@@elijahtucker7938 Elijah reasonable at best & I will make a prediction if Sandy hands over the role to him fully the viewing figures will take a very big drop. Take Top Gear as an example as soon as Clarkson left it dived no matter who they replaced him with & to prove that his new Clarkson farm program has been a massive hit.
@@gegwen7440 I agree completely. I'm just saying he did a good job. I like the fact that Sandy gives people an opportunity to be on camera. No one can ever hope to be better than sandy, but why hate them fo contributing.
@@gegwen7440 It is extremely difficult to appear natural, engaging and confident in front of a camera and usually takes a lot of effort and practice to get there. Such training usually involves being videoed and critically watching one's results vs a careful study of an excellent presenter. Ben's thorough knowledge of the subject is the least of his worries and will help him to always have something useful, ready to say; the 'soft skills' bit is always difficult to hit the right balance. The sign of a great presenter is that listeners don't notice the presenter so much but easily hears, absorbs and recalls the content of the message and positively passes that word on to others.
@@2nd3rd1st And Ford is only able to deliver about 6,500 Mach-Es per quarter so far. One has to ask how long it will take them to ramp the F150 Lightning in any meaningful numbers without cannibalising batteries from the Mach-E. I sense troubled waters for Ford’s EV production.
Not a structural pack in the same way Tesla's is planned though, it's a structural box, the cells themselves are surely not taking any structural load?
It's all Apples and Oranges .... integration of pack into vehicle for crash worthiness does make pack weight a useless metric.... as is EPA range, since some companies over charge batteries, or do the extended EPA testing, or use software tweeks to eek out more mileage during EPA testing only.. real World range values can be very different.
@@KrustyKlown nonsense, the structural rigidity is taken from the car and transfered to the battery pack and its an awesome thing to do, it will also significantly help reduce the weight of the car shelf in the future with the use of more aluminium.
That’s great to hear! There wasn’t a single woman in my “vehicle dynamics” or Combustion Engines for Agriculture “ classes at Cornell Engineering in the 1980s.
Love the musical intro… seriously sharpening up video production each time. Great insights + video production and hold on.. this channel is gonna skyrocket! Thanks Munro tram for another awesome post!
I love when Sandy is surprised and excited by good design and changes from the norm for better. Keep calling the duds out and help force companies to improve.
Another great teardown video...I'm nowhere to being an engineer but learn a lot form these videos as well as appreciate the knowledge that you have. Thank you very much Sandy and Munro and Associates!
That "bad" weld @ 11:30 is actually what you want. The "creator" at the end of an aluminum MIG weld is prone to cracking. By doubling back a bit, you have a lot more reinforcement surrounding the creator to help prevent cracking.
Great teardown as always. I know someone who was so happy to rid himself of the BMW i3. He said practical range is more like 60 miles and he bought it for commuting. He spent more time charging (obviously). Perhaps good vehicle for city street but not so practical anywhere else.
Friendly feedback. It is great to see more people from team talk and represent the breakdown. It is little off that Sandy talks most of time and guys then talk just a bit. Not sure how the overall recording works. Feels like either go further with balance or have talk just Sandy. Content is priceless as always. Thank you!
And don't forget that ME standard battery is 75kWh of which only 68kWh is available to preserve battery life. When Tesla reports 75kWh -- it's total. Also the Tesla's range is grossly overstated. The credible tests show ME has slightly better range than Tesla: www.edmunds.com/car-news/tested-2021-ford-mustang-mach-e-standard-range-rwd-beats-epa-range-by-34-miles.html
Really cool to see Ford building structural support into their battery pack! In a decade or two we're going to look back on structural batteries and think it was the most obvious thing in the world, but as the e-tron and i-pace show it's not quite obvious enough yet. Overall looks like Ford is doing a pretty great job so far, so I'm happy for them. Thanks for the excellent analysis!
@@bluetoad2668 And did you hear about all the problems Tesla has? Doors that sometimes work, windows that sometimes work, screen blackouts, panel gets, mismatch plastics, bad build quality stated by several other online reviewers of automobile industry, over promised under delivered range and my favorite, waiting three to four weeks for a flatbed truck to come in pick up the car for repair. On top of you can't buy parts for your own repair.
I think your videos are great. I'm not an engineer, so I appreciate the engineering for dummies approach. It does become painfully obvious that some things were rushed to market
Yes. Are they using pouch batteries? And what is the chemistry? And what is the installed capacity? - Fords supposedly has a reserve capacity to not go below a certain charge percentage. It will be very interesting to see!
@@pierre.a.larsen - For the extended range battery: 98,8 kWh actual, 88 kWh usable. So there's nearly a 11 kWh buffer. It is believed the buffer is used on both the bottom and top end of the battery to protect full battery drain (SOC 0%) and full chargers (SOC 100%) scenarios, which should be avoided as much as possible, to help lengthen the life of battery. Some have postulated that when the battery starts to lose capacity, Ford will make some or all of the buffer available for use, similar to what I believe Tesla does (or will do).
I looked up what I needed and did all the math. The short answer, Tesla is best - in pretty much everything. mile/Kg car weight Tesla about .17 M/KG. the only one close is the bolt @ .159. Mach-E = .105 miles/KwH Tesla 4.1-2 Bolt = 4.32!!! Mach-E =3.1 battery % weight Bolt 26.83% Tesla 24.7% mach-E 24.25% !! jag/Audi suck in all metrics. no surprise.
The mass of the pack is meaningless for range. The mass of the entire car is what matters. Their are lots of factors that contribute to range and most are with the car, not the pack.
