Official Ford Mustang Mach-E BECUV topic

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Oh, and this Mustang Mach-E would have to be a pre-release car. First customer delivery is sometime soon. The reviewer has had this car since middle of December or so.

I'd hope that this has been fixed in production cars.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
A few Mach-e checking have started appearing at the dc chargers bear me in Chicago (as reported by plugshare). Deliveries were to start in Dec, no?
Click to expand...
I can't find any news on an actual first delivery. Other than "any time now".
 
Alex from Alex on Autos got his yesterday and is suppose to have his first real video, a range test, posted today.

One thing I did note is that he said his Ford dealer not only did not mark it up, but gave 4100 is incentives, plus of course the FED tax credit and any other local credits or rebates.

Caution on his little intro video from yesterday though: the price he lists is for the BASE model, not the model he ordered. I'm sure he will clarify that when he does a full review but that confused me, as it appeared like he was getting the Premium extended range for around 30k! But in reality the price he listed was not for his model. I thought that was confusing, YMMV.
 
I was equally shocked....and notice that Tesla is lowering prices again. As the other EVs arrive here and in Europe, I wonder how much they are feeling undercut. Ok, Leaf, Niro, Kona, and Bolt...not sexy. But Mach E and ID4..a bit sex-ier and competitively priced.
 
Alex's full video is up and he got just about 277 miles for a real world range of 270 to 280 on the AWD premium with extended range battery. I'm actually impressed. It was mixed driving but with a good amount of freeway.

But as Alex pointed out, and I recently said too, no heat pump. So in colder climates your range could be a lot less. Also the msrp of that model is pretty high.


https://youtu.be/bNbptwxt8Bg
 
I really really hope more EVs come with the incredibly handy(to me anyway) SOC% meter which it looks like the Mustang does. I've seen what I believe is more than a few with just a 10bar or even less display for SOC and I'd not like that, I want the full X-100% display like our newer Leafs have, I mean it only took Nissan 2 years to figure out to add that feature, not sure why some other mfgs didn't learn from Nissan's early mistake.....
 
The local dealers here in Central PA have just started getting their Mach E demonstrators on the lot. I personally love the looks and curious to see the changes made / offered before I can place the my order for the GT version.

I read an article that Ford dealers will have to spend 35K to get the dealerships EV certified to sell the vehicles.
 
^^^
PBS's Motorweek this week had a nice short segment on the Mustang Mach-E non-GT and liked it quite a bit, like you they were really looking forward to the GT :D
 
danrjones said:
But as Alex pointed out,
Click to expand...
He doesn't understand the EPA testing either. He said that the 5-cycle protocol gives the highest possible result. That is wrong for most any car not named Tesla 2021.

As more cars include better winter mitigation, they will also move to the 5 cycle test if they can end up with a higher final EPA fuel economy rating.
 
jjeff said:
^^^
PBS's Motorweek this week had a nice short segment on the Mustang Mach-E non-GT and liked it quite a bit, like you they were really looking forward to the GT :D
Click to expand...

I will have to check it out. I record them and binges them.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
But as Alex pointed out,
Click to expand...
He doesn't understand the EPA testing either. He said that the 5-cycle protocol gives the highest possible result. That is wrong for most any car not named Tesla 2021.

As more cars include better winter mitigation, they will also move to the 5 cycle test if they can end up with a higher final EPA fuel economy rating.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean, but he isn't wrong that Tesla seems to be optimistic when it comes to EPA range. Tesla chooses the 5 cycle test because it gives them the highest EPA range, right? But that choice of test doesn't give you any actual additional real world range.

I really wish someone had a giant wind tunnel, put each car in it and ran them at 70 mph from full to empty. Give us a REAL WORLD freeway test. That would at least give us an apples to apples comparison for every EV. The "combined" and "city range" to me is pointless anyway. Any EV now has plenty of range for city. If it can go 200 miles at 70mph, you don't really need to worry about city range. I just drove my 2018 leaf 90 miles to my dealer and it barely makes the drive, one way. And its suppose to be "150" miles.

Currently we have EVs doing the simple EPA test, the 5 cycle test, and some vendors also downrate their EPA number. Therefore we aren't getting an apples to apples number that we as consumers can really compare from one car to the next. I personally think that's an issue. YMMV.
 
danrjones said:
I understand what you mean, but he isn't wrong that Tesla seems to be optimistic when it comes to EPA range. Tesla chooses the 5 cycle test because it gives them the highest EPA range, right? But that choice of test doesn't give you any actual additional real world range.
Click to expand...
The charge of 'optimistic results' is misleading.
It comes from running the same drive in different cars and finding that Tesla is more off from EPA than other cars. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is entirely test dependent. Tesla will by comparison be further from EPA in mild test conditions, and closer to EPA in winter conditions.

If you live in mild coastal CA and never see 353 miles of range in an EPA labeled Tesla you might complain, but if you live or drive in a 4 season climate then you sing the praises of Tesla and never look back. A car that has a higher 5 cycle test result than the 2-cycle test due to winter range penalty mitigations is most certainly going to be reflected in actual additional "real world" winter range.

This range story vis a vis the EPA labeling is not worthless sleight of hand. It really does reflect underlying car differences. And if you ask just about any EV driver with 4 season past experience, they will tell you that dropping to 250 - 300 mile instead of the 353 mile label in summer is no big deal, but getting 200 - 225 miles of winter range instead of 125 - 150 miles in other EVs in the winter is a *huge* gain of practical importance.

