponsored

 

[phidauex]

I don't want to fan the flames, but I'm a bit surprised at some of the reactions here. Efficiency is always important - see all posts with people thankful they got over 3.0 mi/kWh on their trips? And how scared people were in the cold getting 2.3 or 2.5? Everyone very concerned about efficiency.

No, the MachE isn't an econobox, but neither is the Model Y. On my "giant spreadsheet of comparison", lower efficiency (power corrected) was one of the low marks for the MachE. Now it got great marks almost everywhere else so it is the car I'm buying, but I do hope Ford makes efforts to improve it. Imagine if it was just 10% more efficient - that would make the Premium AWD ER have a nearly 300 mile EPA range on the same battery. Who would be complaining about that?

Electric vehicles aren't like gas vehicles - more performance does not necessarily mean less efficiency - electric motor behavior scales much more linearly than combustion engines, so you can have something with very high peak power, but still excellent efficiency at low power. That should be a design goal we advocate for, not dismiss.

I don't think we have as many die-hard Ford defenders and thoughtless Musk acolytes here as people seem to think. We are here because we like the MachE, but that doesn't mean that any suggestion that Tesla is ahead in one little area is gaslighting or carrying water for Musk or something. I think we can have intelligent discussions about topics like this.

 

[PeeCee]

Because this is a tie at best.

People who say "Mach-E won" have never used a BEV in the real world, I have to believe that, because otherwise they're just pretending not to so they can think they won a meaningless internet argument that they created by arguing with math.

This test proves who can drive 227 miles or 221 miles. Hooray, Mach-E won.

If you have a destination that's *exactly* 227 miles away, be happy you have a Mach-E, if you had a Model Y you'd be stranded 6 miles before.

But, if you have to go 600 miles (far more reasonable), then sure, you can stop 227 miles in if you have a Mach-E. That Tesla behind you had to exit 6 miles ago.

Now you have to replenish 40% more energy than that Tesla does in order to do your next 227 miles.

As you sit at the charger, you see that "shorter range" Tesla fly by on the interstate, he's back on the road.

At the end of 600 miles, sure, you stopped at mile 227, 454, and then arrived. He stopped at mile 221, 442, and then arrived.

But he got there half an hour earlier, because he had to put in 40% less electricity at those two stops.

This is why LeMans is not a 1 lap race, and it's not about setting the speed record, or even the distance record. It's a 24 hour race, and it's about how far you can go in the time. The fastest car, the biggest gas tank cars, they're not the ones that win - it's the ones that are fast, long range *and* efficient that win.

So I will no longer reply to you, because you do not seem to understand the base point the original post is trying to make. You keep wanting to change it to something that it is not.

The post was never about : "Who can go 500 miles in the fastest time".

You fail to understand the simple notion that the test was about winter range on a charge. For some reason, you just can't stop there, you want to try to change this into something bigger than it really is.

It's like saying : "Let's make a test. We will make a feather fall and a lead ball fall, see who reaches the ground first." The test shows the lead ball reaches first.. but you're in the back yelling: "BUT!! YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS WAS DONE IN A VACUUM, BOTH ITEMS WOULD FALL AT THE SAME SPEED, SO THEREFORE THE LEAD BALL NEVER WON! IT'S A TIE"

You are adding arguments that are not part of the discussion or the tests at hand, and for some really enigmatic reason, you don't want to admit that the MachE won this race - I totally agree with you that if this was a video about a 500 mile race between a MME and a Tesla and about which car would reach first, Tesla would win -BUT, this was not what the video was about.

You keep making this video about something that it's not about.

You fail to understand the basic argument of the post and therefore, this will be my last reply to you sir, because you can't understand something so simple as the nature of this topic.

 

[PeeCee]

I don't want to fan the flames, but I'm a bit surprised at some of the reactions here. Efficiency is always important - see all posts with people thankful they got over 3.0 mi/kWh on their trips? And how scared people were in the cold getting 2.3 or 2.5? Everyone very concerned about efficiency.

