Well, Ford, the new "Distance To Empty" algorithm doesn't work . . .

[SuperRob]

I know actual miles in the "tank" matter more with an EV when it takes 45 minutes to recharge, but do you think people in other car forums complain that their ICE vehicles show wildly variable DTE figures? I've never had a car where that was accurate.

Sponsored

 

[kkgg]

It can never be accurate.
Imagine your phone telling how much time it will last instead of telling the battery percentage.

It not possible, it depends on lot of factors.
Speed, Incline, AC, heat, Weight, Weather, Roads, Wind, Drive.

All it can give is a estimate

 

[Thunderanger]

It can never be accurate.
Imagine your phone telling how much time it will last instead of telling the battery percentage.

It not possible, it depends on lot of factors.
Speed, Incline, AC, heat, Weight, Weather, Roads, Wind, Drive.

All it can give is a estimate

The point is, the estimates USED to be reasonably accurate. Whereas now, they are wildly inaccurate.

 

[MachEnthusiast]

At 100% charge my MME used to show about 270 mile range. A month ago it dropped to 215. On 1/21 I got update 3.6.2 "improving the accuracy of D to E". Now at 100% charge it shows around 290 miles. That's where it was Saturday morning at the start of a 199 mile trip. When I got home, it was down to 11 miles left!

It has to relearn your habits. Also remember that changing things like climate settings can impact the accuracy of the estimate. I think most people who have had 3.6.2 for longer than a few days have said it's an improvement.

 

[kkgg]

The point is, the estimates USED to be reasonably accurate. Whereas now, they are wildly inaccurate.

Well there were many comments fords estimate is way too pessimistic and people bashing Ford on winter range loss (comparing to Tesla). I don't blame them

 

[CarGuy11]

Well there were many comments fords estimate is way too pessimistic and people bashing Ford on winter range loss (comparing to Tesla). I don't blame them

So its better to lie to the customer?? The only correct thing to do is make it accurate as possible. It already reports trip efficiency so range should be based on that simple as that.

 

[kkgg]

So its better to lie to the customer?? The only correct thing to do is make it accurate as possible. It already reports trip efficiency so range should be based on that simple as that.

It's not lying. It just doesn't know how will you drive now. If people drive on local roads (which is the most efficient), it predicts good estimate. Then if they switch and drive on freeway(which is least efficient) it will obviously not match the estimate.

You are better off trusting the battery percentage(like your phone), rather than GOM

 

[Thunderanger]

When it's 10 degrees, there is no way with my SR battery and AWD that I'll get 224 miles. It's gonna be more like 160 to 170 tops. So what's the point of showing me I've got approximately 224 miles of range?

It's been a month or more now since they switched the system. That's plenty of time to relearn how I drive, especially having made multiple longer trips. Prior to the switch, we drove all the way to Georgia and back and it was right on the money the whole darn way. This new system is worthless.

 

[dbsb3233]

I preferred the old "pessimistic" GOM calculation too. Since the only time I care about range is on road trips (which are always high speed highway driving), the more conservative calculation was just about right. It was basically a "Highway" GOM, which was good.

Now it's basically a "City" GOM, which is nearly worthless for road trip usage as it's so far off now. For instance, on a 1700+ mile road trip last month, one of the last legs of the trip (with plenty of post-OTA history built up) I had a 70 mile loss in the buffer between projected vs actual (on a 135 mile leg). The same leg (which I've driven many times) used to lose maybe 15 miles, which was close enough that monitoring that differential along the way was reasonably accurate and useful. Now it's nearly worthless.

I'd love for them to give us an option in Settings to choose between "City Range" vs "Highway Range". Basing it entirely on recent driving history has the obvious shortcoming of being unable to know when you're about to embark on a road trip.

Or even 3 choices: City, Highway, and Recent (default).

 

[Mach1E]

People just need to buy one of these. It is a simple upgrade to help the GOM accuracy:

https://www.amazon.com/Amlong-Cryst...676123949&sprefix=crystal+ball,aps,104&sr=8-3

 

[dbsb3233]

People just need to buy one of these. It is a simple upgrade to help the GOM accuracy:

https://www.amazon.com/Amlong-Crystal-Clear-Redwood-Resin/dp/B01BCS7J3Y/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=2Q580CVYYX3CY&keywords=crystal+ball&qid=1676123949&sprefix=crystal+ball,aps,104&sr=8-3

Funny. You're right that there's a lot of guesswork involved, as it can only guess where and how you're going to drive, thus can never be fully accurate.

But... It can still be a useful measure, with just a little help. Some would say that's what the nav system is for. But many of us don't use the native nav and use AA or CP instead. And many times people don't use nav at all. It would be nice to give us another way to give the GOM a hint of how we plan to drive (like city vs highway) so it could be at least in the ballpark.

 

[alexgorod]

It has to relearn your habits. Also remember that changing things like climate settings can impact the accuracy of the estimate. I think most people who have had 3.6.2 for longer than a few days have said it's an improvement.

No and no.

I've just charged my SR to 100%, and it has 61.5 KWh at 44.6F. GOM shows 206 miles, and it can be achieved with 3.3 m/KWh, which I never ever had during my 15-month ownership.

 

[DevSecOps]

I'm not sure what part of, "it used to be more accurate" is lost in comprehension by many people here.

It is broken now, end of story. It's not even close to accurate, whereas it used to be. It's no longer "learning" or using climate. I, and most others, would rather gain miles as we drive rather than lose 2x as we drive.

I have received confirmation that Ford made a deliberate change. It no longer "learns"/adjusts like before. This was supposedly done to be more in line with other EVs. Personally, I feel this is due to winter range "shock".

but do you think people in other car forums complain that their ICE vehicles show wildly variable DTE figures?

No because, 1 - it's not 80-100 miles off reality and 2 - there's no risk of running out of gas with a station every .00001 miles. This is like an annoying political talking point. We shouldn't defend what's broken by deflection.

Our friend @benk016 made a suggestion that I love. We should change the acronym GOM to RNG to be more accurate.

 

[Mach-Lee]

I'm not sure what part of, "it used to be more accurate" is lost in comprehension by many people here.

It is broken now, end of story. It's not even close to accurate, whereas it used to be. It's no longer "learning" or using climate. I, and most others, would rather gain miles as we drive rather than lose 2x as we drive. I think this is a bad PR stunt by Ford to save face on winter range.

Yup, I had a few weeks of spot-on intelligent range (<5% error) before it got broken by an update or server change. Ever since then it's been disappointing. I wish they could fix IR and bring it back, but they clearly don't have the programming chops to make that work without bugs.

With the latest software, it does seem to be getting better after I pulled the battery cable. It's only about 10% optimistic now. Still changes throughout the day even when the vehicle doesn't move, so it must be looking at temperature change somewhere.

 

[Maquis]

With the latest software, it does seem to be getting better after I pulled the battery cable. It's only about 10% optimistic now. Still changes throughout the day even when the vehicle doesn't move, so it must be looking at temperature change somewhere.

To add:
I left the car at the airport for a week. SOC stayed constant at 41%. I checked FordPass a few times while I was gone and the GOM varied between 65 and 79 miles. Higher numbers did coincide with higher local temperatures.

Sponsored