Real world range on Premium ER/AWD

[dbsb3233]

Only if the heat is on and the MME isn't moving, which is what might have happened in this case.

Heating isn't an issue with ICE vehicles. Lots of waste heat which can be used. Electric vehicles are much more efficient so heating can be an issue. Heat pumps are touted as a solution but they are better on paper than in reality. At some temperatures you can simply use heated seats. Those are very efficient. At lower temperatures heated seats may not cut it, but at these temperatures heat pumps don't either.

No, he'd already been driving for a while when he showed those numbers. Not sure how long but it wasn't just a tiny bit. The video shot had been running for a while.

It was 45F outside. That's not really all that cold. If running heat consumes that much on a normal cool day in most of the US, that's gonna be a problem. 10% would seem reasonable. 31% doesn't. Hopefully that's not representative of what production units will be like.

Sponsored

 

[dbsb3233]

As they say, it will all come down to the three Ts -- Temperature, Terrain, and Technique. Based on experience, my guess is that on long trips I'll get 3.5 miles/kWh and my wife will get 3.7 miles/kWh. That's going 70-75 MPH with an occasional visit to 80 MPH. So close to what Edmunds got. I guess I could conjure up a scenario where the range would be 115 miles but it would be a lot of conjuring.

But note the short sleeved shirt during the Edmunds drive. Cold weather and going up a mountain will definitely reduce that range. You will recapture some of the range when going down the mountain -- and to avoid freak-outs faith is needed that this will happenIn -- but nothing beats a nice flat route.

The Edmunds video was on the most positive end. Now contrast that with Kyle's 2.1 miles/kWh and the Canada video that got 2.35. Those are a long way from 3.5.

We'd all love 3.5, of course. That would greatly exceed Ford's own numbers (270 / 88 = 3.07, and that's not even highway). 3.5 for normal highway driving seems highly optimistic.

Heck, I'd be thrilled with 3.0 @ 70 MPH. And 2.8 with the heat on when it's cold (like people normally use). Having to drive around with a cold nose, cold ears, cold feet, and cold everything else other than butt and palms isn't gonna cut it if people expect BEVs to go mainstream.

 

[Daraiders76]

FWD was generally preferred in rain or snow because the engine, and hence more weight, was over the drive wheels. RWD was preferred for performance reasons.

But the MME will be different. It will be much heavier, and hence more planted, than similar sized ICE vehicles. Plus EVs respond much more quickly which helps handling in rainy or snowy conditions. I think Musk claimed that a RWD Tesla handles better than AWD ICE vehicles in snow, and I suspect he's right on that. So you should be fine with RWD.

But if you're not worried about range why not get AWD. It's the performance version and one reason for getting the MME is that it is a more performance oriented vehicle.

Already this is the most expensive car I have ever purchased- I have looked at it like "Well what's another $2700." I've also looked at it like "Damn it's another $2700!!" lol, If it handles better than an ICE AWD and I'm happy with mine I might just stick with what I have. I guess butterflies in anticipation! lol

 

[stroszek]

From this Norwegian review that was posted in the review article thread (google translated):

Our test trip oscillated between zero and two degrees below zero. The lead was also of the very varied kind, for King Winter had not quite decided what he wanted, or where he was going. We ended up driving on all kinds of roads, but still carried out our consumption tests as usual. This takes us up and down heights, along both country roads and highways, and ends up with a good mix of what Norway has to offer. The speed limits were always kept, and the heater set at 20 degrees. Radio was on, of course.

A common denominator for our tests is that we always start and end at the same height above sea level, as height differences strongly affect the result. I see this every single day, as there is a 200 meter height difference between home and workplace.

To make a long story short, we ended up with a consumption of 2.3 miles per kwh. It is about as expected, when the lead is taken into account along the way. There were enough periods where we were worried about the end result, but then it was this with up and down hills again then. And when the final result was ready, we had achieved a range of 38.2 miles. It is, for example, almost sixty miles longer than we came with the first Audi e-tron 55 on a very comparable lead.

Norwegian speed limits are mostly 50 mph outside of cities aside from some motorways with speed limits up to 68 mph.

