Sadly Saying Goodbye

[WR221]

While I really like the exterior styling and interior headroom of my MME, it's pretty obvious that aerodynamics was not a big consideration by Ford in designing this car. I was meditating on this yesterday while driving the NY Thruway at 75mph (under 2.7 m/kWh) and later on 2-lane NJ highways at 50-55 mph (3.9 m/kWh and higher). Perfect city car!

Sponsored

 

[Mach-Lee]

While I really like the exterior styling and interior headroom of my MME, it's pretty obvious that aerodynamics was not a big consideration by Ford in designing this car. I was meditating on this yesterday while driving the NY Thruway at 75mph (under 2.7 m/kWh) and later on 2-lane NJ highways at 50-55 mph (3.9 m/kWh and higher). Perfect city car!

They actually did spend a lot of time on the aerodynamics, and it’s fairly well optimized with a 0.285 drag coefficient. Physics says that going from 50 mph to 75 mph will use about twice as much energy for drag, so your numbers make sense. Not a problem with the car, just physics at work.

 

[WR221]

They actually did spend a lot of time on the aerodynamics, and it’s fairly well optimized with a 0.285 drag coefficient. Physics says that going from 50 mph to 75 mph will use about twice as much energy for drag, so your numbers make sense. Not a problem with the car, just physics at work.

I stand corrected. That's not bad. Only a little worse than a Prius, but it feels like a lot more drag when driving.

 

[RandallOfLegend]

While I really like the exterior styling and interior headroom of my MME, it's pretty obvious that aerodynamics was not a big consideration by Ford in designing this car. I was meditating on this yesterday while driving the NY Thruway at 75mph (under 2.7 m/kWh) and later on 2-lane NJ highways at 50-55 mph (3.9 m/kWh and higher). Perfect city car!

I drive I90 frequently and get 3.0-3.2 mi/KWh. At 75 mph as well. Maybe you're a bit heavy on acceleration.

 

[WR221]

I stand corrected. That's not bad. Only a little worse than a Prius, but it feels like a lot more drag when driving.

The cross section does also play a role. The bigger car will always have more resistance and require more power, even with a low drag coefficient. I would think that the Model 3 should have an advantage with a lower profile, even if drag coefficients are similar?

 

[ryannix123]

Range was one of the reasons I switched to Rivian. Now I can easily travel 330 miles at highway speeds. My MME was 220 or less. That 110 mile difference is game changing. For me, anyway.

I've seen that kind of range in the 2022 MME Premium as well. In early June last year, during warmer weather, I started out with roughly 300 miles. By the time I got to my destination, 115 miles away, I had around 77 miles left on the charge, and I was white-knuckling it. The rural town I visited had a Ford dealership with a Level 3 charger. It took one hour and $50 to charge it back up for the return trip.

 

[WR221]

I drive I90 frequently and get 3.0-3.2 mi/KWh. At 75 mph as well. Maybe you're a bit heavy on acceleration.

No acceleration with cruise control. Full load, some hills, temperature under 60? One data point may not be enough. I think I have done better as well.

 

[RickMachE]

I drive I90 frequently and get 3.0-3.2 mi/KWh. At 75 mph as well. Maybe you're a bit heavy on acceleration.

At 75mph, most people get around 2.7 to 2.8.

 

[ryannix123]

I'm sure future MMEs will get better mileage over time.

Still...

"Real-world tests, such as those by Bjørn Nyland, indicate the Model Y achieves ~296 miles at 70 mph, with efficiency around 3.4-3.6 miles/kWh at highway speeds, significantly better than the Mach-E’s 2.5-2.8 miles/kWh. The Model Y’s more aerodynamic design (lower drag coefficient of ~0.23 vs. Mach-E’s ~0.30) helps it maintain better efficiency at 75 mph, losing less range per mile driven. For a 115-mile trip, the Model Y would likely consume ~33-35 kWh (~110-120 miles of EPA range), compared to your Mach-E’s ~44-46 kWh (~223 miles of range lost)."

The Tesla Model Y mitigates range-depleting variables (highway speed, environmental conditions, driving style, and battery management) better than a 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium due to:

• Higher efficiency (3.4-3.6 miles/kWh vs. 2.5-2.8 miles/kWh at 75 mph) from better aerodynamics and lighter weight.
• Advanced thermal management with a standard heat pump, reducing energy loss for climate control.
• Optimized powertrain and regenerative braking, minimizing waste during dynamic driving.
• More accurate range estimation and faster charging, enhancing usability.