No, the MachE isn't an econobox, but neither is the Model Y. On my "giant spreadsheet of comparison", lower efficiency (power corrected) was one of the low marks for the MachE. Now it got great marks almost everywhere else so it is the car I'm buying, but I do hope Ford makes efforts to improve it. Imagine if it was just 10% more efficient - that would make the Premium AWD ER have a nearly 300 mile EPA range on the same battery. Who would be complaining about that?

Electric vehicles aren't like gas vehicles - more performance does not necessarily mean less efficiency - electric motor behavior scales much more linearly than combustion engines, so you can have something with very high peak power, but still excellent efficiency at low power. That should be a design goal we advocate for, not dismiss.

I don't think we have as many die-hard Ford defenders and thoughtless Musk acolytes here as people seem to think. We are here because we like the MachE, but that doesn't mean that any suggestion that Tesla is ahead in one little area is gaslighting or carrying water for Musk or something. I think we can have intelligent discussions about topics like this.

No one said efficiency is not important.

Just that if you are having a debate about a certain topic, you usually stay on topic. If you want to create another topic, go ahead and create another topic to talk about Efficiency.

The original topic at hand was distance on a charge. Not about efficiency. If someone wants to go and make a topic about efficiency and show that the Tesla is more effecient, go ahead, do it, and I as with many others here will agree that Tesla vehicles are efficient and more efficient thant he MME. However, this was never the debate of this topic.

 

[littlD]

Although Model Y aerodynamics drop considerably if your roof has the ejector option

I would have been shocked if this wouldn't have been mentioned on this forum! Touche!

Of course, now I can counter with "Although Mach-E Handling drops considerably if your suspension bolts come loose "

 

[RedStallion]

I would have been shocked if this wouldn't have been mentioned on this forum! Touche!

Of course, now I can counter with "Although Mach-E Handling drops considerably if your suspension bolts come loose "

It never happened, no such case has ever been reported, we haven't heard of any Mach-E (or any Ford car for that matter) case where would a roof, or bumpers, or wheels falling off, or an autopilot driving into cars and objects in clear sight. It might happen in the future, we don't know. The difference though is that it already happened to Teslas.

 

[trutolife27]

I would have been shocked if this wouldn't have been mentioned on this forum! Touche!

Of course, now I can counter with "Although Mach-E Handling drops considerably if your suspension bolts come loose "

yeah, but they didn't. now for the roof. Yeah, it went.....................bye-bye.

 

[ajmartineau]

It never happened, no such case has ever been reported, we haven't heard of any Mach-E (or any Ford car for that matter) case where would a roof, or bumpers, or wheels falling off, or an autopilot driving into cars and objects in clear sight. It might happen in the future, we don't know. The difference though is that it already happened to Teslas.

That's because nobody can get into their Mach-E. ? ? ? ... or find them. Mine is somewhere north of Mexico City and south of Canada.

 

[RedStallion]

Efficiency is not really important as long as the electricity prices are as low as they are today. What is much more important is the range for long distance driving (it's not really important for daily commute). That will go away as well, as infrastructure and charging speeds will have been improved. Nobody cares about the range of gasoline cars after all.

 

[RedStallion]

That's because nobody can get into their Mach-E. ? ? ? ... or find them. Mine is somewhere north of Mexico City and south of Canada.

True, but we've never heard of any other cars, except for Teslas, with flying roofs, so it's not likely Ford is starting it now.

 

[dbsb3233]

Mach-E won?

Mach-E used 87.64 kWh to go 227 miles. (227/2.59)
Model Y used 62.25 kWh to go 221 miles. (221/3.55)

Sure it went 6 more miles... but used far, far more energy to do it, from those numbers.

I would still call Model Y the winner here. It's incredible how efficient it is.

Looking at the fact that the Model Y achieved such impressively better real-world consumption than the 3... guess that heat pump works after all.

It was a range test, not an efficiency test.

 

[pt19713]

True, but we've never heard of any other cars, except for Teslas, with flying roofs, so it's not likely Ford is starting it now.