Norway has its own mile apparently equivalent to 6.2 international miles but I assume the kwt figure is in international miles because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. The 38.2 mile cited range might be Norwegian miles? Not sure.

The second article is even more in depth:

Then there was the consumption. The official figure is thus 19.5 kWt / 100 kilometers [3.18 mi/kwh]. We start with just under 160 km of motorway. The speed limit varies from 80 to 110 km / h. Here we follow the traffic, take it nicely - without there being extreme economy driving. The first three miles are the most 80-zone. Here we end up at 22 kWt / 100 km [2.82 mi/kwh]. Then the speed increases, so does the consumption. After just under 160 km, it is 26 kWt / 100 km [2.39 mi/kwh]. Now we have 58 percent battery capacity left, the range meter shows 210 kilometers. It's time for a little stop and a quick charging break.

Further on, it is first two miles with 110 zone, then the rest is 80 and 90 zone. Consumption starts at 25 kWt / 100 km [2.48 mi/kwh]. Then it drops to 24 and ends at 23 kWt / 100 km [2.7 mi/kwh], after just over ten miles. The temperature is around zero degrees, it is raining and there is a wet road. Inside the car we keep the temperature at 20 degrees.


Then it's time to climb the mountains. Nor does an exercise electric cars have much sense of. It starts at 199 meters above sea level, and will end at 984. Again, it is a matter of kind and defensive driving. Nevertheless, consumption ends up at a whopping 55 kWt / 100 kilometers [1.13 mi/kwh].

Well ahead, we have 29 percent battery capacity left and 84 kilometers on the rangefinder. Then we also filled up to 10.5 kWt on the short charging stop.

On this type of driving, we are thus a long way from reaching official range. This is not really surprising, but on normal road driving / motorway it seems as if it will be hard to get anything special below 22/23 kWt / 100 km [~2.8 mi/kwh], when the conditions are like this. How it will be in minus ten degrees and with a lot of snow, we will come back to another time.

 

[guyofthesky]

No there haven't been any test drives that would suggest the actual range. Seems like you are most interested in range on the freeway. Insideevs usually does one of those, though the guy who does them has recently moved from NC to CO so he'll have to find some nice flat roads in warmer temperatures for that to happen (I think he mentioned he was going to try and do this in CA sometime in January).

I doubt 30 miles of range will matter than much. It's not as if you plan to pull into a charging station with zero miles remaining, and the charging stations are usually spaced less than two hundred miles apart. And if you are nervous you can just slow down.

Excellent point.

I don't think that most non-EV drivers appreciate how much that you can increase range by merely dialing it down 10 mph. And 15 mph will allow you to go much further.

Not a favored solution, but always available, and always effective.

 

[guyofthesky]

31% though? I knew it was significant, but I wasn't expecting half as much energy as it takes to actually push the 5000 lb car at 70 MPH.

Breaking it down by power... 2.1 miles/kWh = 33 kWh per hour. 31% of that is 10.3 kWh. That's the equivalent of running almost 7 1500 watt space heaters.

My experience is that the cabin number is big initially, when you haven't driven far, and when you are warming up a cold car. But after some more miles, the percentage is much less.

Plus, if he left it on while getting to shoot video, he could have used up some KWHrs before he even started driving. I do that all of the time, because there is no engine idling, and no exhaust. So why not let it warm things up? Ideally, you do that plugged in, but sometimes...

But we need longer test drives. Badly. We are all, including me, speculating wildly.

 

[guyofthesky]

As they say, it will all come down to the three Ts -- Temperature, Terrain, and Technique. Based on experience, my guess is that on long trips I'll get 3.5 miles/kWh and my wife will get 3.7 miles/kWh. That's going 70-75 MPH with an occasional visit to 80 MPH. So close to what Edmunds got. I guess I could conjure up a scenario where the range would be 115 miles but it would be a lot of conjuring.

But note the short sleeved shirt during the Edmunds drive. Cold weather and going up a mountain will definitely reduce that range. You will recapture some of the range when going down the mountain -- and to avoid freak-outs faith is needed that this will happenIn -- but nothing beats a nice flat route.