Tesla will be open to criticism by trolls and those with agendas, and people who are less than well informed will write as you do without malice. But Tesla owners know the score. As do other people who follow Bjorn Nyland's youtube channel. Highly recommended to you ... for the second time I think.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
I understand what you mean, but he isn't wrong that Tesla seems to be optimistic when it comes to EPA range. Tesla chooses the 5 cycle test because it gives them the highest EPA range, right? But that choice of test doesn't give you any actual additional real world range.
Click to expand...
The charge of 'optimistic results' is misleading.
It comes from running the same drive in different cars and finding that Tesla is more off from EPA than other cars. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is entirely test dependent. Tesla will by comparison be further from EPA in mild test conditions, and closer to EPA in winter conditions.

If you live in mild coastal CA and never see 353 miles of range in an EPA labeled Tesla you might complain, but if you live or drive in a 4 season climate then you sing the praises of Tesla and never look back. A car that has a higher 5 cycle test result than the 2-cycle test due to winter range penalty mitigations is most certainly going to be reflected in actual additional "real world" winter range.

This range story vis a vis the EPA labeling is not worthless sleight of hand. It really does reflect underlying car differences. And if you ask just about any EV driver with 4 season past experience, they will tell you that dropping to 250 - 300 mile instead of the 353 mile label in summer is no big deal, but getting 200 - 225 miles of winter range instead of 125 - 150 miles in other EVs in the winter is a *huge* gain of practical importance.

Tesla will be open to criticism by trolls and those with agendas, and people who are less than well informed will write as you do without malice. But Tesla owners know the score. As do other people who follow Bjorn Nyland's youtube channel. Highly recommended to you ... for the second time I think.
Click to expand...

Actually I do watch his channel, and I've seen his numbers. I saw his video on the Ford Mach E over the weekend with winter ranges. No heat pump in the Ford, as I thought. But I DO live in a mild-ish climate, and I want a freeway mileage estimate that matches realty, and as you admit, Tesla doesn't. Maybe no one does. Maybe some do. That's the problem.

By all means, take the wind tunnel and do it again and 0f. That would be my ideal EPA sticker, a 70 mph test at 70f, and again at 0f with the climate control set to 65f. Or whatever, just pick something to standardize all the testing. And get rid of the city cycle portion of the test, other than maybe for short range EVs.
 
danrjones said:
I want a freeway mileage estimate
Click to expand...
EPA has your back, but you have to look a little further than the window sticker.
Look up the EPA CSI report for unadulterated Highway and high speed results.
But if the only thing that will satisfy you is the danjones cylcle, roll your own graph with the reported dyno co-efficients along with Bjorn's A/C power data.

It is all there, minus the spoon-feeding. Not that the EPA frowns on spoons, but there are ~ 150 million drivers in the USA.
 
Here is an actual example of the problem:

I ran the same trip I just did - 90 miles - to my dealer in ABRP for a couple cars.

The current LR model 3: 100% to 69% SOC. RWR: 290
Mach E ER RWD: 100% to 68% SOC. RWR: 281

So these are almost exactly the same, and yet the EPA ratings are quite different: 353 vs 300.
But there real world range in my scenario is basically the SAME.

I get that in cold whether, the Ford's range likely will drop more than the Tesla. But I don't buy that the current EPA system is correct.
In this scenario, either the Ford is under rated or the Tesla is over rated. Or some of both.

EDIT: I added the calculated Real World Range
 
^^
I'm a fan of reading individual test cycle results also, but the EPA seems to think that will overwhelm the American psyche* so they make you get the results from their website. <<shrug>>

* And they are probably right, judging by the goofball use of MPGe, not to mention the inability of half this forum to figure out kW from kWh
 
SageBrush said:
^^
I'm a fan of reading individual test cycle results also, but the EPA seems to think that will overwhelm the American psyche so they make you get the results from their website. <<shrug>>
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I'm not knocking Tesla, they are still the best. I have a cybertruck preorder... waiting.. waiting..,

Just wish there was an easier way to compare, as most Americans are not going to do what I just did.

But I like your idea, and from now on, that route will be my "danjones" cycle. LOL
I'll run it again later with 0 deg C. I'm sure you are right that Tesla will do well.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
I do wish Teslas would show both 2 and 5 cycle epa ranges. That would then be easier to compare the 2 cycle to 2 cycle tests.
Click to expand...

For those curious, my "dancycle" ranges for a few vehicles, 20 deg C, came out at the following below.

I like ABRP and it seems to be accurate but they need data to be accurate, so one can presume that newer vehicles may be less accurate.
I tried the Volvo XC-40 but left it off the list because it seems way too optimistic. Perhaps Volvo purposefully underrated the EPA mileage, or ABRP needs more data. I'm also not sure how accurate ABRP is at low temp. Does it consider heating the cabin or only pack diminished capacity from the cold? I do not know. How does ABRP deal with vehicles where the heat pump is optional? I do not know. No battery degradation is considered.


  • Brand EV 20 C Highway Range 0 C Highway Range
    Tesla 3 LR 290.3 272.7
    Tesla Y AWD LR AWD 243.2 225.0
    Ford Mach E LR RWD 281.3 230.8
    Ford Mach E LR AWD 257.1 214.3
    Ford Mach E SR RWD 214.3 180.0
    Hyundai Kona 219.5 183.7
    Kia Niro 209.3 173.1
    Nissan Leaf (2018->) 115.4 100.0
    Nissan Leaf Plus 173.1 150.0
    VW ID4 230.8 191.5
    Chevy Bolt 225.0 187.5
 

Similar threads

G
Official Subaru Solterra topic
Replies
0
Views
2K
GRA
G
G
Official Vinfast VF8 topic
Replies
6
Views
3K
GRA
G
G
300+ mile BEVs currently available in the U.S.
Replies
0
Views
1K
GRA
G

Latest posts

Back
Top