Misfire on that one- I was using 'quality" in context with the value of the comparison- not a specific part or function. I didn't make that clear. Sorry
"Mustang"Mach-E Efficiency
- Thread starter UncleDave
- Start date
Both are an 11 on the ugly scale. I finally figured out where he got the shape from, I knew I had seen this before.
Citroën’s Karin concept car vs. Tesla Cybertruck
That is easily answered
It’s shape. CDa
EV buyers really only care about range, if you make an EV in a purely conventional shape it won’t have any range and is an immediate failure (like the focus ev)
And indeed Fords offering isn’t shaped to be aerodynamic so it will likely fail.
This is the reason EV Pickup trucks haven’t been sold, no one wants a turd that can even drive a 100 miles.
That is also why the Cybertruck looks like it does, Tesla made its shape match the required range/efficiency/price they felt could sell. Looks follow design requirements without any consideration for appearance.
Let’s face it if you feel you need a BEV Truck and you can buy one that drives 500 miles, charges faster and looks ugly as sin or you can buy a normal truck that charges slowly costs more and can’t even break 200 miles range let alone tow 50.
Which would you buy?
If the answer is sub 200 isn’t far enough than your definitely not buying the one with conventional looks no matter how much you like it’s appearance.
Simple physics and aerodynamics are a ***** aren’t they?
JHZR2
Staff member
So what is the value of Cd for the Tesla and the Mustang?
Not even close
Model Y = 0.23
Mustang-e= 0.30
Based on aerodynamics the model Y should have a bigger epa highway range than listed and the Mustang-e less
I may have zero interest in ever owning a Tesla but they definitely are very focused on the overall platform efficiency
JHZR2
Staff member
Yeah that’s pretty good.
So when the article cited said the Tesla is more efficient, it’s true, but we don’t actually know that the drivetrain efficiency is superior. They just make a teardrop or whatever is most ideal-shaped body, and leverage that to the max.
I don’t think of gas hog as derogatory. I’ve owned plenty of gas hogs. Gas hog needs no explaining scientific or otherwise. It’s just a commonly used term. You seem to be sensitive about the words. I have been through so much in life “gas hog” isn’t something I would be sensitive about. On a scale of importance it isn’t even on the scale.
BTW Tesla owners, what kind of miles per kwh are Tesla 3 owners seeing in real life? My Volt was 3-4. The Mustang looks like it would be in that range because a 100 kWh battery isn’t what it has as useable kWh. They must have an unused capacity at top and bottom to make the batt last longer.
Couple things the EPA is combined city/highway so a specific % does not challenge aero.
We can glean superiority from other areas - performance being one.
Which car puts more HP per pound? We can dyno both to test absolute power.
(Model S ludicrous on a dyno is a monster btw)
Another vey important metric is max charge rate -
We know the Mach-E's top charge rate is 150KW, and the model 3 & Y's is 250 - both from 400 volt cars.
The KW-Hrs per 100 miles and total range ratings are found by actually running the vehicle on a dyno to simulate typical standardized city and highway use condition scenarios like they do ICE vehicles. Charging time at 240v is also useful, but is they showed times at a couple other voltages it would give better feel for charging rates. Obviously, the EPA testing doesn't take into account many "real world" factors and variables (like the effect of wind resistance, cold weather operation, accessory use, etc), but that's not the intention of the test. At least the window sticker is an apples-to-apples test using a standardized test procedure to compare EVs to each other, just like it's used to compare ICE vehicles to each other.
www.myev.com
How The EPA Rates Electric Vehicles | MYEV.com
It’s all about range, kWh/100 mi, and MPGe
www.myev.com
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
There's some debate about the Cd on the Cybertruck, but it's somewhere between 0.3 and 0.4. The RAM 1500 is 0.35.
On the epa test they are measuring what is put back into the battery, which is not the same as what the car uses from the battery. ?? I put a question mark here asI don’t understand it. Sure that’s what it costs the consumer. But it includes charging efficiency. A better value is miles per kWh imo. Like mpg, no need to make it complicated when it is not. We don’t say gallons per hundred miles we say miles per gallon. Who says I been getting 3 gals per hundred miles ain’t that something. How many gals per hundred miles do you get? We say I been getting 33 mpg. 40 on the flat and 30 up the hills.
