Tesla Slashes Prices

[Mach1E]

Every EV made will throttle power to protect the batteries / motor, so you're really just saying you have a problem the number 5. I'm not defending the Mach-E, just saying that's not a good argument because it's applicable to every EV. Cars are the same and will limit power under certain conditions.

It’s not that they throttle it.

It’s how much and how quickly.

Sure, every EV (except Tesla) has some form of boost mode where power is limited.

Ford has the shortest boost, the largest drop off in power, and DID NOT advertise (and still doesn’t) the details.

That’s the criticism. It’s more than just a problem with the number 5. No other manufacturer cuts power in half and hides that fact from the consumer.

To the point of the argument, we are criticizing Tesla for being dishonest in their advertising of the safety of AP.

And yeah, Ford has been dishonest in their advertising for the GT.

Neither justifies the other though. Both are worthy of criticism.

Sponsored

 

[Mach1E]

I also have not been all pro Tesla either. The 5sec post was a response to a post that gave a hypothetical 0-60 time while not disclosing it was going downhill.

It was basically to point out that all manufacturers list stats that favor their brand. No OEM is 100% honest. Not even close.

Only 99% pro Tesla? ?

Pointing out that other manufacturers are dishonest too does nothing to defend Tesla. It’s just a distraction from the argument at hand. Like when you catch your kid stealing and they start talking about how some other kid in their class is smoking meth.

 

[MacherAWD]

It’s not that they throttle it.

It’s how much and how quickly.

Sure, every EV (except Tesla) has some form of boost mode where power is limited.

Ford has the shortest boost, the largest drop off in power, and DID NOT advertise (and still doesn’t) the details.

That’s the criticism. It’s more than just a problem with the number 5. No other manufacturer cuts power in half and hides that fact from the consumer.

To the point of the argument, we are criticizing Tesla for being dishonest in their advertising of the safety of AP.

And yeah, Ford has been dishonest in their advertising for the GT.

Neither justifies the other though. Both are worthy of criticism.

I love to poke fun at Tesla and disagree with a lot they do, but agree here, their motors and performance are dialed in. And yeah Ford should be upfront about the gt limits. I have a select which is why I am comfortable saying how much better it is than a Tesla.

 

[SWO]

I love to poke fun at Tesla and disagree with a lot they do, but agree here, their motors and performance are dialed in.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Only 99% pro Tesla? ?

Pointing out that other manufacturers are dishonest too does nothing to defend Tesla. It’s just a distraction from the argument at hand. Like when you catch your kid stealing and they start talking about how some other kid in their class is smoking meth.

99.3 to be exact.

 

[SWO]

It’s not that they throttle it.

It’s how much and how quickly.

Well we agree your argument is subjective then.

 

[SWO]

That's the whole point. The argument was about claims and disclosure. How Ford claimed that the GTPE made 480hp, but left out the part that it could only do it for a very limited time under ideal conditions.

Just like your claim that Tesla claims a 330mile EPA range, but didn't point out that real-world range would be less.

Tell us then: what is the "correct" horsepower for the Mach-E GT? You can't, because any number between 479.9 and Stop Safely Now is equally (in)valid.

Horsepower is not advertised as an average over time or RPM. It's universally understood as a peak number and objective/easily verifiable.

Ford enthusiasts know that Ford has been sued for engines not making advertised horsepower.

Average range is very subjective and Tesla takes full advantage of that to manipulate their customers.

 

[Mach1E]

Well we agree your argument is subjective then.

Partially.

But objectively and statistically they’re the biggest offenders when it comes to throttling.

And objectively they still hid the fact that they do throttle and still hide how much.

So sure, I subjectively don’t like how much they throttle, but there’s more to the situation than just that.

Lying and hiding relevant information from the consumer is pretty universally frowned upon.

 

[Mach1E]

Tell us then: what is the "correct" horsepower for the Mach-E GT? You can't, because any number between 479.9 and Stop Safely Now is equally (in)valid.

Horsepower is not advertised as an average over time or RPM. It's universally understood as a peak number and objective/easily verifiable.

Ford enthusiasts know that Ford has been sued for engines not making advertised horsepower.

Average range is very subjective and Tesla takes full advantage of that to manipulate their customers.

How much horsepower does Ford advertise for the GT when not in the 5 second boost?

Kia, Hyundai, Porsche, Audi and Polestar all tell us. Why won’t Ford?

 

[Fixbear]

If the car has a CVT, then it's still accelerating at the same rpm.

Other cars have a transmission.

Either way, they're not limited by time

CVT's have there own friction losses.

 

[SWO]

How much horsepower does Ford advertise for the GT when not in the 5 second boost?

Kia, Hyundai, Porsche, Audi and Polestar all tell us. Why won’t Ford?

1. Do they tell you what the horsepower is when your battery is 50%? Or overheated?

2. Mach-E doesn't require you to press any buttons, so it's an applesranges comparison. How would you even measure that on a dyno?

Again, you can't tell me what the "correct" horsepower is because any number besides 480 would be subjective.

By the way, Kia only reports one HP figure for the EV6 GT whereas the Mach-E actually has a disclaimer.

 

[Mach1E]

1. Do they tell you what the horsepower is when your battery is 50%? Or overheated?

2. Mach-E doesn't require you to press any buttons, so it's an applesranges comparison. How would you even measure that on a dyno?

Again, you can't tell me what the "correct" horsepower is because any number besides 480 would be subjective.

By the way, Kia only reports one HP figure for the EV6 GT whereas the Mach-E actually has a disclaimer.

False.

