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. SorryIn your comparison of efficiency, you either include quality or you exclude it.
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. SorryIn your comparison of efficiency, you either include quality or you exclude it.
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.Trav - Mustang Mach-e or Tesla Cybertruck?View attachment 37262
The question remains why is tesla more efficient. What knobs are being turned to achieve it, and what are the ramifications?
So what is the value of Cd for the Tesla and the Mustang?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?
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
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.It was a question with a reason attached to prove a point and you did it well, thanks.
"Gas Hog" is basically a created insult term to coerce people into going "lean" after the embargo of the early 70's ( along with 'don't be fuelish", empty rooms love darkness, "hey lead foot, get off the gas" and all kinds of other cute sayings)- that's its meaning and its total worth.
The fact is that many of these "hogs" consume more is because of various factors ( strength of materials, potential horsepower or other attributes) that may be required for the specific service of said "hog".
Another meaningless comparison factor based in an appeal to emotion with no science behind it whatsoever.
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.
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?
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 MPGewww.myev.com
"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."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.
That is easily answered
It’s shape. CDa
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.On the basis of its off the shelf EPA rating of 35 in RWD and 37 in AWD KWH per 100 miles vs the AWD Y's 27.
Pretty sure the mach-e has a 100KWH pack (dont know the usability ) and the Y - 75KWH usable.
This " mustang" is an SUV so direct comparison to the model Y and Id4 are appropriate.
View attachment 37183