If I were a major manufacturer building an EV, I'd be calling Munro and Associates and getting their assistance on improving my EV. The German's seem to need a lot of help getting this right. I'm happy to see Ford doing a good job except for all the crazy tubes and pipes connecting things together below the frunk. I'd bet Sandy and company could help with that too. I have no doubt that millions can saved by hiring these guys.
Future Teslas: batteries, in the way they are arranged, are structural (load carriers) Ford's Mach-E: battery BOX is structural (load carrier) Just to elaborate for somebody not in the loop on how similar verbiage here means different things
@@Steph1 supposedly.. I’m no expert.. the rigidity of using all the batteries to create the bond between top and bottom of the battery box is going to allow a significantly more rigid structure, while simultaneously reducing weight that would otherwise be needed to be added to structural rigidity.. you are using something that would be there already, the batteries. Now.. what’s the down side, is my question. If that Tesla battery gets seriously torqued in an accident.. those batteries take more brunt of the impact? How do you keep them stable and not causing a worse fire hazard than li ion batteries already have.. maybe it’s the idea that, if the accident is bad enough to wreck that battery pack, it’s unsurvivable anyway.. idk
@@Steph1 - Structural battery 'Box' does not reduce vehicle weight. ( They just moved it: More structure on box, and less on unibody ) - Structural 'battery' takes advantage of each cells physical structure, allowing less structure on box AND less on unibody, giving overall weight savings. - imo the safety of both designs would be subject to design and testing. Using the cell structure likely takes more care and cooperation between engineers/departments.
The more detailed breakdowns like these are always my favorites. I really hope you'll open up then pack and give us a video of the battery engineering. Can't wait to see the motor teardown!
15:30 And your range issues are based on two disconnects. First, Tesla uses a different EPA testing cycle, which inflates their range relative to the others by ~15%. Second, the format of the vehicle has as much of an impact as anything else, so larger, heavier vehicles will not go as far on a given amount of energy.
@@grant3226 That's not what I'm saying. The EPA offers a choice of two testing cycles. One is more simplistic, and simply multiplies the calculated range by 0.7. The other, provides additional tests that can be used to offset that reduction, and that is the EPA cycle that Tesla uses. For real-world driving, the more conservative EPA test appears to be far more accurate, while Tesla's chosen cycle appears overly optimistic. As an example, on paper, the Tesla Model 3 LR has ~10% more range than the Ford Mustang Mach-E RWD Extended Range. However, in most real-world scenarios, the Mach-E RWD Extended Range has the same or better range than the Model 3 LR.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Yes, there's a lot of specific details that are being glossed over here. The most comparable Tesla to the Audi e-Tron is the Model X, which is omitted from this list. A comparison of those two vehicles would show that Tesla's "advantage" is not as significant as Sandy is purporting it to be. The other detail that Sandy isn't addressing with the battery weight is that Audi is using more power-dense battery cells with a significant buffer that Tesla isn't using. That's why the e-Tron will charge to "full" in about 45 minutes, or at least 15 to 20 minutes faster than the fastest charging Teslas can go from 0% to full.
Those are manually done welds. On the right side the welder has done a second pass to fill gaps/holes. The left side has too inconsistent travel speed between the pulses in order to be a robot weld.
Yes, then you'll see the Bolt is actually worse than the iPace. The i3 is by far the worst, but maybe there's also an overhead penalty for a small battery pack that comes into play here?
@@itekani The i3 is the worst because Munro is showing data for a long-obsolete version of the i3 battery (called "60 Ah" by BMW), and comparing it to current models of other vehicles. The newest i3 battery ("120 Ah") has twice the capacity for about the same mass. Even the Bolt is about 10% better if you use the current version instead of the one that has been out for a few years.
@@brianb-p6586 It may be an issue of them showing internal data. If they've torn down an i3, then that may be the numbers shown. However, that teardown may have occurred quite a while ago.
@@arthurmoore9488 Yes, the i3 number is presumably from an old Munro teardown... but it still makes no sense to use it in this comparison. If we're doing a historical comparison, put years on each entry and include the GM EV-1 and something from 1915.
The battery connection points are almost identical to the Ford Ranger Electric, though slightly different format/scale. In fact, the entire construction strategy outside of the exterior structural battery case is similar (which would have to be different for body on frame). I guess some things don't really change that much, even after 20+ years.
Another golden made video. Yes, electric vehicles is all about efficiency, (weight, aerodinamics, light composite materials). Audi needs a new Ferdinand Piech.
Isn't the Bolt with 259 miles range (2020~2021 models) using a 66kWh rated (62.7kWh actual) battery? It's the older models with 238 mile range that had a 60kWh rated battery. Might need to adjust those Bolt pack numbers slightly.
Sandy, being the early days of EVs, there is opportunity to select the units for comparisons of efficiency and effectiveness. If you add 3 columns to your chart, capacity/battery weight, capacity/range and range/weight, you get a great set of comparison numbers if express the results in Joule/gram (J/g), Joule/metre (J/m) and metre/gram (m/g). The first metric yields a range of 618 J/g down to 340 J/g, the second metric yields a range of 533 J/m up to 975 J/m, and the third metric a range of 1.159 m/g down to 0.502 m/g. On the third metric, only the Teslas score over 1.0.
Great video, very interesting and educational. I still wonder why the sound goes off from time to time... Like for specific words. Anyone curious about it?
Why isn't the ID4 on their battery comparison list. I'm sure I recall Sandy complaining that the ID4 pack with strong Ali extrusions was heavy and over-engineered. But this one with similar side extrusions is 'good engineering'. Not sure about the consistency here. We didn't get to hear what the bottom cover is made of.
The rocker panel seems to be regular mild steel. Must be a rust/saltwater trap in winter areas with salted roads? And the battery case is aluminium? Galvanised corrosion?
It is easy to explain the difference in welds: the car was built on a Monday, and the robot who did the diver-side welds was coming off a 2 day oil bender.
