Model Y 40% more efficient than Mustang Mach E

[Gadget63]

I guess depending on what part of the country you live in determines the price per kwh. Here in the south I have seen most SC charge anywhere between 12 and 18 cents a kwh, and they are spaced close enough off the interstates for easy on and easy off.

 

[Geech72]

What's the Supercharger cost? I'm not familiar. I pay $0.31/kWh at the local AE stations. There's 6 AE stations at most Walmarts so I don't ever have an issue finding one or using it, just plug & charge. There's a Walmart on every major highway as far as I know.

The closes EA charger to me says right now on the app $0.43/kWh, I charged this weekend at 0.21/kWh at a Tesla SC on a holiday travel weekend.

 

[justjack77]

The closes EA charger to me says right now on the app $0.43/kWh, I charged this weekend at 0.21/kWh at a Tesla SC on a holiday travel weekend.

Nice! Yea this weekend I charged but it was free for the 4th. I'm starting to see that Mach-E owners are getting the special pricing of 31 cents and non owners are paying the 43 cent price. I think it has to do with the contract between AE and Ford for the Plug & Charge network. Either way we are saving a tremendous amount of money over ICE. HA. My wife just filled up and it was $4.05 a gal here in Colorado. Ouch.

 

[Jeff N]

Nice! Yea this weekend I charged but it was free for the 4th. I'm starting to see that Mach-E owners are getting the special pricing of 31 cents and non owners are paying the 43 cent price. I think it has to do with the contract between AE and Ford for the Plug & Charge network. Either way we are saving a tremendous amount of money over ICE. HA. My wife just filled up and it was $4.05 a gal here in Colorado. Ouch.

The lower EA pricing also applies to anyone who signs up for their $4 per month subscription fee. It’s easily worth it if you do any kind of regular charging at EA sites.

 

[Darmie]

With my average over 300 watt per mile I'm not sure if the Mode Y is that efficient compared to the Mach E. I'm always seeing the Mach E compared to the Model Y however, there are other EV's on the market. Why do we never see it being compared to an Audi E-tron or even the I-Pace. Are they not worth the comparisons? Will the Ford Mach E be just another brand pushed under the rug like these two?

 

[Daekwan]

With my average over 300 watt per mile I'm not sure if the Mode Y is that efficient compared to the Mach E. I'm always seeing the Mach E compared to the Model Y however, there are other EV's on the market. Why do we never see it being compared to an Audi E-tron or even the I-Pace. Are they not worth the comparisons? Will the Ford Mach E be just another brand pushed under the rug like these two?

The price points are similar. When I was shopping early this year, I knew I wanted an EV with the SUV form factor and my max budget was $50K. For that price the Etron & iPace were simply not an option. Also $40K in Feb/March could get you either the standard range versions of the MME or MY.. only the long range versions were priced at $50K. VW has also now jumped in the race with the pretty much the same pricing for the ID4.

With the avg selling price of a new vehicle now $41K in the US and SUV's being the hottest selling segment. It really should be no surprise that most people shopping for a new car and considering an EV.. will look at the ID4, MME, or MY first before considering other options.

 

[timeshifter]

VW has also now jumped in the race with the pretty much the same pricing for the ID4.

With the avg selling price of a new vehicle now $41K in the US and SUV's being the hottest selling segment. It really should be no surprise that most people shopping for a new car and considering an EV.. will look at the ID4, MME, or MY first before considering other options.

There's also the Kia EV6 and Hyundai Ioniq 5. Plus Nissan Ariya coming soon. Lots of impressive choices on paper.

 

[justjack77]

The price points are similar. When I was shopping early this year, I knew I wanted an EV with the SUV form factor and my max budget was $50K. For that price the Etron & iPace were simply not an option. Also $40K in Feb/March could get you either the standard range versions of the MME or MY.. only the long range versions were priced at $50K. VW has also now jumped in the race with the pretty much the same pricing for the ID4.

With the avg selling price of a new vehicle now $41K in the US and SUV's being the hottest selling segment. It really should be no surprise that most people shopping for a new car and considering an EV.. will look at the ID4, MME, or MY first before considering other options.

I second this! I was willing to spend about $55k for an EV because I was selling my F150 and was used to spending $800+ a month for payment, gas and maintenance. I looked at all the EVs and knew I needed AWD no matter what; I live in Colorado. I loved the look of the Jaguar I-Pace the best but it was way out of my price range. Chevy bolt was so fun to drive, idk why, just was to me. But they don't offer AWD. So it came down to the Mach-E and MY. I ultimately went with the Mach-E just for interior preference. They are so similar, just depends on which one you prefer visually.
Edited: I'd take the Model X in a HEARTBEAT. But I can't afford it. HAHA.

