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

[quitepossibly]

Actually it came in 4th out of 4 on the main number -- range.

But yeah, there's other aspects where each vehicle shines vs the others.

But Audi only claims 222 miles of EPA range on the 2021 e-tron or 204 miles of EPA range on the 2019 e-tron (there is no 2020 e-tron, since they couldn't sell enough 2019 models).

I was just trying to point out, in a playful way, that the heat pump works. Both the Model Y and the e-tron have heat pumps (the currently shipping Model 3 also have heat pumps. Hopefully, Ford will find a way to add one in future model years.

Sponsored

 

[Njia]

It's in French but here are the result of a test made last Sunday in Quebec between :
Mach-E First Edition (Extended range AWD)
Audi E-Tron
Tesla Model 3 dual motor long range (2019 without heat pump)
Tesla Model Y dual motor long range (2020 with heat pump)

All cars started with 100% SOC, winter tires correctly inflated, outside temp 19.4F. It was a round trip with one charge in the middle.



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)

In short, the range is there for the Mach-E but it still about 30% more thirsty than the Tesla but I'm really happy to see that 2.59 miles / kWh

Enjoy! You can put to subtitles on and translate directly in YouTube

My own experience over the last month of Mach E ownership is in the same range (2.1 - 3.1, depending on my driving behaviors and outside temp). At $0.12/kWh to recharge the car at home during off-peak hours, my energy costs are pretty reasonable, all things considered.

 

[pt19713]

Well the we have the internal comparison between the Y with and the 3 without heat pump. The difference is minimal. They tested at -7 with the HVAC at 20C.

No, the difference is about 15-20%. The heat pump pulls only 500-700 watts. The PTC heater on the 3 pulls 2-3.5 kW. 3-4 hours of driving, this difference adds up. Roughly an extra 13-15 miles.

 

[Sureshot125]

I agree, and add another BS statement: Tesla is the most efficient EV.

If you say Tesla has the most aerodynamic EV, then YES.
Most efficient? Clearly the data says no.

Take the Tesla drivetrain and put it in the Mach-E. The Mach-E now has less range.
Take the Mach-E drivetrain, put it in the Model Y. The Model Y now has more range.
Tesla can't win this argument. The Mach-E uses permanent magnet motors for both front and rear. The Tesla use perm back, induction front. The induction motor is inherently less efficiency.

This is why everyone reacts when there is a post about Tesla "efficiency".

Why doesn't everyone use a heat pump, but Tesla does? Why does Tesla not use a heat pump on some models? No one but Tesla knows exactly for sure.

Original Tesla's use induction motors, and newer ones use perm magnet, at least for the primary drive motor. So what, you say? Well, induction motors generate a lot of heat, and permanent magnet motors don't, since perm magnet motors are so much smaller and efficient. Heat pumps make sense on an induction motor BEV. More heat to get, more heat needed to be dissipated. They don't seem to make sense on a perm magnet motor. The heat is just not really there to capture. It must be the non-heat pump vehicles just don't have enough battery/perm motor heat to make the heat pump worthwhile. Again, only Tesla knows for sure, and they have no reason to set the record straight. Why would they... people will continue to ride the efficiency train, and why stop the party, even if it's not true?

Model Y has one induction and one PM. Uses for efficiency on highway because induction can be turned off.

 

[efisher]

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.

I disagree. This was a range test not an efficiency test.

 

[dbsb3233]

But Audi only claims 222 miles of EPA range on the 2021 e-tron or 204 miles of EPA range on the 2019 e-tron (there is no 2020 e-tron, since they couldn't sell enough 2019 models).

That's fine, but that's a different angle than the "how far will it go?" bottom-line focus of the original post.

Doesn't mean there's not people that also care about how accurate the EPA range is or isn't vs real world. Or how much electricity it consumes. Or how it heats, or any of that other stuff. That's all irrelevant to "how far will the vehicle go before you run out of fuel?" bottom line.

 

[mr_raider]

No, the difference is about 15-20%. The heat pump pulls only 500-700 watts. The PTC heater on the 3 pulls 2-3.5 kW. 3-4 hours of driving, this difference adds up. Roughly an extra 13-15 miles.

Out of a range of 220 miles as observed in the test? That is not 15%.

 

[efisher]

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.

