[Narwhal72]

We have been owners of a 2022 Mach E since July. Ordered it Sept. 2021 but didn't take delivery until July 9th.

So far we have loved it but I have a couple of questions about some bugs we have noticed. I was hoping someone may have experienced the same issues and might have some insight.

1. When I unlock the door with my FOB it doesn't always go into my seat position right away. When I start the car and press 2 (I am driver 2) on the door the seat goes into position. It also will not change into my radio presets. It stays stuck on a guest preset and I can't change it no matter what I do.
2. For the last couple of weeks, if I try to make a phone call through the console, the number will dial, but before I hear the ringtone the radio will cut back in and it won't pick up the call. It goes through on the other end but I can't hear anything. I have to hang up and dial again and it goes through the second time.

Also I thought I would share my experiences with the cold here in Wisconsin. In warm weather we usually get about a 200 mile range on a 90% charge. When it gets cold (down to single digits) the range dropped to 130 miles. We charge it every night and have it programmed to warm up before we leave in the morning through the app.

Thanks,
Andy

 

[RickMachE]

Make sure you are setting a Departure time, not just remote starting. If you need the range, use heated seats and steering wheel, with the heat set on Auto, and low fan speed, and as low a temp as you are comfortable with.

 

[Wayne-001]

We have been owners of a 2022 Mach E since July. Ordered it Sept. 2021 but didn't take delivery until July 9th.

So far we have loved it but I have a couple of questions about some bugs we have noticed. I was hoping someone may have experienced the same issues and might have some insight.

1. When I unlock the door with my FOB it doesn't always go into my seat position right away. When I start the car and press 2 (I am driver 2) on the door the seat goes into position. It also will not change into my radio presets. It stays stuck on a guest preset and I can't change it no matter what I do.
2. For the last couple of weeks, if I try to make a phone call through the console, the number will dial, but before I hear the ringtone the radio will cut back in and it won't pick up the call. It goes through on the other end but I can't hear anything. I have to hang up and dial again and it goes through the second time.

Also I thought I would share my experiences with the cold here in Wisconsin. In warm weather we usually get about a 200 mile range on a 90% charge. When it gets cold (down to single digits) the range dropped to 130 miles. We charge it every night and have it programmed to warm up before we leave in the morning through the app.

Thanks,
Andy

Do you have 2 PAAKs set up? If yes, then phones in Bluetooth range (40 m) can connect and confuse things. Not sure about the stubborn guest profile, but several others have had that issue and if you search through the forum threads, you may find the answer. I had an issue with being able to use CarPlay with my phone and ended up deleting my PAAK, deleting my phone in the car, and then resetting it up. That seems to solve the problem for me and I haven't had an issue since.

 

[Narwhal72]

Make sure you are setting a Departure time, not just remote starting. If you need the range, use heated seats and steering wheel, with the heat set on Auto, and low fan speed, and as low a temp as you are comfortable with.

That's what I have. A programmed departure time with the heated seats and steering wheel. Same with the environmental controls. Second lowest fan speed set to defrost as the windows fog up quickly without it.

 

[phosphineboy]

and low fan speed

Given that the climate fans in cars typically use about 144W at the highest speed and about 50W at the lowest, I don't think fan speed is a significant contributor to range loss. The heater certainly is, but switching the fan from the highest to the lowest speed only saves about 90W. If you drive for four hours, that's 0.36kWh of battery depletion, minus some small resistive losses. With the smallest Mach-E battery of 70kWh, that amounts to about 1/2% of the battery capacity. Depending on outside temperature and other factors, that's almost certainly less than 2 miles of range lost over a four hour drive. And if you're driving for four hours, you're probably stopping to charge anyway. IMHO, under routine conditions, you should set the fan speed to whatever makes you comfortable.

But yes, the heater will draw a lot more current than the fan does. Setting the temperature lower will help, and in a highly non-linear fashion. In other words, reducing the set temperature by two degrees Fahrenheit will save a lot more power than just a one degree reduction. (obviously, those with cars operating in Celsius will see that factor proportionally almost double per °C) Lower heat will help a lot to reduce range loss. The heated seats use less power, so using them in lieu of a 70°F cabin temperature will retain significant range. But even the heated seats will use quite a bit, and running them on low will probably save several miles (maybe even 10-15) over that hypothetical 4 hour drive.

