When are you going fully electric?

Fair enough :) sounds like a error. On the Mach-E price list there is a 6-7kWh discrepancy between the installed and usable so thought it may just have been an overly cautious battery rating on a new small EV.
 
Last edited:
233 miles on 43kwh? or 5.4m/kwh sounds dodgy.. rather optimistic..

Are we sure it's not a 55kwh battery as per VWs MEB platform which is 52kwh net, making it more a conservative 4.5m/kwh estimated efficiency?

I know it's not supposed to be based on MEB, but 5.4m/kwh as their rated efficiency means its absolutely top tier (which is possible) efficiency.
 
Last edited:
233 miles on 43kwh? or 5.4m/kwh sounds dodgy.. rather optimistic..

Are we sure it's not a 55kwh battery as per VWs MEB platform which is 52kwh net, making it more a 4.5m/kwh estimated efficiency?

The price list is quite specific, in multiple places (so it's not a singular typo if it is a mistake), that it's 53kWh installed, 43kWh usable.
 
OK .. so it's going to match the ford courier wltp it shares underpinning with .... and maybe slightly better cd
Underpinning the E-Transit Courier is a heavily modified version of the B2E platform used by the Ford Puma small SUV. It’s powered by a 43kWh (usable) battery pack that offers a range of up to 186 miles from a charge, and a front-mounted electric motor producing 134bhp and 290Nm of torque.
 
After months of looking into this whole EV thing, I picked this up yesterday.

uXGq8hdl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cd? It’s just a much bigger vehicle!
yes if you look at id7/saloon vs id buzz ratio ... suv's suck electrons
ID7 77/201kw 366 - 436 miles
id buzz 251 - 291 miles

so maybe puma is +40%


mg5 battery mgmt vs tesla learning ?
The coulomb counting with voltage compensation approach can still yield SoC estimate errors over 20% in LFP, even on brand-new batteries operating at normal temperatures. Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) is a measurement of a battery cell's voltage at a known state of charge when at resting equilibrium
...
I did read about the battery reading for the 3 taking significantly longer due to bigger resistors. So while the y and the s take like 20 minutes, the 3 takes 2+ hours.

Because Tesla wanted the Model 3 battery to be the most efficient it could be, Tesla decided to decrease the vampire drain as much as possible. One step they took to accomplish this was to increase the value of all of these resistors so that the vampire drain is minimized. The resistors in the Model 3 packs are apparently around 10x the value of the ones in the Model S/X packs. So what does this do to the BMS? Well, it makes the BMS wait a lot longer to take OCV readings, because the voltages take 10x longer to stabilize. Apparently, the voltages can stabilize enough to take OCV readings in the S/X packs within 15-20 minutes, but the Model 3 can take 3+ hours.

This means that the S/X BMS can run the calibration computations a lot easier and lot more often than the Model 3. 15-20 minutes with the contactor open is enough to get a set of OCV readings. This can happen while you're out shopping or at work, allowing the BMS to get OCV readings while the battery is at various states of charge, both high and low. This is great data for the BMS, and lets it run a good calibration fairly often.

On the Model 3, this doesn't happen. With frequent small trips, no OCV readings ever get taken because the voltage doesn't stabilize before you drive the car again. Also, many of us continuously run Sentry mode whenever we're not at home, and Sentry mode keeps the contactor engaged, thus no OCV readings can be taken no matter how long you wait. For many Model 3's, the only time OCV readings get taken is at home after a battery charge is completed, as that is the only time the car gets to open the contactor and sleep. Finally, 3 hours later, OCV readings get taken.

But that means that the OCV readings are ALWAYS at your battery charge level. If you always charge to 80%, then the only data the BMS is repeatedly collecting is 80% OCV readings. This isn't enough data to make the calibration computation accurate. So even though the readings are getting taken, and the calibration computation is being periodically run, the accuracy of the BMS never improves, and the estimated capacity vs. actual capacity continues to drift apart
 
I have no idea where you are going with all that. I was referring to the A part of cDA which you had overlooked…

Same with id7 and buzz. It’s the frontal area too!

Coloumb counting is just a thing. Why are you pretending it’s something new? My honda insight has this function. It’s critical to a BMS but you do have Peukert effect so bvotage so a good way to monitor backup SoC in case recalibration is needed.

I’m done talking EV tech with you now. Just a google regurgitator who has a massively warped sense of the value of your contributions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom