Mach E RWD range 370 miles

[MARKM3]

Ford Mustang Mach-E Debuts In Europe With Special Tuning

"Equipped with the larger battery and in rear-wheel-drive guise, the electric crossover promises to cover 600 kilometers (373 miles) based WLTP, which is a more realistic test cycle replacing the old lab-based NEDC."



"The Model 3 long Range AWD has a large WLTP range of 544 km (338 mi). The Tesla Model 3 Performance naturally also has AWD thanks to a dual engine and sprint in 3.5 seconds from 0-100 km / h."

What do you all think? Is this comparable?

 

[YusufT]

Read the article and it says they promise to reach that in the WLTP test, not that it's what they achieved unless I'm blind.

 

[MARKM3]

Read the article and it says they promise to reach that in the WLTP test, not that it's what they achieved unless I'm blind.

Yes it does, will be interesting to see when the testing is complete.

 

[Big Earl]

I'd expect maybe 300 miles real world range. Both WLTP and NEDC are very optimistic with regard to range.

 

[ElectricIAC]

300 EPA, 200 RW best case.

 

[TJKR]

370 miles is not a problem... if you go 30 mph.

Model 3 went 600 miles at 30 mph.

 

[ElectricIAC]

370 miles is not a problem... if you go 30 mph.

Model 3 went 600 miles at 30 mph.

I’m down to do that test as soon as FSD can reliably stop at red lights, stop signs and yield properly at other at grade crossings.

 

[MARKM3]

300 EPA, 200 RW best case.

What makes you say that? The model 3 is only slightly less than WLTP range

 

[ElectricIAC]

It’s not 70 and sunny and calm everywhere so those numbers are meaningless.

 

[MARKM3]

It’s not 70 and sunny and calm everywhere so those numbers are meaningless.

I was just wondering if there is a reason that test would be more biased towards the model 3 having better range EPA vs the Mach E. Why would the Mach E only get 200 EPA and the Model 3 retain 95% of their WLTP range?

 

[ElectricIAC]

One could argue the same point about the Taycan.

 

[MARKM3]

One could argue the same point about the Taycan.

The Taycan EPA is 192 miles. Is it worse than that IRL?

 

[ElectricIAC]

I hear better.

The point being is, they can report whatever set of numbers is most convenient to their cause but what matters is what the end consumer sees.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Given a 100kWh battery and compact size, it seems reasonable.
What's the price on the 100kWh version?

Of course, this is Ford, the company whose Fusion and C-Max hybrids "achieved" 47mpg until they didn't.

 

[MARKM3]

Given a 100kWh battery and size, it seems reasonable.

Is there a price for the 100kWh version?

$45,000 with the Tax incentive, add 7.5k without it.

 

[TomB985]

This is awesome.

The more legit competitors we have, the better things will get as consumers. That would force Tesla to improve their technical and customer service game. I think we already have the best car on the road, but it has to get better when that’s no longer the case

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

is this comparable?

Not really. The 544km result is from a year ago, and is for an AWD vehicle.

If you really want to compare, I guess you'd have to try to extrapolate and project from the LR RWD.

Roughly speaking, the LR RWD if retested today would get at least 340 EPA miles. (Just extrapolating from the SR+ RWD improvements - we don't have a real EPA test to go off of - all we know is it's at least 330 EPA miles before the efficiency improvements.)

So if you scale that up roughly:

544km * 340EPA / 310 EPA = 597km.

So it seems pretty similar. Sounds like that would be from a 98.8kWh pack vs. the Model 3 LR RWD which is about 79kWh to achieve that result.

So maybe the Mach-E is 20% less efficient - not too surprising since it's a less aerodynamic shape than the Model 3. But it looks like it would be less efficient than Model Y as well.

 

[VT_EE]

I hope it’s true. Elon will be motivated to increase Model Y battery capacity and range.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

$45,000 with the Tax incentive, add 7.5k without it.

It's OK. I looked it up. It's $52.4k + delivery ($1.1k) - credit.

Target EPA range for the "RT 1 edition" says 300 miles.
For some strange reason there's no 100kWh AWD version listed, but there are AWD versions listed for the 76kWh versions. Probably not strange, since 280 miles wouldn't give any headlines.
I guess that's why they called it the RT 1 edition.

For the 76kWh, $43.9k for RWD not too bad. AWD adds $2.7k and knocks 20 miles off the target range (210 v 230).
But of course, if you want heated seats and mirrors you have the copy of the Tesla bullshit, and have to pay $6.7k, and for part of that money, they'll cut your range by giving you 19" wheels instead of 18".

Neither of them are efficient, but nobody cares about efficiency, so it won't hurt sales, and I think they should be able to sell as many as they need to import.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

What makes you say that? The model 3 is only slightly less than WLTP range

Only Tesla doesn't show a 15-30% difference between WLTP and EPA range figures.