I think you are trying to change the rules mid-game. The Tesla argument was always that they were better because of their EPA range, an argument they got away with because there were no real-world range tests. Tesla doubled down on this argument by saying that in the winter, the new heat pump would magnify this difference.

Now that there are real world range tests which repeatedly show that the Mach-E not only has better general real-world range, but the heat-pump proved to be little more than hype, the teslarazzi are trying to change the argument by saying it's not range that counts but its efficiency or charging speed that really matter.

 

[efisher]

I think you are trying to change the rules mid-game. The Tesla argument was always that they were better because of their EPA range, an argument they got away with because there were no real-world range tests. Tesla doubled down on this argument by saying that in the winter, the new heat pump would magnify this difference.

Now that there are real world range tests which repeatedly show that the Mach-E not only has better general real-world range, but the heat-pump proved to be little more than hype, the teslarazzi are trying to change the argument by saying it's not range that counts but its efficiency or charging speed that really matter.

But since the vast majority of EV owners charge at home, this argument is not persuasive.

 

[quitepossibly]

I think you are trying to change the rules mid-game. The Tesla argument was always that they were better because of their EPA range, an argument they got away with because there were no real-world range tests. Tesla doubled down on this argument by saying that in the winter, the new heat pump would magnify this difference.

Now that there are real world range tests which repeatedly show that the Mach-E not only has better general real-world range, but the heat-pump proved to be little more than hype, the teslarazzi are trying to change the argument by saying it's not range that counts but its efficiency or charging speed that really matter.

At the end of the day, everything matters. Ford has gotten good range on the Mach E by fitting the car with a very big battery and Tesla has gotten good range on the Model Y by optimizing the entire system. This is Ford's first "real" EV, so I'm sure they are learning a lot from the Mach E and that their next model is be more efficient.

Both approaches will get you there. But remember all of the fuel crises? It is good to be efficient, since you'll use less resources.

 

[efisher]

At the end of the day, everything matters. Ford has gotten good range on the Mach E by fitting the car with a very big battery and Tesla has gotten good range on the Model Y by optimizing the entire system. This is Ford's first "real" EV, so I'm sure they are learning a lot from the Mach E and that their next model is be more efficient.

Both approaches will get you there. But remember all of the fuel crises? It is good to be efficient, since you'll use less resources.

Everything matters, but all matters do not necessarily carry the same weight.

 

[efisher]

I'm curious about SR battery. It should lighter and get better efficiency, though less range. Either way it was very reassuring and I think I will be well served with what I will get.

Weight makes less of a difference for an EV than it does for an ICE vehicle. While F=MA applies to both. EVs benefit from negative acceleration though regeneration. (For an ICE vehicle negative acceleration just heats the breaks.) So, while extra weight hurts an EV while accelerating, it helps while decelerating.

Not that the extra weight is a good thing. It is not as bad as in a traditional vehicle.

 

[pt19713]

Out of a range of 220 miles as observed in the test? That is not 15%.

You're not taking into two completely different vehicles. If you compare a 2021 Tesla Model 3 with the heat pump to one without, you'll see the difference. You're comparing a Model 3 that weighs 400 lbs less than the Model Y. But, I'm probably misreading what you're trying to convey. I don't think anyone here is worried about the efficiency difference between a non-heat pump Model 3 to a heat pump Y. That's more for the Tesla-specific forums.

 

[RonTCat]

Everything matters, but all matters do not necessarily carry the same weight.

OK, check my math...

If I drive 12,000 miles a year, and pay 25 cents/kWh for electricity, the difference in cost between a vehicle that gets 3mi/kWh and one that gets 3.5mi/kWh is about $12/month.

If your more efficient car cost $1500 more, you will NEVER make up that cost over the life of the vehicle.

 

[ajmartineau]

OK, check my math...

If I drive 12,000 miles a year, and pay 25 cents/kWh for electricity, the difference in cost between a vehicle that gets 3mi/kWh and one that gets 3.5mi/kWh is about $12/month.

If your more efficient car cost $1500 more, you will NEVER make up that cost over the life of the vehicle.

Not never, but 10.5 years might as well be never based on the age of most drivers here.

Your maths are correct sir. ....other than I only pay 9 cents/kWh. I get the same results.

Sponsored