Awesome range test as always, say what you will about Ford, I own a 22 Mach E premium with the extended battery and I always get around 310-320 miles out of it. I also own a 23 Model Y Long Range and it never gets the advertised range 🤷🏻♂️
My next door neighbor also has both a Y and ext range Mach E…. His results are the opposite, he says the Tesla gets FAR better range and over all is a much better vehicle. He said straight out, don’t buy a Mach E.
@@southfloridanick 7 month later since my comment and my Mach E still gets the advertised range, Teslas just don’t. I would take your neighbors car and see for your self. My test vehicles are Tesla Model Y LR and Mach E Premium extended range. On the Mach E I get 310 to 325 miles advertised is 305. On the Tesla I’ve never if my life got 300 miles out of one charge, advertised is 330, best I ever got was 290. Your neighbor must be mesmerized by the overall experience of his Tesla, the software side of things is leaps and bounds over the Ford SYNC, I wouldn’t tell someone never to buy a Mach E, but if the Tesla is cheaper why buy a Mach E is what I would tell people.
Another excellent test. I’m usually driving 80 mph when road tripping, but it’s good to know that one can go much further on a charge at somewhat slower speeds.
My girlfriend has got the 2023 mach e premium. She loves it. She usually goes through her battery quicker because she does run the heat high when it's cold.
Great test, Tom! I'm impressed with the Mach-E's consistency. It did much better than my Model 3 to match the EPA rated range. I hope you'll post another video on your BlueCruise testing. Y'know, when the Mach-E first came out, I wasn't very keen on it, but after test driving one… it is a real contender for my next EV!
When I drive between 20%-80% SOC that gives me about three hours of driving about 170-180 miles or so depending how fast I drive. I do appreciate the range the Mach E extended range has. The only time I take it to into the teens or single digits SOC is when I’m going home or to a station I am familiar with. So yea I do leave some electrons on the table. Charging station issues and having enough charge to make it to another station is what I account for which would prevent me from going consistently below 20%. I would appreciate being able to charge from 15-90% as the recommended standard to maximize the usable pack on longer road trips. Around town daily driving 90-100 plus miles on a busy day range and charging doesn’t even come to mind. Thanks Tom for the work you do.
Just love your commitment to these tests, Tom - you must be driving for hours and hours...!! From here in the UK, I have to say, driving with NO hands on the wheel just seems weird... I don't even like adaptive cruise, so leaving the car's electronics to do everything would be WAY out of my comfort zone...!! 😳
I have to admit that it totally freaks me out seeing Tom take his hands off the wheel for extended periods of time while driving down the highway. I know the Automated driving is good now. It still gives me jitters though.
BlueCruise is not bad. It does seem to drift a little too close to the right edge of the lane at first until it finds center, and it does "box" long sweeping turns a little. But it's not bad overall and I've gotten to the point where I can use it without really worrying.
@@jamesengland7461 That isn't my point. I have steered with my knee before, i have taken my hands off the wheel before, for a few seconds. But to set cruise control and just take your hands off the wheel, WHY, what is the reason. There is no reason, if a person does not want to hold the wheel take the bus, or let someone else drive.
At 70, that is actually a very good result and efficiency. If you drop it to 65, you could probably get to 300 plus. As the speed piles up, 5 mph becomes a big deal since air recistance increases by the square of the speed.
That's about what we see for both our Premium 4x and our base GT. It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be much if any difference between the Premium and GT in real world range even though the models have different rear motors.
Awesome info, thank you. Feeling good about my Mach-E purchase. Did you get to publish the 0-100 charge test you mentioned in this? Thanks for all you do!
Another excellent 70mph range test. While kind of a lot of effort it would be great to have the same car tested again under ideal circumstances (or much more so than when wet and on the cool side). Wet roads in my experience make a big difference - perhaps in part from the surface tension of water seen as increased rolling friction(?). The comparison of the two tests could serve as a guide for evaluating the effect of even slightly inclement conditions. Thanks for taking all that time behind the wheel.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Thanks for your good point and taking time to respond. More generally... Your reviews rock. I especially like the freezer tests on charger cables 🙂 It's an often overlooked aspect that matters here in New England!
