Mach-E Forum | Ford Mustang Mach-E Forum and News banner

41 - 54 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
714 Posts
I think you missed my post before yours
RWD: I would think the bigger battery in the LR would give a faster 0-60 time than the smaller SR battery.

In AWD configuration, the LR range with the bigger battery is faster than the SR with the smaller battery.

I think the times for RWD SR and LR are in error.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Its all about weight distribution, power consumption and range they want to balance all of this. They don't want to boost the power too much cause it'll kill the range, the car with the smaller battery is lighter so they can increase the power a bit without sacrificing range. With the bigger battery they have power available but the motor has to push more weight. With 2 motors you get great traction but consumption is an issue, with a bigger battery consumption isn't as much an issue
 

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
714 Posts
Its all about weight distribution, power consumption and range they want to balance all of this. They don't want to boost the power too much cause it'll kill the range, the car with the smaller battery is lighter so they can increase the power a bit without sacrificing range. With the bigger battery they have power available but the motor has to push more weight. With 2 motors you get great traction but consumption is an issue, with a bigger battery consumption isn't as much an issue
Politely disagree:

We all understand that times for AWD are faster than RWD.

On an ICE car for example, a bigger engine, which weighs more, is more powerful and produces quicker times than a smaller engine.

On the Tesla the smaller battery cars were always slower than the larger battery cars which also had greater range.

The LR has more power and if he algorithms are set it can produce a faster time than the smaller and less powerful SR battery while still maintaining its range.

Remember there are two separate test:

  • Acceleration
  • Range
As Tesla has shown their LR are quicker and have longer range than their SR.

This is a case of you can "have your cake and eat it": Just as the LR AWD are faster with longer range than the SR AWD, 4.8 vs. 5.2, I believe the same is true with RWD.

Again, my opinion only, the numbers published are in error and will be corrected - in fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a typo and the LR RWD numbers are the SR RWD - the numbers have been reversed.

That makes the most sense to me: pay more for LR and get a quicker car with a longer range.


.

.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,214 Posts
@Metal_Horses @JTK44
The RWD/ER (6.1, 0-60) is slower than the RWD/SR (5.8) because it has the same motor power pushing the heavier battery weight. It may be the single motor’s maximum amperage is reached by the SR battery, so the extra amperage in the ER battery cannot add additional power.
Alternatively, they may have tuned the RWD/ER as the ‘maximum range’ configuration.

The AWD/SR (5.2) is slower because there is less amperage available for the two motors with the smaller battery, resulting in less HP when compared to the AWD/ER (4.8).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Politely disagree:

We all understand that times for AWD are faster than RWD.

On an ICE car for example, a bigger engine, which weighs more, is more powerful and produces quicker times than a smaller engine.

On the Tesla the smaller battery cars were always slower than the larger battery cars which also had greater range.

The LR has more power and if he algorithms are set it can produce a faster time than the smaller and less powerful SR battery while still maintaining its range.

Remember there are two separate test:

  • Acceleration
  • Range
As Tesla has shown their LR are quicker and have longer range than their SR.

This is a case of you can "have your cake and eat it": Just as the LR AWD are faster with longer range than the SR AWD, 4.8 vs. 5.2, I believe the same is true with RWD.

Again, my opinion only, the numbers published are in error and will be corrected - in fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a typo and the LR RWD numbers are the SR RWD - the numbers have been reversed.

That makes the most sense to me: pay more for LR and get a quicker car with a longer range.
It's very possible that in the case of the LR RWD the extra power available from the batteries can't be effectively applied through the tires to the road.
 

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
714 Posts
@Metal_Horses @JTK44
The RWD/ER (6.1, 0-60) is slower than the RWD/SR (5.8) because it has the same motor power pushing the heavier battery weight. It may be the single motor’s maximum amperage is reached by the SR battery, so the extra amperage in the ER battery cannot add additional power.
Alternatively, they may have tuned the RWD/ER as the ‘maximum range’ configuration.

The AWD/SR (5.2) is slower because there is less amperage available for the two motors with the smaller battery, resulting in less HP when compared to the AWD/ER (4.8).
From Ford.com

SR RWD:

  • 0-60 6.1 seconds
  • 266 HP
LR RWD

  • 0-60 6.2 seconds
  • 290 HP
Again, my opinion only, and it seems that I may be wrong, the LR has greater HP than the SR so I would think the 0-60 would be quicker.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
From Ford.com

SR RWD:

  • 0-60 6.1 seconds
  • 266 HP
LR RWD

  • 0-60 6.2 seconds
  • 290 HP
Again, my opinion only, and it seems that I may be wrong, the LR has greater HP than the SR so I would think the 0-60 would be quicker.

.
Check the torque numbers, that's far more important when determining 0-60. From what I've read the battery range affects HP but torque is determined by the number/type of motors. SR models will have lower HP but the same torque as LR.
 

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
714 Posts
Check the torque numbers, that's far more important when determining 0-60. From what I've read the battery range affects HP but torque is determined by the number/type of motors. SR models will have lower HP but the same torque as LR.
I have a slightly different take:

One of the main advantages of BEV is their "instantaneous torque". Unlike an ICE, where toque is not available at low RPM, the torque of an electric motor, except for very, very low and very, very high where friction and heat become a factor, is rather constant and available at all speeds.

This is why the acceleration of the Tesla is often described as "instantaneous" and linear.

In summary with similar torque in the SR and LR, HP expressed in KW on the Ford site should control.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
I have a slightly different take:

One of the main advantages of BEV is their "instantaneous torque". Unlike an ICE, where toque is not available at low RPM, the torque of an electric motor, except for very, very low and very, very high where friction and heat become a factor, is rather constant and available at all speeds.

This is why the acceleration of the Tesla is often described as "instantaneous" and linear.

In summary with similar torque in the SR and LR, HP expressed in KW on the Ford site should control.

.
Yes, electric motors reach peak torque quickly enough to be perceived as instant (i.e. "instant torque") but that doesn't mean torque is magically infinite. The laws of physics apply and the motor can only create a certain amount of twisting force.

Ford's own numbers show torque is not linked to battery size but motors. RWD (one motor) - 306 lb-ft, AWD (one large motor, one smaller motor) - 417 lb-ft, GT (two large motors) - 612 lb-ft.
 

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
714 Posts
Yes, electric motors reach peak torque quickly enough to be perceived as instant (i.e. "instant torque") but that doesn't mean torque is magically infinite. The laws of physics apply and the motor can only create a certain amount of twisting force.

Ford's own numbers show torque is not linked to battery size but motors. RWD (one motor) - 306 lb-ft, AWD (one large motor, one smaller motor) - 417 lb-ft, GT (two large motors) - 612 lb-ft.
Never said that torque was infinite: What I did post that except for very, very low and high torque in an electric motor is rather constant - the torque curve is rather flat unlike the torque curve in an ICE.

With a flat torque curve, representing constant torque, HP is the only variable left that will determine acceleration.

As the LR has more HP than the SR, I believe the acceleration times for the RWD LR should be quicker than the times for the SR RWD.

As I posted the acceleration times for the Tesla go down as the size and range of the battery goes up. I see no reason why it should be different with the MME.


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Ford's own numbers show torque is not linked to battery size but motors. RWD (one motor) - 306 lb-ft, AWD (one large motor, one smaller motor) - 417 lb-ft, GT (two large motors) - 612 lb-ft.
So I still say there's no reason that the SR battery can't match the ER battery in AWD 0-60 performance other than Ford limiting the SR in the computer. Both SR and ER batteries have 417 lb-ft torque motors. 0-60 times should not only be identical, but I would think LOWER in the lighter SR car.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,214 Posts
From Ford.com

SR RWD:

  • 0-60 6.1 seconds
  • 266 HP
LR RWD

  • 0-60 6.2 seconds
  • 290 HP
Again, my opinion only, and it seems that I may be wrong, the LR has greater HP than the SR so I would think the 0-60 would be quicker.

.
Hmmm, I see different numbers from Ford’s website:

Extended Range:
6.1 seconds, 290 HP, 300 miles (RWD)
4.8 seconds, 346 HP, 270 miles (e-AWD)

Standard Range:
5.8 seconds, 266 HP, 230 miles (RWD)
5.2 seconds, 266 HP, 210 miles (e-AWD)

No matter which battery:
317 lb. -ft. Torque (RWD)
428 lb. -ft. Torque (e-AWD)

So, the amperage from the SR battery limits output to 266 HP, even with the extra motor. You get the additional torque, though, which gives you .6 seconds on the clock.

Its easy to see that the RWD/ER could lose .3 seconds dealing with the extra battery weight, even after gaining 24 HP from the bigger battery.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
106 Posts
I think you missed my post before yours
Since aerodynamic drag is not a major factor in 0-60, and with a single body type is not a differentiator, acceleration is going to be governed by power available, weight, and traction.

More weight (bigger battery) decreases acceleration from F=MA, but increases traction, which might increase acceleration more than the extra weight decreases it, or it might not, depending upon tire grip.

AWD always has more traction, at least with identical tires.
 

·
Registered
Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium AWD ER
Joined
·
21 Posts
The SR RWD if faster 0-60 than the ER RWD since torque is the same but is lighter weight and the ER only has 24 more hp. The ER RWD should be faster in a roll race. The ER AWD is faster then the SR AWD because It has 80 more hp.
 
41 - 54 of 54 Posts
Top