Also it looks like the Prius Prime equals or beats the Tesla in electric only efficiency given by the epa numbers. Some more some less but pretty close. Maybe others even do better.
Does the Tesla have a miles/ kWh readout?
Also it looks like the Prius Prime equals or beats the Tesla in electric only efficiency given by the epa numbers. Some more some less but pretty close. Maybe others even do better.
Does the Tesla have a miles/ kWh readout?
They should call it the 'Edsel'.
here's another good sourceThe KW-Hrs per 100 miles and total range ratings are found by actually running the vehicle on a dyno to simulate typical standardized city and highway use condition scenarios like they do ICE vehicles. Charging time at 240v is also useful, but is they showed times at a couple other voltages it would give better feel for charging rates. Obviously, the EPA testing doesn't take into account many "real world" factors and variables (like the effect of wind resistance, cold weather operation, accessory use, etc), but that's not the intention of the test. At least the window sticker is an apples-to-apples test using a standardized test procedure to compare EVs to each other, just like it's used to compare ICE vehicles to each other.
How The EPA Rates Electric Vehicles | MYEV.com
It’s all about range, kWh/100 mi, and MPGe
Detailed Test Information
EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.
www.fueleconomy.gov
"After running the successive city cycles, the battery is recharged from a normal AC source and the energy consumption of the vehicle is determined (in kW-hr/mile or kW-hr/100 miles) by dividing the kilowatt-hours of energy to recharge the battery by the miles traveled by the vehicle. The recharge energy includes any losses due to inefficiencies of the manufacturer’s charger."
it is often said charging losses aren't computed but in fact they are.
There is no question that aerodynamic drag is a factor that Tesla optimizes. Tesla also does a good job reducing rolling resistance and other range reducing inefficiencies.
But I'm not at all sure the article in the OP is correct, as they are simply comparing manufacturer claims. Tesla is known to exaggerate. I'll bet a dollar the differences in real world range (side by side) will be a lot closer than the specs indicate.
Tesla cars don't meet their rated range at real world highway speeds. Just yesterday driving to and from Savannah, an 800 mile round trip, I saw 2 Tesla cars on the side of the road. I "suspect" they ran the battery out.
Looking at a number of cars on the epa site, the Mustang is doing pretty well. Look at the Bentley. The Prius Prime and Hyundai Ioniq plug in hybrid pretty much equal and even beat Tesla's efficiency rating with 133 mpg-e.. They do it carrying an engine, gas tank, and everything else a gas car carries around. Those look like the efficiency winners. It's not just air drag it's the motor, the magnets, and a whole lot of engineering. Ford has been in hybrids a long time.
Miles/kwh is much more intuitive, no one says I got 3 gallons per hundred miles, they say I got 33 miles per gallon. They can make it more confusing but as a plug in owner I know miles per kwh is what I always am looking at, and I am not really looking at the efficiency of the onboard charger added in.
Looks to me the Mustang did just fine.
Miles/kwh is much more intuitive, no one says I got 3 gallons per hundred miles, they say I got 33 miles per gallon. They can make it more confusing but as a plug in owner I know miles per kwh is what I always am looking at, and I am not really looking at the efficiency of the onboard charger added in.
Looks to me the Mustang did just fine.
Last edited:
One important clarifier - you showed the Mach-E RWD and AWD Extended; there is a regular RWD and AWD model as well with a smaller battery pack, which also boosts MPGe to 100. Still lags behind Tesla specs, but worth nothing.
Another important thing to bear in mind is the over-the-air-updates; Tesla has famously been tweaking away on their software for years, pushing efficiency updates out that improve range. Ford will hopefully do the same, and allow them to boost their range/efficiency. Definitely a cool aspect of electric drivetrain - the secret sauce really lies in the software, rather than hardware designs.