https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s
Tesla likes to maximize their EPA test cycle results to make the advertising look good, but it doesn't necessarily translate to real world results.
It's important to appreciate that the utility of energy efficiency metrics are different for ICE and EV. In an ICE car, fuel efficiency is pretty much just a stand-in for running costs and tailpipe pollution, so it makes sense for the test cycle to represent a plausible balance of city and highway driving.
But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about range in the context of long distance driving. What matters is highway cruising efficiency, not some emissions-focused test cycle. So when judging the range of an EV, it should be as simple as highway efficiency multiplied by usable battery capacity.
Most reviews also note that tesla clings to their bullshit remaining range number until the battery is near depletion then suddenly drops. Other EVs have a remaining distance gauge that closely matches actual remaining range.
It's not enough of a difference to account for the range deficit. Add on 12.6 miles for the Model Y and 7.3 miles for the Mach E. The Mustang still comes out on top:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131706_tesla-saves-mor...
> But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about range in the context of long distance driving.
Yes, the Mach E does it better.
> What matters is highway cruising efficiency
No. What matters is how far you can drive for the money you spent.
My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery. Its battery pack is 75 kWh nominal. The battery pack in the Mach E is quite large, it's basically 99 kWh nominal."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s&t=61s
Note that the above are nominal (i.e. physical) battery capacities. Ford generally promotes the usable capacity of the battery, which is 88 kWh. The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction.
You correctly point out that what matters is how far you can drive for the money you spent. I agree. When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.
It isn't unknown and it's not a similar fraction. It's 73 kWh usable in the Model Y:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxTJzZ5sJY
A better question is why does Tesla not reveal such a basic detail in its marketing.
> When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.
You aren't going to see much benefit from that. The difference is 6%.
The Mustang Mach E is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Model Y with the current incentives that it qualifies for. The California Route 1 trim is cheaper even without incentives and gets even more range because it's rear wheel drive. That's a lot of charging to make up the difference.
Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. The vehicle with a 88 kWh "usable" capacity goes a little bit further on the highway compared to the vehicle with a 73 kWh "usable" capacity. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?
My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery." That was my point. You're making another point and I'm not disagreeing with it.
It isn't weird that car buyers consider how much the car will cost them.
> Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?
This has all been a surprise to you. You're not across the detail but that's okay. Now you know more.
our 2019 100D promised 491 kilometres of electrically-powered zero emission motoring while the Porsche’s said the Taycan would only be able to manage 345 km.
the Porsche had almost exactly delivered its expected range — 342 km according to our calculations, versus its original 345-km claim — the Model S was all but as dead as a door-nail at 355 klicks. For the record, the Tesla underperformed its predicted range by some 136 kilometres, or negative 27 per cent, while the Taycan exceeded its EPA rating by 15 klicks (more than four per cent).