I have a standard range RWD Mustang Mach-E in the same color and premium trim. Would love to see Tom do a range test in a standard range RWD. I usually get about 230+ miles of range when on my roadtrips but I travel on pretty hilly highways.
I really don't have one EV that I like best - it depends on what kind of EV I want/need. That said, If I could only have one EV and the price was no object, I would probably select a Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo. I think the AWD long range Model Y and the AWD extended range battery Mach-E, have very similar driving range, with the Mach-E slightly better.
285 miles is GREAT! Under promising and over delivering -- never a bad thing (though, I figure Ford's marketing dept. sees it differently -- but for now, OVER delivering is just good marketing!)
If you can get a chance to do a real world Mach E with the new lithium phosphate battery range test, I think a lot of people would be interested. I think LiFePO4 batteries are the future of longevity.
@@user-nu1vn3yy9s Yes, but since manufacturers tend to take away the bottom and top 10% of lithium ion batteries. Lithium phosphate batteries are not harmed by extreme charge and discharge, the manufactures can/may open up more of the actual KWH of the phosphate pack and give similar range in the real world.
You're missing the point. Everyone expects LPF equipped cars to have 30% less range due to battery chemistry, but it might be closer to 10% just on kwh availability. Because my Tesla S has lithium ion cells, I have NEVER charged it to 100%. I would charge to 100% if my next Tesla has LPF, so I would probably equal or exceed my current range from my typical overnight charge of 80% if I can now safely charge to 100% every night.
Good test Tom going over all the factors that affect range. I wish I could’ve seen to put up the money for a MachE instead of the Bolt EUV that I have. It just didn’t make good economic sense for my use case. Ford makes good vehicles, but they routinely fail to recognize what consumers really want- but aren’t directly asking for. Instead Ford played the “Follow Tesla” game. What people really want is affordable EVs to get a faster ROI. There are a lot of extra investments that come with EV ownership like having an EVSE installed at home. As far as the trucks go, Ford would’ve been better off first promoting the Lightning to local delivery fleet customers with a front bench seat than shooting for the “family” truck market. I guess Ford engineers thought that they could defeat physics and aerodynamics. Yes, it’s easy to EV a truck frame, but Ford would’ve been better served by redesigning the floor, chassis, and subframe of the Escape and Maverick with acceptable ranges. I drove Fords for years, and prior to that I drove GMs. Fords were made better, but Ford is prone to over-engineering or re-engineering things that don’t need to be “fixed.” In other words, they waste a lot of money, but eventually it works out better. Go get you a used F-150 5.4L V8 with 2 piece spark plugs if you don’t believe me. Ford did fail their fans with the “Contactor” which is the part that analyzes battery condition prior to closing contacts for charging or driving. In this case they under-engineered these parts allowing heat buildup during charge flow to damage components- now recalled and repaired. All the time that Tesla was creating dominance in the EV market, consumers were begging legacy automakers to produce an inexpensive EV that didn’t have a harsh ride, and wouldn’t rattle apart after driving it off the lot. GM tried that with the Bolt, but GM is GM- so they priced it high to milk the early adopters of hard earned cash. People want EVs, but they don’t want to spend that much more to get one otherwise they don’t really get a good ROI. There is the benefit of not having to stop at gas stations and listen to some guy blasting his stereo to proclaim his testicular prowess.
The only times that our BMW i4 e40 gets 3.0 to 3.1 mi/kWh on the highway is when the outside temperature is below 10 degrees F. Under the conditions of Tom’s test, I would expect to see at least 3.7 and in warmer weather it can reach 4.0 to 4.1. Obviously, it’s an apples to oranges comparison, but Ford still has a room to improve efficiency.
Yes, apples to oranges for sure. The i4 is a lot smaller than the Mach and it's not an SUV in height (and therefore drag). Your car is more comparable to a Tesla 3.
I would like to see a range of ranges, instead of just the combined rating. For instance, this vehicle has a combined EPA range rating of 290 miles. They could offer something like: Expect to achieve between 225 miles and 305 miles with 290 miles the average in favorable driving conditions.
Has anyone done a range test in a desert climate averaging 110 F , vehicle parked outside , full on aircon / ventilated seats .. love to know the effect on range in such conditions !
Regardless of "real world" driving, it would be interesting to see you drive at 60 mph and 65 mph to see if there is any noticeable difference from 70 mph.
That's a heck of a result and appreciably farther than a recent 70mph range test in the Tesla Model Y LR. It's just a real drag that the Mustang Mach-E doesn't charge super fast and Ford has such a unique approach to charging profiles. Tom - could you talk about what your optimal road trip strategy would be for the Mustang Mach-E in your charging video? The Mach-E doesn't reward drivers with faster charging speeds down low, which means owners would be making a mistake by treating it like a Tesla or ID4.
@@Anthony__420 a have both a Mach e and a model 3. In my experience the real world driving experience the model 3 goes just a bit further than the Mach E. However like you said, the Tesla is much more efficient as it has a significantly smaller battery
@@Anthony__420 your Model 3 is a sports sedan, the Mach-E is a family crossover. They're not exactly comparable except they've got 4 doors and powered by electricity.
hmmm I guess I mis-heard cause I thought you said you were going to have a GT...? no biggie, fortunately something I discovered with the RWD/big pack tester I drove to NY for the Autoshow was HOW SWEET the Mach-E actually is (the 80-100mph acceleration of the Borg Warner planetary DU may be more impressive that it's 0-60😎). admittedly being a classic ICE Mustang guy ('71 Mach One) while I found the exterior design of the MME attractive i didn't think much of the "Electric Mustang" at first, but I definitely see why this wears the "Mustang" badge on the door sill. much like the 1st and 2nd Gen Ford GT Lemans cars, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that all the best that is FOMOCO has actually been "injected" (pun intended) in to this vehicle. perhaps you now see more clearly why this and the F150 were the only 2 full BEV's they had on display at the NYAS. A: Ford doesn't really need a 3rd BEV here in the States (not yet anyway).
We do all of our range tests under the same conditions so we can compare vehicle to vehicle. There's always just 1 passenger. However, adding three passengers wouldn't have that much of an effect (perhaps 15 miles) in a constant speed test like this. If it were a stop-and-go type of range test, then the additional weight would have a bigger effect.
The numbers for miles are not real for all . cars have math for everything like a heat or Ac night for lights and how speed to drive, so not for truth how have to keep the charge in car acutely is not good this car I have one I don't like it, I have 2023 eAWD HAS 10 Miles only but is crazy when to take off of the charge. guys, I recommend don't think and buy this car it's need more time in the future to comfortably
just a reminder for those mature types in the chat serious (and not merely paying "lip service" to saving the environment) this latest upload by Tommy Molo has conspicuously been brought to you on Earth Day 2023. for reference the very first Earth Day was held back in 1970, so 53 years ago. for this first Earth Day cartoonist/illustrator Walt Kelly created a poster using his character Pogo with words "We have met the Enemy and he is us" (which is itself a take on the famed words of Commodore Perry from the early 1800's). just so we're not under any ILLUSIONS the problem (53 years later) still continues to be "us".
Yes, the Model Y is more efficient, but it's also the most efficient EV in its class. By your standard anything that isn't class-leading is a poor result. We drove the Model Y 274 miles on the same course, so the Mach-E can go farther than a Model Y on a single charge, albeit with a larger battery.
@@InsideEVsUS True, but I don't see how you can call this a great result. By judging only on range achieved which is the point of the video, I guess you can, but given the pack size to do it (due to the poor efficiency) combined with the slow charging speed, it falls very short of expectations on a trip vs either the Tesla or a Hyundai/Kia at a similar price point. As demonstrated on many videos. Efficiency matters in EV's and it's not getting enough prominence in coverage...
The Mach-E actually goes farther than a Model Y, we've confirmed that on a few highway range tests. The EPA range rating is different because Telsa uses a different range test that they provide to the EPA for certification that offers more optimistic results. The Automaker gets to choose which of the two tests they use for EPA certification.
Ford is using 91kwh usable capacity while Tesla is using 75kwh usable capacity. Kyle Connor showed the Model Y LR going 286 miles. Shows how inefficient the Ford is.