 

[iamnid]

It’s all about wh/mi, I wish some major car magazines could rent a track like Indy (big and flat) and test a bunch of FULLY charged EV’s on it all set up identically (tire psi/HVAC) and run them at the exact same speeds until the batteries die, all at the same time and conditions. Then report the results. That would make a great cover.

You mean like this?

 

[Nakk]

You mean like this?

That test is a joke. It was done exceptionally well, but there is one big problem they try and hide: They refuse to report the results. Obviously this test was done to test total range at 100% SOC to car stopping. But the only results they'll release are from 0% SOC reported to car stop. Why go to all of this effort and then not report the main results? What's especially bad about this particular video is they try and obfuscate that issue. They report total range via "Edmunds testing", but they use the data from their very flawed previous tests. Again, why not release the 100% SOC to car stop miles from this test? Obviously the results would not please a paid advertiser so they withhold them.

 

[Nakk]

He literally had them both go on the same trip at the same time and swapped drivers right in the middle. It wasn't a bad test and the results were pretty consistent with the others.

Unfortunately, it was a horrible test. First, there was no effort to eliminate bias. Running a test when you're trying to get a certain result is problematic even if you have no bias. There is a reason scientific experiments are done with a double blind protocol. Second, No effort was made to initialize the cars equally. Were the cars charged under the same conditions to the same SOC? No. Was tire pressure checked? No. Was any analysis done on battery degradation on the older car? No. What about tire wear? Do we have any idea how motivated the Tesla driver was to maximize range? No, but we know for a fact that Alex wanted the Mach-e to win this test. In short, the basis of the test is laughable.

How about the test itself? Unless another test was run I haven't seen, the drivers were not swapped. That wouldn't be an issue if each driver was trying to do his best. What about the rest of the test? Is there a link to unedited footage of the whole test from the interior of each car? No. SO we can't know how each car was driven. That's not the worst part though, because we know for a fact that Alex gave the Mach-e a rather large advantage. During the high speed part of the test the Mach-e was behind the Tesla taking advantage of drafting. They switched positions so that the Tesla followed the Mach-e during the slow speed portion of the test--when there would be far less drafting advantage. What were the following distances? Was the Y driver a little more heavy footed than the E driver? Etc, etc, etc.

The argument that this test was consistent with other poorly run tests is a logical fallacy and is meaningless. Argumentum ad populum. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.

I'm not arguing that the Mach-e does or does do better on range than the Y. I am saying I have yet to see a valid test where the results were actually reported. I will bow to the data when that happens. If anyone has a Mach-e in the Portland area, I would love to run a test comparison with my Y. I've made this offer on Mach-e forums and no one has ever taken me up on it.

 

[Nakk]

I'm averaging 3.73 mi/kWh in my Mach-E; 268 Wh/mi in Tesla terms. After almost 5k miles. Mostly driving 40 to 85 mph, lots of interstates in Colorado that I need to use for work. I have extended range, premium, awd and I consistently get well over the 270 EPA rated miles. Right now I'm showing 320 miles and the furthest I ever went was 352 miles on a charge; literally was at 2 miles range getting into my garage. HA. My wife, son and I were house shopping all over Colorado that day so lots of interstate driving with a mix of neighborhood driving to look at homes for sale.
What's the average efficiency the MY LR is getting? I don't frequent this forum.
I've updated my post to show my data. I strongly believe in tracking data, engineering mindset. HA. Here you go.

If you have an engineering mindset you know that your data is worthless when trying to compare the range of your car to another car. There are simply too many variables for any test to have much value unless a concerted effort is made to eliminate the variables to the greatest extent possible. That means testing two cars side by side making every effort to eliminate both the variables and the bias of the test drivers.

 

[Nakk]

Mach e is 88 kWh usable on the larger pack.

If you watch the video that chart came from, Mr Munro explains that they have a standard range Mach-e, and therefore have no data on the larger battery. His information doesn't come from other sources, he disassembles the cars and the batteries and provides hard data. What's interesting about the video is that it shows that the Mach-e battery pack is a large part of the structure of the car. (Most likely the individual cells are not, but the dissection has not proceeded to that point yet.) Why I find that humorous is that Mach-e fan boys were ridiculing the idea of a structural battery pack when Tesla announced the new battery design. They were insistent that a structural battery pack was not just bad, but stupid. (MacheForum.com) I'm guessing they now think it's the best idea ever, ROFL.

 

[electricjib]

A lot of great info in here. On a pretty flat drive, 90 degree day with no wind in CA and the AC at 3 and 67 degrees, I drove 160 miles going from 90% down to 43%. I was going 65-70 most of the way.

Average Wh/Mile was 228.

Other days I’ve done this drive I’ve landed between 40-45%.

Thats incredibly efficient. Hard to argue with the Ys efficiency.