We have a 2021 California Route 1 and love it. Wish it could charge faster but we do have 240 at home and free charging via Chargepoint less than a mile away.
Would be interesting to see how much torsional and bending deflection a given pack will have per unit force. Obviously how it's attached to the body-in-white also has an effect. I'm sure M&A has an FEA model somewhere...
so 7.14kg per kwh.. 68kwh pack = 485.. There long range is 88kwh so ~ 645-650kg.. Guess the benchmark in body in white vs. structure pack will be a Giga Berlin / Giga Texas Model Y as a comparison structure pack. Also on that chart through OBD and software the Model 3 and Y have 82kwh now as reference - Unsure if the weight has gone up or not but I believe its neutral or less than what was the original 3/Y tear down you folks did. Good video and thanks for doing this on public record, love it!
The brake lines hidden by the 1000# battery... looks like a nightmare when they need to be replaced. In salt country, it's not uncommon to only get 10 years before brake lines rust through.
I'm a little confused about the Model 3/Y battery info. My MY (performance-performance) is a May 2020 build. With the asymmetric 21's it's stated range is 285mi because of the wheels. After a year and only supercharging about 10 times we only get 275mi at full charge. It is my understanding that we have a 78 Kwh battery. If we do do have a 75 Kwh battery why does the chart show the model 3 range at 310 miles vs the 315 miles for the heavier Model Y?
Munro live... In harsh cold climates is it an advantage to cover the brake lines between car and battery to protect them, or is it a huge disadvantage as they will need to remove the battery pack to replace the brake lines?
Don't forget about the salty gunk which will accumulate up there, corroding the lines. To be fair to Ford, if the pack is as wide as the vehicle can accommodate, there really isn't anywhere else to put the brake lines.
🏆 🎥 🎬 🎞 *Munro Live - Production & Post* I have come back again to this video to make a point of congratulating the entire Munro Live Production Team - with every episode, the polish get more shine. From the evident pre-shoot story-boarding to the skilful editing and viewer-minded camera work, the entire production excels at the highest level. A well worthy achievement on the eve of reaching the 200,000 subscriber mark.
I’ve got to imagine the insurance Munro has to carry is a bit on the insane side - human and materials risks. Definite respect for what Munro does here!
And you brought a 8 years old BMW i3 battery weight, capacity in that comparison table? BMW at 43 kWh with the same dimensions since 2019. It is called 120 Ah battery model and as far as I can remember it is 13 kg heavier then the 22 kWh (it called 60 Ah) battery was. Nice technical vid anyway. Thank you!
I agree 100% that just throwing a bigger battery is not an answer to better range or efficiency, lighter weight, better forward looking engineering and multi speed gearboxes to keep the motor in it's sweet spot are key. Also need much improved energy capture technology regarding regen ie., Ultra Capacitors.
Those slotted locating brackets look like they could serve to allow the battery to move backwards in a frontal collision, and even push it down and out of the brackets entirely if the force is large enough. They happen to be in line with the load carrying members of the front impact structure too. The strength of the battery box to be used in such a way would also help justify making it a structural member.
would be interesting to see how modular Ford go with other EV offerings. I am sure this is a learning exercise and things will change, but I bet much is this engineering will be in every Ford product going forward
I think I understood you to say that the *only* thing holding up the pack is some vertical threaded bolts running down both sides of the pack. So, how resistant to vibrations will those bolts be? Will they stay put? I couldn't get the answer out of your review.
@@jetah50 These bolts can be removed with a driver. You don't have to drill them out. If bolts can be removed with a driver, they can vibrate out. Now it's just a question of vibration frequencies and amplitudes. If the right frequencies and amplitudes to vibrate them out will never reach the bolts, then they're okay. I'm asking the question because what we saw in the Mach-E's HVAC system was tons and tons of threaded screws, 60 degrees, I think. Possibly the worst fasteners you could imagine for an automobile that moves and vibrates. It doesn't *look* like Ford's engineers spent any time at all worrying about screws vibrating out. It makes me wonder just how much attention they paid to these bolts.
@@Urgelt i've done mechanic work for a while and a little thread locker is all you need. they didnt use a wrench with a little torque on it when it was broken free.
Every component of your car is held in by bolts. When was the last time any of them fell out? It's not a problem, just as the vertical bolts that hold subframes to vehicles are not problems.
@@brianb-p6586 Do you know how to use a search engine? Because your assertion is ridiculously easy to check if you use one. People have had bolts fall out of their cars since there have been cars. Before that, bolts fell out of carriages and wagons. And bolts are still dropping out of cars. Sometimes, bolts falling out of cars necessitates a recall. That happened to GM in 2014. It was quite a large recall, too. Engineers do have a lot of control over how they will secure a bolt and what vibrations can get to it. But sometimes, things happen engineers did not expect. Murphy is alive and well. I am not predicting that Ford's battery tray bolts will fall out. But it did strike me as awfully confident of Ford to secure that tray with nothing but vertical bolts. Good decision? If it was a bad one, NHTSA will eventually come calling.
Talking about losses in wires, it will also be interesting to see how much the 4680 cell, with the tabless electrode, reduces resistance which will contribute to improved range and faster, cooler charging.
The battery pack comparison is more complicated than it looks the first glance. For example, E-tron has a huge low and top buffer and the actual range is significantly higher than EPA quoted. A huge buffer also allows them to charge 150KW flat up to >80% which makes it even faster overall on long trips.
Fascinating to hear your comments while looking at the components. I'm interested in this vehicle but even though many good design features I'll wait till second or third year to allow first run issues or changes to be incorporated. Plus to see what actual dependability is.