It's disappointing that Ford didn't include heated rear seats. My son has taken to bringing a blanket with him in the car now because we keep the temp at 67°F for all these reasons. It's also weird that they did not include a heat pump instead of a resistive heater. It is almost always easier to move heat than generate it, and heat pumps had already been in use in EVs for years when the Mach-E came to market. In my opinion, that is the biggest oversight/omission in the design of the Mach-E.

 

[Wayne-001]

Given that the climate fans in cars typically use about 144W at the highest speed and about 50W at the lowest, I don't think fan speed is a significant contributor to range loss. The heater certainly is, but switching the fan from the highest to the lowest speed only saves about 90W. If you drive for four hours, that's 0.36kWh of battery depletion, minus some small resistive losses. With the smallest Mach-E battery of 70kWh, that amounts to about 1/2% of the battery capacity. Depending on outside temperature and other factors, that's almost certainly less than 2 miles of range lost over a four hour drive. And if you're driving for four hours, you're probably stopping to charge anyway. IMHO, under routine conditions, you should set the fan speed to whatever makes you comfortable.

But yes, the heater will draw a lot more current than the fan does. Setting the temperature lower will help, and in a highly non-linear fashion. In other words, reducing the set temperature by two degrees Fahrenheit will save a lot more power than just a one degree reduction. (obviously, those with cars operating in Celsius will see that factor proportionally almost double per °C) Lower heat will help a lot to reduce range loss. The heated seats use less power, so using them in lieu of a 70°F cabin temperature will retain significant range. But even the heated seats will use quite a bit, and running them on low will probably save several miles (maybe even 10-15) over that hypothetical 4 hour drive.

I would be surprised if the heater wattage and fan speed were not linked, but I do not know for sure. It wouldn't make sense to crank the heater and have the fan speed on low with all the excess heat lost in the chassis.

 

[RickMachE]

If you crank the fan speed, you pull more air than the heater can warm, so you feel colder. Then you raise the heater temp to compensate...

 

[phosphineboy]

If you crank the fan speed, you pull more air than the heater can warm, so you feel colder. Then you raise the heater temp to compensate...

I'm sorry but, to use a term you recently revived in another post, that's hogwash.

The amount of heat dissipated by a thermal body (like a resistive wire in your car's heater) is the same no matter how much air blows by it. Yes, the air coming from the vents is cooler, but since there is a higher volume of air, the energy density is lower. However, the energy per unit time is the same (minus some small losses due to conduction). Since temperature is essentially heat density, and the volume of air in the car is nearly constant (if you use recycled air) then the temperature in the car will reach the same steady state value regardless of fan speed. You can heat a small volume of air to a higher temperature or a large volume of air to a slightly lower temperature, but both will accomplish the same thing - depending on conductive losses, in about the same amount of time.

Your heating element is putting out a certain amount of power - a few hundred watts, probably. That power does not change with airflow. It is always dissipating that wattage. The air moving past it is warmed and takes on the same amount of energy. It doesn't matter if that air is slow or fast. If it's slow, it's warmer, yes. But that's a smaller volume of air, and when it is diluted to the cabin's volume, that same amount of energy becomes evenly distributed. Both volumes are diluted to the cabin volume, and since the same wattage is being output, the total energy density (temperature) will be the same.

It may be counterintuitive to those that haven't studied thermodynamics extensively, but complicated scientific principles frequently present themselves in a way that superficial analysis will result in the wrong conclusion. Like this time.

 

[Wayne-001]

I'm sorry but, to use a term you recently revived in another post, that's hogwash.

The amount of heat dissipated by a thermal body (like a resistive wire in your car's heater) is the same no matter how much air blows by it. Yes, the air coming from the vents is cooler, but since there is a higher volume of air, the energy density is lower. However, the energy per unit time is the same (minus some small losses due to conduction). Since temperature is essentially heat density, and the volume of air in the car is nearly constant (if you use recycled air) then the temperature in the car will reach the same steady state value regardless of fan speed. You can heat a small volume of air to a higher temperature or a large volume of air to a slightly lower temperature, but both will accomplish the same thing - depending on conductive losses, in about the same amount of time.

Your heating element is putting out a certain amount of power - a few hundred watts, probably. That power does not change with airflow. It is always dissipating that wattage. The air moving past it is warmed and takes on the same amount of energy. It doesn't matter if that air is slow or fast. If it's slow, it's warmer, yes. But that's a smaller volume of air, and when it is diluted to the cabin's volume, that same amount of energy becomes evenly distributed. Both volumes are diluted to the cabin volume, and since the same wattage is being output, the total energy density (temperature) will be the same.