 

[RandallOfLegend]

At 75mph, most people get around 2.7 to 2.8.

Good to know. It's so weather and wind dependent. I'll budget my trips that way.

 

[Bobcat17]

I've seen that kind of range in the 2022 MME Premium as well. In early June last year, during warmer weather, I started out with roughly 300 miles. By the time I got to my destination, 115 miles away, I had around 77 miles left on the charge, and I was white-knuckling it. The rural town I visited had a Ford dealership with a Level 3 charger. It took one hour and $50 to charge it back up for the return trip.

I had a 2021 Select. Loved the car’s design and power except the range always seemed to lie especially in winter. I drive in PA turnpike mostly at 75 mph in order to not get run over. I traded in recently for 25 BMW I4 for range considerations and oh yeah BMW engineering. I would hope future generations of MME would offer more range and I would likely be back.

 

[TRP]

I would love to upgrade to a Lucid. Unfortunately, for me, my garage is the limiter. 192", or 16' deep with door closed.

And to echo RickMachE, I get 2.7-2.8 at highway speeds

 

[scottrichman9]

I'm a Job 1 owner from 2021, and sadly said goodbye to my MME this week. Its the first electric I've owned and I will never go back.
Why did I sell? One word: range. We have a beautiful new granddaughter in Ohio and the MME takes two charging stops to get there. It adds an hour+ to our trip. I bought a used Lucid Air Touring (directly from the Lucid site) and its now a 1-stop trip.
All that being said, I loved my MME.
Standouts:
- Fast and fun - the torque and speed
- Looks great on the outside and hassle-free cool tech on the inside
- Its Electric (duh) - No oil changes, no worn brakes, no gas stops (charge at home), saving $$, helping our planet
- Dealer experience: Tom Mason Ford (in Reading, PA) was excellent to deal with thru the recalls and routine servicing
- THIS FORUM - I learned so much and received so much (needed) assistance and advice thru my MME journey
Would I recommend a Mach E? Without hesitation - unless you frequently travel longer distances and the range (I topped out @ 270m) is an issue.
Thanks all and enjoy your ride!

It’s all about use case for me — I pretty much use 1 charge for work week to and from work and normal stops. On weekends I head up to Flathead where I use my portable charger on 240v and charge overnight. Rinse repeat. Going to Big Sky/Bozeman requires a charge in Butte to get there in the winter. Anyway further like Seattle and we take a gas powered 4-runner which I will ultimately replace with a hybrid or full electric with much longer range. Hopefully that’s several years off.

 

[Jimrpa]

I'm sure future MMEs will get better mileage over time.

Still...

"Real-world tests, such as those by Bjørn Nyland, indicate the Model Y achieves ~296 miles at 70 mph, with efficiency around 3.4-3.6 miles/kWh at highway speeds, significantly better than the Mach-E’s 2.5-2.8 miles/kWh. The Model Y’s more aerodynamic design (lower drag coefficient of ~0.23 vs. Mach-E’s ~0.30) helps it maintain better efficiency at 75 mph, losing less range per mile driven. For a 115-mile trip, the Model Y would likely consume ~33-35 kWh (~110-120 miles of EPA range), compared to your Mach-E’s ~44-46 kWh (~223 miles of range lost)."

The Tesla Model Y mitigates range-depleting variables (highway speed, environmental conditions, driving style, and battery management) better than a 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium due to:

• Higher efficiency (3.4-3.6 miles/kWh vs. 2.5-2.8 miles/kWh at 75 mph) from better aerodynamics and lighter weight.
• Advanced thermal management with a standard heat pump, reducing energy loss for climate control.
• Optimized powertrain and regenerative braking, minimizing waste during dynamic driving.
• More accurate range estimation and faster charging, enhancing usability.

But you have to take the appearance of the Tesla into account. It is truly an ugly car.

 

[mkhuffman]

At 75mph, most people get around 2.7 to 2.8.

At 75 mph I could get 2.6 mi/kWh in my GT with stock rims and Hankook iON tires. Certainly the Premium with smaller tires is more efficient and the CR1 should do even better. Wheel aerodynamics and rolling resistance make a big difference especially at highway speeds.

At 75 mph I consistently get 2.4 mi/kWh in my Rivian. That kind of efficiency for such a big vehicle is amazing to me, and makes it clear that Ford could do better without changing the body style. Unfortunately it would also drive up the cost of making the car, so there are consequences that Ford probably decided were not worth it.

Sponsored