If we get 3.5 miles/kwhr at 70 mph, I will be ecstatic. I'm guessing 3.1. Hope that you are right!

 

[dbsb3233]

Can someone explain what "2.3 kWt per mile" means?

 

[stroszek]

Can someone explain what "2.3 kWt per mile" means?

Ha, that's a google translate error that I stupidly copied, I'll fix it.

 

[DBC]

The Edmunds video was on the most positive end. Now contrast that with Kyle's 2.1 miles/kWh and the Canada video that got 2.35. Those are a long way from 3.5.

Believe whatever you want. I don't care. I'm just telling you I know what I'll get and telling you what I'll get. That may not be what you get but it will be what I'll get. Now maybe I'll get 3.4 miles/kWh rather than 3.5 miles/kWh or I might get 3.6 miles/kWh. I'm not getting 2.1 miles/kWh. I could do that, but I could also get 10 miles/kWh. And neither would be a real number.

I usually get more or less the range reported on the "range tests", and I've been driving BEVs for long enough to be able to accurately estimate the efficiency. It's not exactly rocket science. There isn't any real magic sauce, so two BEVs which are in the same class will get about the same efficiency if they have the have the same transmissions.

Obviously you don't have much experience so you're reading tea leaves. Relax and just wait until people get their vehicles. Then all will be obvious.

 

[dbsb3233]

My experience is that the cabin number is big initially, when you haven't driven far, and when you are warming up a cold car. But after some more miles, the percentage is much less.

Plus, if he left it on while getting to shoot video, he could have used up some KWHrs before he even started driving. I do that all of the time, because there is no engine idling, and no exhaust. So why not let it warm things up? Ideally, you do that plugged in, but sometimes...

But we need longer test drives. Badly. We are all, including me, speculating wildly.

That could be. Maybe he'd reset the meter playing around while at the previous charge, while it was using 100% to hear the car. And that skewed it.

Although would it count that as consumpion while charging?

Guess we're just gonna have to see more. But I think I remember seeing a few other videos with a hefty number too. Gonna have to watch more carefully.

 

[louibluey]

Been lurking for sometime, great information here! Ordered AWD, ER Dec 2 (infinite blue), so it will be a while.

I learned about a new planner app, "Chargeway" at the ID.4 forum, and they have a first cut entry for the Mach-E. No idea how close to reality it is.

What is interesting is that it asks for temperature and highway speed. The de-rating for say a chilly upstate, NY day, e.g. 10F, 75 mph, with fast highway driving is severe. No idea if it is real.

If it is way off, it may get better once they get significant Mach-E input from users (no affiliation).

 

[dbsb3233]

Believe whatever you want. I don't care. I'm just telling you I know what I'll get and telling you what I'll get. That may not be what you get but it will be what I'll get. Now maybe I'll get 3.4 miles/kWh rather than 3.5 miles/kWh or I might get 3.6 miles/kWh. I'm not getting 2.1 miles/kWh. I could do that, but I could also get 10 miles/kWh. And neither would be a real number.

I usually get more or less the range reported on the "range tests", and I've been driving BEVs for long enough to be able to accurately estimate the efficiency. It's not exactly rocket science. There isn't any real magic sauce, so two BEVs which are in the same class will get about the same efficiency if they have the have the same transmissions.

Obviously you don't have much experience so you're reading tea leaves. Relax and just wait until people get their vehicles. Then all will be obvious.

Wow, you already know what you're going to get before the vehicle even arrives. That's impressive.

Contrary to the evidence too.

 

[GoGoGadgetMachE]

Been lurking for sometime, great information here! Ordered AWD, ER Dec 2 (infinite blue), so it will be a while.

I learned about a new planner app, "Chargeway" at the ID.4 forum, and they have a first cut entry for the Mach-E. No idea how close to reality it is.

What is interesting is that it asks for temperature and highway speed. The de-rating for say a chilly upstate, NY day, e.g. 10F, 75 mph, with fast highway driving is severe. No idea if it is real.

If it is way off, it may get better once they get significant Mach-E input from users (no affiliation).

the company was mentioned in another post months back, but this is he first mention of the app. interesting!

Sponsored