It may be counterintuitive to those that haven't studied thermodynamics extensively, but complicated scientific principles frequently present themselves in a way that superficial analysis will result in the wrong conclusion. Like this time.

As someone who had a PhD in Applied Physics, I would say you are missing a subtle point. The heater heats the air flowing across it (heat exchanger), but also loses heat to blackbody radiation. In the limit of zero airflow, all heat is lost to radiation. And for that reason, if I were designing it, I would NOT make the heater always work at a constant wattage, but rather scale it to the fan speed setting. Higher fan speed removes heat from the heater elements faster, lowering the heater element temperature which reduces the loss due to radiation which scales as the 4th power of temperature. But at lower fan speed, it would be more efficient to lower the heater temperature (wattage) to reduce the percentage of radiative loss. But, as I mentioned above, I have no idea how the circuit is designed and I wouldn't trust anyone to know unless they looked at the circuitry.

Having said that, I agree with you that the fan speed itself is irrelevant as the fan takes almost no energy compared to the heater. It is the heater wattage (however it scales with fan speed) that is important and how efficiently the heat gets into the cabin. And, of course, heating just your seat and steering wheel uses a lot less energy than heating the entire cabin. And recirculate mode is not 100%, so heated cabin air is being lost to the outside as well further reducing the e-heat efficiency.

 

[juliann]

Welcome to the forum

snaptube vidmate​

 

[Humblest]

As someone who had a PhD in Applied Physics, I would say you are missing a subtle point. The heater heats the air flowing across it (heat exchanger), but also loses heat to blackbody radiation. In the limit of zero airflow, all heat is lost to radiation. And for that reason, if I were designing it, I would NOT make the heater always work at a constant wattage, but rather scale it to the fan speed setting. Higher fan speed removes heat from the heater elements faster, lowering the heater element temperature which reduces the loss due to radiation which scales as the 4th power of temperature. But at lower fan speed, it would be more efficient to lower the heater temperature (wattage) to reduce the percentage of radiative loss. But, as I mentioned above, I have no idea how the circuit is designed and I wouldn't trust anyone to know unless they looked at the circuitry.

Having said that, I agree with you that the fan speed itself is irrelevant as the fan takes almost no energy compared to the heater. It is the heater wattage (however it scales with fan speed) that is important and how efficiently the heat gets into the cabin. And, of course, heating just your seat and steering wheel uses a lot less energy than heating the entire cabin. And recirculate mode is not 100%, so heated cabin air is being lost to the outside as well further reducing the e-heat efficiency.

Taking a tangent here. I've noticed over the years that I tend to get drowsy if I drive with recirculate mode for more than a few minutes. Placebo effect? Perhaps, but a quick google search (which obviously makes me an expert) provides some supportive evidence that the CO2 levels in cars can rise to potentially unhealthy levels. I suspect the O2 levels also drop slightly. Thus for decades I've defaulted to recirculate off except when outside odors (exhaust, tobacco, etc.) become noticeable or predictable. My evidence for my assertion that I am right? I've been driving for 45 years and have yet to die.

 

[gv932n]

Taking a tangent here. I've noticed over the years that I tend to get drowsy if I drive with recirculate mode for more than a few minutes. Placebo effect? Perhaps, but a quick google search (which obviously makes me an expert) provides some supportive evidence that the CO2 levels in cars can rise to potentially unhealthy levels. I suspect the O2 levels also drop slightly. Thus for decades I've defaulted to recirculate off except when outside odors (exhaust, tobacco, etc.) become noticeable or predictable. My evidence for my assertion that I am right? I've been driving for 45 years and have yet to die.

How does CO2 get into the car on recirculate? The MME doesn't produce it, so it has to come from traffic. If you are recirculate mode, you shouldn't draw in any exhaust from other cars..

 

[Humblest]

How does CO2 get into the car on recirculate? The MME doesn't produce it, so it has to come from traffic. If you are recirculate mode, you shouldn't draw in any exhaust from other cars.. .

The CO2 comes from the occupants of the vehicle, exhaled as waste when we breath. Furthermore, we extract O2 from the environment when we breath. Thus O2 goes down and CO2 goes up.

 

[TyroneHicks]

Hello everyone! Welcome to this forum.