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.
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.