What about the newer BMW I3? The 120Ah. I think it’s not much heavier then the 60Ah battery (22kWh) Then you’ll get actually a very nice weight/range ratio. Why mentioning the very first I3?
Munro probably tore down the old 60 Ah battery, so they have that data, and they don't bother to keep up so they don't even realize how outdated it is.
7:14 I think the reason the brake lines are located that way is to permit dropping the battery without disturbing brake lines. Makes perfect sense to me.
if the battery catches fire in the motion, it can melt the brake lines, and you are left with only parking brake if you still have power to operate it.
All of this massive effort for vehicles that don't have enough range and don't recharge quickly enough proves the current state of the art of battery technology is still in its "Bronze Age" The company that solves this battery problem will blow Amazon off the map in sales
I'm wondering about corrosion between the pack and the body. Obviously the SMC is immune but if you get road salt solution trapped between the pack and the body, it's going to sit there and eat the floorpan up. Is there any angle to the pack mounting, so that that area could drain when parked?
It would be interesting to know how much in lb. of the mock-e battery structure exists for body support/stiffening and how it compares to the structural battery Tesla is working on.
I too would like to see the total weights of the cars included and for us old school guys, the weights in pounds. Keep up the good work I can't wait for the next installment. Thanks
As far as I know, all current cars/trucks/ev's are designed and build using metric, even in the US. Therefore, all the technical specs are in metric as it's meant for engineers and designers world wide to read.
Is the 485 kg battery only held up by vertically oriented bolts! Why haven’t they used horizontally oriented pin / bolts somewhere so the is a support in shear? As Sandy has said, many many times, threaded fasteners alone come undone over time especially in a vibrating environment. Surprised!
Take a look at the subframes under any car: they hang from the unibody, they are held in by vertical bolts (typically four), and they don't fall out. In decades of maintaining (and occasionally modifying) my own vehicles, I've never seen a bolt come loose.
Mach-E standard range has 75.7 KWh worth of cells and 68kWh in current charge use profiles allowed for use.... Weight tables should be based on actual cell capacity included and marketed usable capacity...which could be tweaked later if reliability is high enough.
Ben is killing it. Nice to see him get comfortable in front of the camera. Can't wait for that Plaid first impression
No way is he killing it (as you say) and although better I doubt that he will ever really fit into the role to the degree that Sandy does.
@@gegwen7440 No one will fit Munro's shoes, but he does a good job.
@@elijahtucker7938 Elijah reasonable at best & I will make a prediction if Sandy hands over the role to him fully the viewing figures will take a very big drop.
Take Top Gear as an example as soon as Clarkson left it dived no matter who they replaced him with & to prove that his new Clarkson farm program has been a massive hit.
@@gegwen7440 I agree completely. I'm just saying he did a good job. I like the fact that Sandy gives people an opportunity to be on camera. No one can ever hope to be better than sandy, but why hate them fo contributing.
@@gegwen7440 It is extremely difficult to appear natural, engaging and confident in front of a camera and usually takes a lot of effort and practice to get there. Such training usually involves being videoed and critically watching one's results vs a careful study of an excellent presenter. Ben's thorough knowledge of the subject is the least of his worries and will help him to always have something useful, ready to say; the 'soft skills' bit is always difficult to hit the right balance.
The sign of a great presenter is that listeners don't notice the presenter so much but easily hears, absorbs and recalls the content of the message and positively passes that word on to others.
The battery pack comparison chart was an eye opener. Thanks for posting Sandy.
Sure thing!
Wow, the e-tron and i-pace are missing the boat big time
@@2nd3rd1st And Ford is only able to deliver about 6,500 Mach-Es per quarter so far. One has to ask how long it will take them to ramp the F150 Lightning in any meaningful numbers without cannibalising batteries from the Mach-E. I sense troubled waters for Ford’s EV production.
@@2nd3rd1st The e-Tron is heavy (5,699 lbs.) and slow (0-60 in 5.7) when compared to Tesla
@@wattlebough Ford under promised and over delivered on the range. Tesla over promised and under delivered on the range. #FACTS
Thanks Sandy and team for all these great breakdowns.
You're welcome!!
Since the battery housing is an integral part of the structure, it would be helpful to include the total vehicle weight in that comparison chart.
Not a structural pack in the same way Tesla's is planned though, it's a structural box, the cells themselves are surely not taking any structural load?
@@bluetoad2668 the battery cells in tesla next pack will also not take the impact
It's all Apples and Oranges .... integration of pack into vehicle for crash worthiness does make pack weight a useless metric.... as is EPA range, since some companies over charge batteries, or do the extended EPA testing, or use software tweeks to eek out more mileage during EPA testing only.. real World range values can be very different.
@@KrustyKlown nonsense, the structural rigidity is taken from the car and transfered to the battery pack and its an awesome thing to do, it will also significantly help reduce the weight of the car shelf in the future with the use of more aluminium.
@@alanmay7929 The Tesla 4680 battery cells themselves will be a structural component of the car.
Anyone else love Sandy? Keep it up - so insightful, and a treasure to the Engineering and EV communities.
I'm a simple man. I see a Munro Live post: I click the like button, and then watch the video.
What a great fan!!
Watching Sandy and Ben I’ve gained grater appreciation of the engineering profession!
I'm one of the girls who likes to follow Munro Live on TH-cam. It's a lot like going to college to learn about cars.
That’s great to hear! There wasn’t a single woman in my “vehicle dynamics” or Combustion Engines for Agriculture “ classes at Cornell Engineering in the 1980s.
My job has nothing at all to do with engineering, but I very much enjoy your videos! Looking forward to the plaid series.
Thank you very much!
Love these breakdowns. Thanks Sandy and Munro Live Team.
Glad you enjoy them!
The final chart is brutal 😨
Love the musical intro… seriously sharpening up video production each time. Great insights + video production and hold on.. this channel is gonna skyrocket! Thanks Munro tram for another awesome post!
Much appreciated!
Another content rich clip, thx. Great to see Ben becoming more relaxed in his duo role.
This MacE just gets more and more interesting - in a good way - thank you for sharing all these videos
I was half expecting Sandy to suggest that they should replace the battery mounting screws with plastic clip fasteners :)
Sandy, you are educating the planet, and saving the planet. Another super Munro Live.
Just sitting down to a fresh cup of coffee and seeing this video pop up in my feed made my day!
I was actually sitting with a fresh cup of coffee and Blueberry muffins! LOL
Same here!
Any plans to look into the Korean E-GMP platform, Ioniq 5 & Ev6?
Ioniq 5! Let's goooooo
I really hope so. The Ioniq5 is an EV I’m seriously interested in.
rumor has it they ordered TWO of them.... but..... they both burst into flames before they could get their hands on them
LOL, @0:27, wincing and rapidly opening & closing one's eyes does not a pair of safety goggles make!
I love when Sandy is surprised and excited by good design and changes from the norm for better.
Keep calling the duds out and help force companies to improve.
Another great teardown video...I'm nowhere to being an engineer but learn a lot form these videos as well as appreciate the knowledge that you have. Thank you very much Sandy and Munro and Associates!
Thanks Andrew
That "bad" weld @ 11:30 is actually what you want. The "creator" at the end of an aluminum MIG weld is prone to cracking. By doubling back a bit, you have a lot more reinforcement surrounding the creator to help prevent cracking.
I feel like an "Industry Insider" after watching these videos ! :)
What a great video! Thank you, keep’em coming! Let’s see Audi and Jaguar take up that offer
Great teardown as always. I know someone who was so happy to rid himself of the BMW i3. He said practical range is more like 60 miles and he bought it for commuting. He spent more time charging (obviously). Perhaps good vehicle for city street but not so practical anywhere else.
Friendly feedback. It is great to see more people from team talk and represent the breakdown. It is little off that Sandy talks most of time and guys then talk just a bit. Not sure how the overall recording works. Feels like either go further with balance or have talk just Sandy.
Content is priceless as always. Thank you!
It's a good thing Sandy offers his services once in a while during a video. This kind of content shouldn't basically be for free.
Aside from the Mach-E did any of those other vehicles incorporate structural components into the battery pack? Hard to compare the kg/kWh ratio.
I was thinking the exact same thing! You need to compare Apples to Apples!!!
And the mileage, there’re all different types of vehicles.
@@jetking3079 not really. Model 3 and Model Y covered all the others. None of them were busses or trucks.
And don't forget that ME standard battery is 75kWh of which only 68kWh is available to preserve battery life. When Tesla reports 75kWh -- it's total. Also the Tesla's range is grossly overstated. The credible tests show ME has slightly better range than Tesla: www.edmunds.com/car-news/tested-2021-ford-mustang-mach-e-standard-range-rwd-beats-epa-range-by-34-miles.html
@@JohnSmith-uy2jg But it is not structural, Ford’s is! Tesla is moving in this direction in upcoming modifications!
Production quality is superb. Nice job Sandy, Ben & crew!
I love these videos. Makes me a better engineer.
Really cool to see Ford building structural support into their battery pack! In a decade or two we're going to look back on structural batteries and think it was the most obvious thing in the world, but as the e-tron and i-pace show it's not quite obvious enough yet.
Overall looks like Ford is doing a pretty great job so far, so I'm happy for them. Thanks for the excellent analysis!
Great job? Did you see the thermal management part? Hardly the best engineering.
@@bluetoad2668 And did you hear about all the problems Tesla has?
Doors that sometimes work, windows that sometimes work, screen blackouts, panel gets, mismatch plastics, bad build quality stated by several other online reviewers of automobile industry, over promised under delivered range and my favorite, waiting three to four weeks for a flatbed truck to come in pick up the car for repair. On top of you can't buy parts for your own repair.
@@bluetoad2668 it's probably a slightly lousy engineering design, but it's efficient.
Great job?
They used a structural pack and managed to ADD weight with less energy.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Similar to your mother right?
Wow Munro you've starting to get some good video production going on there. Very nice to see.
Excellent explanation to the battery tray welds. Keep up the great work Ben and Sandy!!
I think your videos are great. I'm not an engineer, so I appreciate the engineering for dummies approach. It does become painfully obvious that some things were rushed to market
Great. Looking forward to the motor stripdown too.
i am looking forward to getting into that battery...... another good start to a week for your fans..
Yes. Are they using pouch batteries? And what is the chemistry? And what is the installed capacity? - Fords supposedly has a reserve capacity to not go below a certain charge percentage. It will be very interesting to see!
@@pierre.a.larsen - For the extended range battery: 98,8 kWh actual, 88 kWh usable. So there's nearly a 11 kWh buffer. It is believed the buffer is used on both the bottom and top end of the battery to protect full battery drain (SOC 0%) and full chargers (SOC 100%) scenarios, which should be avoided as much as possible, to help lengthen the life of battery. Some have postulated that when the battery starts to lose capacity, Ford will make some or all of the buffer available for use, similar to what I believe Tesla does (or will do).
It would be interesting to see you opinion on the new Hyundai and Kia. These two cars tend to get ignored but in my view are great car manufacturers
They have to be available first.
Informative. It would be useful to normalize the mass of the pack per range of the vehicle. How much mass per distance in each pack.
Range is based on EPA values which are too variable to take seriously given their inconsistency in testing standards (two vs five cycle).
I’d rather see it as kWh per pound or kIlogram
Yes devide range/weight, range/kwh, weight/kwh or the other way around , so they are all on even footing
I looked up what I needed and did all the math. The short answer, Tesla is best - in pretty much everything. mile/Kg car weight Tesla about .17 M/KG. the only one close is the bolt @ .159. Mach-E = .105
miles/KwH Tesla 4.1-2 Bolt = 4.32!!! Mach-E =3.1
battery % weight Bolt 26.83% Tesla 24.7% mach-E 24.25% !!
jag/Audi suck in all metrics. no surprise.
The mass of the pack is meaningless for range. The mass of the entire car is what matters. Their are lots of factors that contribute to range and most are with the car, not the pack.
I would love to see this done at 20,000 miles. I wonder how much salt and road schmutz end up on top of the battery.
If I were a major manufacturer building an EV, I'd be calling Munro and Associates and getting their assistance on improving my EV. The German's seem to need a lot of help getting this right. I'm happy to see Ford doing a good job except for all the crazy tubes and pipes connecting things together below the frunk. I'd bet Sandy and company could help with that too. I have no doubt that millions can saved by hiring these guys.
Future Teslas: batteries, in the way they are arranged, are structural (load carriers)
Ford's Mach-E: battery BOX is structural (load carrier)
Just to elaborate for somebody not in the loop on how similar verbiage here means different things
And what is the difference in pros and cons?
@@Steph1 supposedly.. I’m no expert.. the rigidity of using all the batteries to create the bond between top and bottom of the battery box is going to allow a significantly more rigid structure, while simultaneously reducing weight that would otherwise be needed to be added to structural rigidity.. you are using something that would be there already, the batteries. Now.. what’s the down side, is my question. If that Tesla battery gets seriously torqued in an accident.. those batteries take more brunt of the impact? How do you keep them stable and not causing a worse fire hazard than li ion batteries already have.. maybe it’s the idea that, if the accident is bad enough to wreck that battery pack, it’s unsurvivable anyway.. idk
@@Steph1
- Structural battery 'Box' does not reduce vehicle weight. ( They just moved it: More structure on box, and less on unibody )
- Structural 'battery' takes advantage of each cells physical structure, allowing less structure on box AND less on unibody, giving overall weight savings.
- imo the safety of both designs would be subject to design and testing. Using the cell structure likely takes more care and cooperation between engineers/departments.
Thank You for continuing to make great informative videos about EVs. Your hard work is appreciated!
Can’t wait for plaid model s, bought my sticker already!
Oh yes, those burn well, and so thoughtful of them to prevent doors from opening when the power goes down. 😂
Did you get it yet?
The more detailed breakdowns like these are always my favorites. I really hope you'll open up then pack and give us a video of the battery engineering.
Can't wait to see the motor teardown!
And the Porsche EV Turbo mass is … oh, wait. Our scale only goes too 800.
Great video. Love my mach E. Getting 329 miles to a full charge.
In the 100kwh pack they increase the height of the battery in the rear under the 2nd row. What do they use that space for on your example?
15:30 And your range issues are based on two disconnects. First, Tesla uses a different EPA testing cycle, which inflates their range relative to the others by ~15%. Second, the format of the vehicle has as much of an impact as anything else, so larger, heavier vehicles will not go as far on a given amount of energy.
Agreed, they use EPA instead of the now accepted WLTP which is more real world performance.
Larger, heavier vehicles with heavier battery packs in relation to the pack size.
Just not efficient.
@@grant3226
My understanding was (is) that EPA is closer to real world.
@@grant3226 That's not what I'm saying. The EPA offers a choice of two testing cycles. One is more simplistic, and simply multiplies the calculated range by 0.7. The other, provides additional tests that can be used to offset that reduction, and that is the EPA cycle that Tesla uses. For real-world driving, the more conservative EPA test appears to be far more accurate, while Tesla's chosen cycle appears overly optimistic.
As an example, on paper, the Tesla Model 3 LR has ~10% more range than the Ford Mustang Mach-E RWD Extended Range. However, in most real-world scenarios, the Mach-E RWD Extended Range has the same or better range than the Model 3 LR.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Yes, there's a lot of specific details that are being glossed over here. The most comparable Tesla to the Audi e-Tron is the Model X, which is omitted from this list. A comparison of those two vehicles would show that Tesla's "advantage" is not as significant as Sandy is purporting it to be.
The other detail that Sandy isn't addressing with the battery weight is that Audi is using more power-dense battery cells with a significant buffer that Tesla isn't using. That's why the e-Tron will charge to "full" in about 45 minutes, or at least 15 to 20 minutes faster than the fastest charging Teslas can go from 0% to full.
Those are manually done welds. On the right side the welder has done a second pass to fill gaps/holes. The left side has too inconsistent travel speed between the pulses in order to be a robot weld.
The 2020+ Bolt battery is 66kw. After driving ours in real world conditions for over 5K miles we average 3.7 miles/kw. Fun car to drive .
The data for the BMW i3 battery is even more out of date.
*MR SANDY* Can you explain the *ROLE* of the assembly line *OPERATOR* Why simplicity reduces time and mistakes in assembly, etc? *THANK YOU*
16:55 maybe make a kg/kWh scheme? To show the differences more easy.
Yes, then you'll see the Bolt is actually worse than the iPace. The i3 is by far the worst, but maybe there's also an overhead penalty for a small battery pack that comes into play here?
@@itekani The i3 is the worst because Munro is showing data for a long-obsolete version of the i3 battery (called "60 Ah" by BMW), and comparing it to current models of other vehicles. The newest i3 battery ("120 Ah") has twice the capacity for about the same mass. Even the Bolt is about 10% better if you use the current version instead of the one that has been out for a few years.
@@brianb-p6586 It may be an issue of them showing internal data. If they've torn down an i3, then that may be the numbers shown. However, that teardown may have occurred quite a while ago.
@@arthurmoore9488 Yes, the i3 number is presumably from an old Munro teardown... but it still makes no sense to use it in this comparison. If we're doing a historical comparison, put years on each entry and include the GM EV-1 and something from 1915.
@@brianb-p6586 Thanks for that clarification. So a "year" referring to the market introduction year might be nice info in the table too.
The battery connection points are almost identical to the Ford Ranger Electric, though slightly different format/scale. In fact, the entire construction strategy outside of the exterior structural battery case is similar (which would have to be different for body on frame). I guess some things don't really change that much, even after 20+ years.
Another golden made video.
Yes, electric vehicles is all about efficiency, (weight, aerodinamics, light composite materials).
Audi needs a new Ferdinand Piech.
Isn't the Bolt with 259 miles range (2020~2021 models) using a 66kWh rated (62.7kWh actual) battery? It's the older models with 238 mile range that had a 60kWh rated battery. Might need to adjust those Bolt pack numbers slightly.
The welds are not consistent. That's a high volume mass production flaw. Crashworthy battery box assembly is great.
Sandy, being the early days of EVs, there is opportunity to select the units for comparisons of efficiency and effectiveness. If you add 3 columns to your chart, capacity/battery weight, capacity/range and range/weight, you get a great set of comparison numbers if express the results in Joule/gram (J/g), Joule/metre (J/m) and metre/gram (m/g).
The first metric yields a range of 618 J/g down to 340 J/g, the second metric yields a range of 533 J/m up to 975 J/m, and the third metric a range of 1.159 m/g down to 0.502 m/g. On the third metric, only the Teslas score over 1.0.
I think you are quoting the usable battery size for the Mach-E. The actual battery size is about 10kwh larger.
Ben completely missed the front crush zones. Good Sandy was onto it.
Great video, very interesting and educational. I still wonder why the sound goes off from time to time... Like for specific words. Anyone curious about it?
Sorry about that
Why isn't the ID4 on their battery comparison list. I'm sure I recall Sandy complaining that the ID4 pack with strong Ali extrusions was heavy and over-engineered. But this one with similar side extrusions is 'good engineering'. Not sure about the consistency here. We didn't get to hear what the bottom cover is made of.
What makes me think VW is a customer????
Maybe it x-rays and/or corrected itself and that is why it did the partial second passes on the driver side?
The rocker panel seems to be regular mild steel. Must be a rust/saltwater trap in winter areas with salted roads? And the battery case is aluminium? Galvanised corrosion?
It is easy to explain the difference in welds: the car was built on a Monday, and the robot who did the diver-side welds was coming off a 2 day oil bender.
We have a 2021 California Route 1 and love it. Wish it could charge faster but we do have 240 at home and free charging via Chargepoint less than a mile away.
Would be interesting to know when it is better to have exteusion, diecasting or stamping parts
Love the videos! Can't help but feel including the kg/kWh figure would've really helped compare the battery packs toward the end
Would be interesting to see how much torsional and bending deflection a given pack will have per unit force. Obviously how it's attached to the body-in-white also has an effect. I'm sure M&A has an FEA model somewhere...
so 7.14kg per kwh.. 68kwh pack = 485.. There long range is 88kwh so ~ 645-650kg.. Guess the benchmark in body in white vs. structure pack will be a Giga Berlin / Giga Texas Model Y as a comparison structure pack. Also on that chart through OBD and software the Model 3 and Y have 82kwh now as reference - Unsure if the weight has gone up or not but I believe its neutral or less than what was the original 3/Y tear down you folks did. Good video and thanks for doing this on public record, love it!
The brake lines hidden by the 1000# battery... looks like a nightmare when they need to be replaced. In salt country, it's not uncommon to only get 10 years before brake lines rust through.
I'm a little confused about the Model 3/Y battery info. My MY (performance-performance) is a May 2020 build. With the asymmetric 21's it's stated
range is 285mi because of the wheels. After a year and only supercharging about 10 times we only get 275mi at full charge. It is my understanding
that we have a 78 Kwh battery. If we do do have a 75 Kwh battery why does the chart show the model 3 range at 310 miles vs the 315 miles for the heavier Model Y?
It would have been nice to include the ID3/ID4 battery packs in this comparision as I would think they wouldnt look too bad at all?
Munro live... In harsh cold climates is it an advantage to cover the brake lines between car and battery to protect them, or is it a huge disadvantage as they will need to remove the battery pack to replace the brake lines?
Don't forget about the salty gunk which will accumulate up there, corroding the lines. To be fair to Ford, if the pack is as wide as the vehicle can accommodate, there really isn't anywhere else to put the brake lines.
Whatever tool was used to lift the battery at the beginning of the video is super cool... reminds me of an air mattress!
🏆 🎥 🎬 🎞 *Munro Live - Production & Post*
I have come back again to this video to make a point of congratulating the entire Munro Live Production Team - with every episode, the polish get more shine. From the evident pre-shoot story-boarding to the skilful editing and viewer-minded camera work, the entire production excels at the highest level.
A well worthy achievement on the eve of reaching the 200,000 subscriber mark.
I’ve got to imagine the insurance Munro has to carry is a bit on the insane side - human and materials risks. Definite respect for what Munro does here!
And you brought a 8 years old BMW i3 battery weight, capacity in that comparison table? BMW at 43 kWh with the same dimensions since 2019. It is called 120 Ah battery model and as far as I can remember it is 13 kg heavier then the 22 kWh (it called 60 Ah) battery was.
Nice technical vid anyway. Thank you!
I agree 100% that just throwing a bigger battery is not an answer to better range or efficiency, lighter weight, better forward looking engineering and multi speed gearboxes to keep the motor in it's sweet spot are key.
Also need much improved energy capture technology regarding regen ie., Ultra Capacitors.
Those slotted locating brackets look like they could serve to allow the battery to move backwards in a frontal collision, and even push it down and out of the brackets entirely if the force is large enough. They happen to be in line with the load carrying members of the front impact structure too. The strength of the battery box to be used in such a way would also help justify making it a structural member.
would be interesting to see how modular Ford go with other EV offerings. I am sure this is a learning exercise and things will change, but I bet much is this engineering will be in every Ford product going forward
I think I understood you to say that the *only* thing holding up the pack is some vertical threaded bolts running down both sides of the pack.
So, how resistant to vibrations will those bolts be? Will they stay put? I couldn't get the answer out of your review.
most bolts in an automobile have a thread locker liquid placed on them to prevent them from vibrating out.
@@jetah50 These bolts can be removed with a driver. You don't have to drill them out.
If bolts can be removed with a driver, they can vibrate out. Now it's just a question of vibration frequencies and amplitudes. If the right frequencies and amplitudes to vibrate them out will never reach the bolts, then they're okay.
I'm asking the question because what we saw in the Mach-E's HVAC system was tons and tons of threaded screws, 60 degrees, I think. Possibly the worst fasteners you could imagine for an automobile that moves and vibrates. It doesn't *look* like Ford's engineers spent any time at all worrying about screws vibrating out. It makes me wonder just how much attention they paid to these bolts.
@@Urgelt i've done mechanic work for a while and a little thread locker is all you need.
they didnt use a wrench with a little torque on it when it was broken free.
Every component of your car is held in by bolts. When was the last time any of them fell out? It's not a problem, just as the vertical bolts that hold subframes to vehicles are not problems.
@@brianb-p6586 Do you know how to use a search engine? Because your assertion is ridiculously easy to check if you use one.
People have had bolts fall out of their cars since there have been cars. Before that, bolts fell out of carriages and wagons. And bolts are still dropping out of cars.
Sometimes, bolts falling out of cars necessitates a recall. That happened to GM in 2014. It was quite a large recall, too.
Engineers do have a lot of control over how they will secure a bolt and what vibrations can get to it. But sometimes, things happen engineers did not expect.
Murphy is alive and well.
I am not predicting that Ford's battery tray bolts will fall out. But it did strike me as awfully confident of Ford to secure that tray with nothing but vertical bolts. Good decision? If it was a bad one, NHTSA will eventually come calling.
Talking about losses in wires, it will also be interesting to see how much the 4680 cell, with the tabless electrode, reduces resistance which will contribute to improved range and faster, cooler charging.
The battery pack comparison is more complicated than it looks the first glance. For example, E-tron has a huge low and top buffer and the actual range is significantly higher than EPA quoted. A huge buffer also allows them to charge 150KW flat up to >80% which makes it even faster overall on long trips.
It could be argued that this battery box is a removable structural frame that acts as a compartment for the batteries. What do you think Sandy?
Fascinating to hear your comments while looking at the components. I'm interested in this vehicle but even though many good design features I'll wait till second or third year to allow first run issues or changes to be incorporated. Plus to see what actual dependability is.
“ please give us a call Audi we would like to help you“… “ but not for free obviously” 😂
What about the newer BMW I3? The 120Ah. I think it’s not much heavier then the 60Ah battery (22kWh)
Then you’ll get actually a very nice weight/range ratio. Why mentioning the very first I3?
Munro probably tore down the old 60 Ah battery, so they have that data, and they don't bother to keep up so they don't even realize how outdated it is.
7:14 I think the reason the brake lines are located that way is to permit dropping the battery without disturbing brake lines. Makes perfect sense to me.
How do you recommend to put them out when they catch fire? Structural batteries sound really safe to me.
if the battery catches fire in the motion, it can melt the brake lines, and you are left with only parking brake if you still have power to operate it.
Thank you Team Munro!
All of this massive effort for vehicles that don't have enough range and don't recharge quickly enough proves the current state of the art of battery technology is still in its "Bronze Age"
The company that solves this battery problem will blow Amazon off the map in sales
I'm wondering about corrosion between the pack and the body. Obviously the SMC is immune but if you get road salt solution trapped between the pack and the body, it's going to sit there and eat the floorpan up. Is there any angle to the pack mounting, so that that area could drain when parked?
It would be interesting to know how much in lb. of the mock-e battery structure exists for body support/stiffening and how it compares to the structural battery Tesla is working on.
Love these videos, the technical explanations as a non engineer are excellent.
Thanks Jeremy
C'mon Sandy, you look great in the white lab coat. You can't skip that in these videos! 😀
I too would like to see the total weights of the cars included and for us old school guys, the weights in pounds. Keep up the good work I can't wait for the next installment. Thanks
Please, continue using Metric system and scales...
As far as I know, all current cars/trucks/ev's are designed and build using metric, even in the US. Therefore, all the technical specs are in metric as it's meant for engineers and designers world wide to read.
Is the 485 kg battery only held up by vertically oriented bolts! Why haven’t they used horizontally oriented pin / bolts somewhere so the is a support in shear?
As Sandy has said, many many times, threaded fasteners alone come undone over time especially in a vibrating environment. Surprised!
Take a look at the subframes under any car: they hang from the unibody, they are held in by vertical bolts (typically four), and they don't fall out. In decades of maintaining (and occasionally modifying) my own vehicles, I've never seen a bolt come loose.
THIS is what Ive been waiting for.
Mach-E standard range has 75.7 KWh worth of cells and 68kWh in current charge use profiles allowed for use.... Weight tables should be based on actual cell capacity included and marketed usable capacity...which could be tweaked later if reliability is high enough.