Kia has made the information public.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a42097092/2023-kia-ev6-gt-by-the-numbers/

“the GT, presumably after downing a can of spinach, is bursting with 576 horses. A new GT mode affords access to the entire thundering herd. Normal and Sport modes limit output to 460 horsepower, and Eco cuts it to 288. The full hit of torque, which has climbed from 446 pound-feet in the all-wheel-drive GT-Line to 545, is always available.”

Again, it seems that’s pretty much every other manufacturer advertises this information.

That fact isn’t subjective. Ford hides the info. And no, “your results may vary,” doesn’t cover it. Kia has a similar disclaimer but again gives us the hp numbers.

 

[voxel]

You're talking about the test where he parked 2 cars at above-freezing temps?

I had to go back to the video and he saved 1.4kw over 3 hours of use. Even if you don't factor in the 2019 vs 2021 model year differences (age, battery health, double pane windows, etc.) you can figure out how many extra miles 1.4kw gets you (in a best case scenario for the heat pump).

I think the CR test lays out a clear picture. Both the MY and Mach-E get 68% of their warm weather range in the winter (unless you want to use Telsa's bogus EPA #'s....then it's even worse).

https://www.consumerreports.org/car...e-affects-electric-vehicle-range-a4873569949/

The problem with the test is a couple thing:

1) Optimal heat pump efficiency is around 40F. Heat pumps are not as useful sub-freezing.

2) They drove 142 miles and extrapolated their values to the ideal battery capacity. We know EVs like the Mach-E have different capacities when warm and cold (that's the nature of how li-ion batteries work). A number of users here have captured the cold vs. warm kWh capacities. What they should have reported is the raw mi/kWh efficiency.

3) The most important one is that they pre-heated the cabin and battery. We know how important this is for the Mach-E

https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...-preconditioning-pre-heat-your-battery.24473/

Basically this test provides a boost to the non-heat pump EVs like the Mach-E and ID.4.

ID.4 being last in the test is not surprising because of how poorly European winter range tests were with MEB trims without heat pumps. Trying to find the link... there was one in the Ioniq 5 last year and basically the MME was an embarrassment.

https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/range-test-88-ev-cars-summer-and-winter-in-norway.9802/


I don't think CR fully understand EVs. Bjorn's drives his EVs to a halt in this tests. He has a spreadsheet of summer + winter range and 1000km tests.

 

[SWO]

False.

Kia has made the information public.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a42097092/2023-kia-ev6-gt-by-the-numbers/

“the GT, presumably after downing a can of spinach, is bursting with 576 horses. A new GT mode affords access to the entire thundering herd. Normal and Sport modes limit output to 460 horsepower, and Eco cuts it to 288. The full hit of torque, which has climbed from 446 pound-feet in the all-wheel-drive GT-Line to 545, is always available.”

Again, it seems that’s pretty much every other manufacturer advertises this information.

That fact isn’t subjective. Ford hides the info. And no, “your results may vary,” doesn’t cover it. Kia has a similar disclaimer but again gives us the hp numbers.

I literally cut/paste from the KIA website, but ok.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I am 100% onboard with Ford's GT(PE) promo video being misleading, but I don't see anything wrong in their literature.

The problem with the test is a couple thing:

1) Optimal heat pump efficiency is around 40F. Heat pumps are not as useful sub-freezing.

2) They drove 142 miles and extrapolated their values to the ideal battery capacity. We know EVs like the Mach-E have different capacities when warm and cold (that's the nature of how li-ion batteries work). A number of users here have captured the cold vs. warm kWh capacities. What they should have reported is the raw mi/kWh efficiency.

3) The most important one is that they pre-heated the cabin and battery. We know how important this is for the Mach-E

https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...-preconditioning-pre-heat-your-battery.24473/

Basically this test provides a boost to the non-heat pump EVs like the Mach-E and ID.4.

ID.4 being last in the test is not surprising because of how poorly European winter range tests were with MEB trims without heat pumps. Trying to find the link... there was one in the Ioniq 5 last year and basically the MME was an embarrassment.

https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/range-test-88-ev-cars-summer-and-winter-in-norway.9802/


I don't think CR fully understand EVs. Bjorn's drives his EVs to a halt in this tests. He has a spreadsheet of summer + winter range and 1000km tests.

1. Temperatures get below 40deg where I live. CR also has a moderate temperature range. Not seeing a problem here.

2. Most people care more about range than raw efficiency. Miles is still a better metric than efficiency IMO.

3. Why would preheating a battery be an advantage to a vehicle with a resistive heater? If anything I think it would help the heat pump car in colder temps since it's going to be less efficient.

I like his videos but I think the Bjorn tests are almost useless for comparing vehicles. Temperature, weather, traffic are all over the place...huge variables.

 

[EVandSolar]

Tesla uses the EPA 5-Cycle test to intentionally goose their numbers. Theres plenty of objective tests out there showing that they won't achieve anything close to their EPA numbers, though Tesla fools a lot of their owners with equally unrealistic range estimates (Guess-O-Meter) leading to silliness like Tesla owners claiming they have no winter range degradation ("heat pump works so great!").

I hate it because it's basically telling all car companies they should lie to their customers like Tesla does.

Tesla will achieve its EPA rated range under EPA range testing conditions. Tesla has never said "if you drive way different than the EPA test cycle, such as 70 mph on the interstate in cold weather, you will get the EPA rated range in those conditions too." Tesla has never made such a claim. You want Tesla to achieve the EPA rated range under different conditions, and are angry that they don't. It doesn't matter want kind of totally different test conditions you want Tesla to be able to match their EPA rated range. Bjorn Nyland got 400 miles out of a M3 when driving 50 mph. This is false advertising from Tesla as they only advertise 335 miles of range. They should really be honest with their advertising and be clear that the car will get 400 miles of range. See how stupid this argument is? It's literally your argument.

Sponsored