So you're telling me the Ford quality is impeccable, zero issues on any of their previous models?
It's a rhetorical question, you don't have to respond.
I don't think I'd have the time to list all the various NHTSA campaign numbers and Ford TSB. Just on the 2020 Ford Explorer alone... #19V68700, 19V63300, 19V575000, and so on. I guess if your Explorer rolls away because on possibly 13,896 vehicles it's not newsworthy because it doesn't generate article clicks. Clicks = ad revenue. For some strange reason, if Musk farts downwind and a unicorn appears, media outlets write up a worthless article because it'll generate clicks.

I don't understand why Mach-E owners are so hung up on a situation that occurred on one vehicle.

 

[silverelan]

It was a range test, not an efficiency test.

Yeah, I'm just a bit confused because of the efficiency numbers and available kWh per vehicle. I tried watching it on mobile but the translation doesn't work so I'm relying on the conversation on here.

The Mach-E won for the total range (but with bigger battery)

For you Yankees, here are the "translation" in miles

Mach-E : 227 miles (2.59 miles / kWh)
Model 3 : 221 miles (3.55 miles / kWh)
Model Y : 221 miles (3.36 miles / kWh)
E-Tron : 179 miles (2.20 miles / kWh)

Taking the efficiency numbers above and the known usable battery capacities, the range totals sorta don't add up to me.

 

[DBC]

Well that's what I'm saying. It seems like a tie.

One won overall range by a squeaker, one won efficiency by a landslide.

Each car has valid claim to say they won.

It was a range test, not an efficiency test.

Bingo. Can't say it any better or more succinctly than this.

The whole idea that you "adjust" parameters is a bit asinine. For example, if one runner who is 1.7 meters tall runs a 100 meters race in 10.02 seconds, and the other runner who is 2.1 meters all finishes in 9.99 seconds, basically you're saying that both runners can claim they "won" because the first runner ran 100 meters faster per unit height.

Of if you want to use the MME and the MY, under your approach the MME is "much faster". Why? Because the MME has more mass and can go 0-60 MPH in the same time as the MY, meaning that its mass/time number is higher. ?

 

[supertramp]

What they did in the test is the following:

They all drove the same distance. Then at the end of the distances, looked at how much battery % was left. Using the % left in the car, they made the math to say how far the car would actually have went.

So when the Tesla Y finished the 255km or so range, it had 20% of it's battery left. So they made the math and that meant if they kept on going till 0%, the car would of had about 350~ km. When the MME ended at the same distance 255km, it had 22% of the battery left which ended up giving it about 2-3 km more at the end.

So they didn't do the full distance, just a certain distance and then mathed the rest to get the total potential distance.

Edit: For Info, I didn't take their actual numbers 255 + 20% would not give it 100. The numbers are there for example.

Ok, let recalculate everything taking the same data the video provided. Whatever those people tried to test, they didn't come up with exactly correct numbers. And still, let's remember - the whole thing which car goes further is based on calculation, not on real test.

Let's just take Model Y and Mach E for comparison. Based on the number the video provided

Model Y - 75 kWh
Mach E - 88 kWh (88 !!!, not 99 as they stated in their video during the first few minutes)

So... Both cars travelled 285 km (for the american public it's 177.1 miles)

Model Y left with 20% of the battery - that is equal to 15 kWh (20% from 75kWh), means Model Y spent 60 kWh for 177.1 miles.

Mach E was left with 22% after traveling 177.1 miles - that is equal to 19.36kWh (22% from 88kWh) - means Mach E spent 68.64 kWh for 177.1 miles.

So, now let's calculate how many miles each of the vehicles traveled per one kWh spent:

Model Y - 177.1 divide by 60 = 2.95 miles for each kWh
Mach E - 177.1 divide by 68.64 = 2.58 miles for each kWh

Now, knowing the sizes of the batteries, let's calculate the distance each of the vehicles would travel after spending 100% of their batteries:

Model Y - 2.95 mi/kWh * 75 kWh = 221.25 miles
Mach E - 2.58 mi/kWh * 88 kWh = 227.04 miles

So, yes, looks like Mach E AWD Extended battery would travel 6 miles further than Tesla Model Y Long Range.

Their conclusion was generally right, I am not sure though, who came up with the number of 3.36 mi / kWh for Model Y - that was originally a source of confusion for me.

Sponsored