Not sure of all the details , but the same for each car. Article is worth reading
I am not sure how long after purchasing it that you tested it. Mine was initially well below expectations, then improved and was exactly as advertised after a couple of weeksSo I purchased a 2022 Mustang Mustang Mach-E RWD STD battery. It's supposed to have 70 kWh usable and 247 MI of range. Well at 100% the GOM only displays 191 miles which is actually extremely accurate because I did a full to empty range test and I got 192 miles. Before somebody says it's cold it was 95 today and the last 2 weeks has been 70s and 80s. I have OBD scan tools for the rest of this information, it seems Ford hides 5% at the top and 5% at the bottom which it's not abnormal. Other car companies also have buffers at the top or the bottom. The bone I want to pick is the 70 kWh usable figure. When the car shows 0% and 0 miles the OBD says there's 3.3 kWh still in the battery. So that's basically unusable bottom buffer. That's fine not that strange but when I charge the car up to 100% it shows 69.28. so that would mean subtract 3.3 from 69.2 that = 65.9 usable? Am I missing something here or do I have a legitimate concern? Maybe one of my modules is damaged? The OBD reader does say my battery state of health is 100% I would just like some other opinions on this maybe someone from Ford.
Maybe they should start by banning toxic people? Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
my pet rock and I have very good discussions, thank you very much! I talked to @Jimrpa to get hints about proper rock care.
in both of my old Honda Civic Hybrids, I used to be able to get stupidly high numbers in the right... "conditions"... one tank in the 2003 was 609.0 miles at fill, 50.7 MPG:
Ugh. This is what I get for clicking into the last post of a thread to check out the mention? (Not you @GoGoGadgetMachE - all the stuff before ?)
yeah, I sort of owe you an apology for dragging you into this, but how could I not when talking to a rock was mentioned?!?
I’m not going to wade through 10 pages, but I did read the original post, and the first few replies by some knowledgeable folks around here. I didn’t see anything unreasonable about the OP wanting to better understand what factors are impacting the predicted and real-world range of his car. Certainly nothing that would warrant banning the question or characterizing it as stupid.
I agree - and if you don’t want to read a crazy-long thread of folks geeking out on range, don’t click on it! As an amateur sociologist, I can’t resist getting sucked in, even though I’m more of a lazy “believe the faulty GOM guy” myself!
There's a great function on this forum called Ignore. You can Ignore a thread and never see it again, or Ignore a user and never see their posts again.
Thanks for reminding me why I hated Seinfeld ?