 

[jsight]

Unfortunately, it was a horrible test. First, there was no effort to eliminate bias. Running a test when you're trying to get a certain result is problematic even if you have no bias. There is a reason scientific experiments are done with a double blind protocol. Second, No effort was made to initialize the cars equally. Were the cars charged under the same conditions to the same SOC? No. Was tire pressure checked? No. Was any analysis done on battery degradation on the older car? No. What about tire wear? Do we have any idea how motivated the Tesla driver was to maximize range? No, but we know for a fact that Alex wanted the Mach-e to win this test. In short, the basis of the test is laughable.

How about the test itself? Unless another test was run I haven't seen, the drivers were not swapped. That wouldn't be an issue if each driver was trying to do his best. What about the rest of the test? Is there a link to unedited footage of the whole test from the interior of each car? No. SO we can't know how each car was driven. That's not the worst part though, because we know for a fact that Alex gave the Mach-e a rather large advantage. During the high speed part of the test the Mach-e was behind the Tesla taking advantage of drafting. They switched positions so that the Tesla followed the Mach-e during the slow speed portion of the test--when there would be far less drafting advantage. What were the following distances? Was the Y driver a little more heavy footed than the E driver? Etc, etc, etc.

The argument that this test was consistent with other poorly run tests is a logical fallacy and is meaningless. Argumentum ad populum. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.

I'm not arguing that the Mach-e does or does do better on range than the Y. I am saying I have yet to see a valid test where the results were actually reported. I will bow to the data when that happens. If anyone has a Mach-e in the Portland area, I would love to run a test comparison with my Y. I've made this offer on Mach-e forums and no one has ever taken me up on it.

That's a lot of words to prove nothing. Literally every test is flawed in some way or another. I can't just throw my hands up in the air and say "tesla wins" just because I want to. The results from the real world are that the Mach-E is consistently performing very well and its efficiency numbers are coming in only marginally below the Model Y. Thanks to the larger battery this means the Mach-E will have a larger range. Thanks to the poorer charging curve, it will still lose on a sufficiently long race.

If you have evidence to the contrary instead of just criticisms of the folks doing the work, that'd be great.

 

[justjack77]

If you have an engineering mindset you know that your data is worthless when trying to compare the range of your car to another car. There are simply too many variables for any test to have much value unless a concerted effort is made to eliminate the variables to the greatest extent possible. That means testing two cars side by side making every effort to eliminate both the variables and the bias of the test drivers.

Data is never worthless. I'm just posting my data because this thread is labeled "Model Y is 40% more efficient that Mach-E". Before the Mach-E launch, sure it was speculated to have worse efficiency but 40% is drastic. But now that there are a lot of them on the road, data is coming in and during non-winter months, its showing on par with the MY. That's all. If the MY is averaging 280 Wh/mi, the Mach-E would have to average ~112 Wh/mi for this thread title to make any sense. Only scenario that would make sense is if we test the Mach-E in the winter, and the MY in the summer and compare efficiency, which is absolutely useless.

Like I said before too, most of my driving is highway/interstate which is absolute worse case scenario for all EV owners. So using my data it is reasonable to assume that highway efficiency with AC going, warmer conditions, and ~400 lbs of payload (2 people + infant + baby gear), the Mach-E should be getting between 227 to 285 Wh/mi. That gives you a +- of over 11% which is more than necessary.

 

[Nakk]

Data is never worthless. I'm just posting my data because this thread is labeled "Model Y is 40% more efficient that Mach-E". Before the Mach-E launch, sure it was speculated to have worse efficiency but 40% is drastic. But now that there are a lot of them on the road, data is coming in and during non-winter months, its showing on par with the MY. That's all. If the MY is averaging 280 Wh/mi, the Mach-E would have to average ~112 Wh/mi for this thread title to make any sense. Only scenario that would make sense is if we test the Mach-E in the winter, and the MY in the summer and compare efficiency, which is absolutely useless.

Like I said before too, most of my driving is highway/interstate which is absolute worse case scenario for all EV owners. So using my data it is reasonable to assume that highway efficiency with AC going, warmer conditions, and ~400 lbs of payload (2 people + infant + baby gear), the Mach-E should be getting between 227 to 285 Wh/mi. That gives you a +- of over 11% which is more than necessary.

Your post makes no sense. If the MY averages 280 whm--which is probably accurate for the performance version, not the AWD--the Mach-e would have to average roughly 390 whm for the title of this thread to be accurate in regards to the Y PUP. FWIW, I don't think the E is 40% less efficient than the Y. That's a bit extreme. I myself will withhold any opinion of relative efficiency until I see a trustworthy and valid side by side test. Clearly the Y is more aerodynamic, and clearly the E's tires will have less rolling resistance being so skinny--especially on wet roads. So overall relative efficiency is an open question in my mind. I wouldn't be shocked to see the E being more efficient than the Y on wet roads at 40 mph.

BTW, I don't believe the E can average 227 whm at 65 on a level grade with no wind. My belief is not proof though. I'd love to see these two cars tested simultaneously in a manner that would actually provide proof.