Ford Transit USA Forum banner
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
300 miles! This is great news - more progress in the right direction.
I'll believe it when an independent testing agency, that is not part of the EV cult, does the test. 🍿
 
Although a Mercedes employee was driving, the whole thing was observed by a third party: TĂśV SĂśD (not an EV organization, but a testing company of all products)

"The efficiency test was strictly monitored by the product testing and compliance organization, TĂśV SĂśD. The tires were inflated to the manufacturer's specification before leaving and a TĂśV SĂśD representative rode inside the van as a passenger to oversee compliance.

Under this TĂśV SĂśD supervision, a Mercedes employee was able to drive the new eSprinter from Stuggart to Munich and back, covering a total of 295 miles and ending with 3% state of charge displayed."

300 miles is good, but not remarkable. Given enough battery module capacity, it could drive 2000+ miles. But you'd lose a little interior cargo room, like the bottom 6". Given a 100 gallon tank, a diesel Sprinter could drive 2300 miles, but you'd lose a little interior cargo room. At some point, more driving range is pointless, especially to the average driver. The industry has determined that 350 miles is what most people want/need. Thus our 25gal tank, and compact cars 10gal tanks.

Range and charge time are the two biggest bugaboos for the potential electric propulsion vehicle buyers. Range is pretty much solved for the average consumer, and the DC>DC superchargers can dump over 20 miles per minute into a battery. But those are only in the pricey cars like the Lucid. I've had slow gas pumps that were only putting in a gallon or two every minute. At 15-16mpg, the EVs would be refueling faster, but this is comparing the extremes on either side. Filling up with gas/diesel is still much faster, for when you need to get out of the pit and back into the race sooner. But charge time is still the biggest hurdle, even if it's importance is exaggerated. Most people would be just fine charging up overnight at home once a week to get 300 miles, or at a supercharger for an hour while they have lunch or go see a movie or shop or whatever.

No, if you drive hundreds of miles a day, these are not for YOU. But because they won't work for YOU (or me) doesn't mean they should be denied to people they do work for. I'm going to choose to not purchase an eVan until they are more convenient for the way I use my van. Which I'm certain will be way before the CA EV new car law goes into effect in a dozen years. Doubt I'll still be in CA, but most of the world is doing the same thing. 300 mile Sprinter is getting close, but 500 mile with 8hr home charging or 1 hour supercharger would be more than fine. Besides, 8-10 year warranty on the batteries, as now required by law; fast-charge all the time reducing the battery life, and get new batteries right before warranty expires! :D
 
Sounds good on paper, but not a real world test.
 
Assuming you're a masochist, that's 600 driving miles in 10.5-11 hours
I regularly drive the 5 between Portland and LA and this would be slow. Average speed for me is around 78mph and I get around 17.5mpg. Unless there are heavy winds... then it's down to around 15. It also costs about $350 (1-way) in gas these days. :- (
 
I regularly drive the 5 between Portland and LA and this would be slow. Average speed for me is around 78mph and I get around 17.5mpg. Unless there are heavy winds... then it's down to around 15. It also costs about $350 (1-way) in gas these days. :- (
Between SF and Bend I drive about 65-70 and get 17.
Time of drive varies if I have the trophy fake-wife along or not (only stop for gas if it's just me). About 550 miles, same distance to LV from SF. I've driven both 4-5x a year until pandemic. Just stopping for gas, about 8hrs driving. When I lived near Breckenridge CO and would drive home to Central OR to visit, it was 1200 miles and 18 hours of driving, and I'd often do it in one shot. In the winter, uphill all the way, with the windows down, and no shoes. :LOL: Gas was relatively cheaper then, and the Tacoma got about 20-25mpg. Now, I'd just fly and rent a car.

But yeah, anyone who drives these type of distances regularly shouldn't bother with an EV except maybe one that can charge at a 20 miles per minute rate. The 2023 Prius Prime is hybrid and a hotrod, I wonder if it's going to become a cult classic in 12 years when CA goes all EV for new car purchases. 220hp, 6.6 0-60. If Toyota stuck that drivetrain into an AWD/4x4 Tacoma, take my money. I'll be a pickup guy again instead of a van guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregoryx
You will still be able to buy a plug in hybrid in California after 2035.
 
we just need to figure out how to power a car from the displeasure of people grumpy about change
 
I just watched a FB video of an engineer comparing how much hydrogen it would take to go 300 miles in a V8 Internal Combustion hydrogen engine vs a hydrogen fuelcell powered EV. Same speed, same HP. I had the sound off, but it appeared to be about 3x more in the ICE. And the VOLUME of space needed for the tank significantly bigger than a 55gal drum, about two drums, for the V8 internal combustion hydrogen vehicle.
 
I just watched a FB video of an engineer comparing how much hydrogen it would take to go 300 miles in a V8 Internal Combustion hydrogen engine vs a hydrogen fuelcell powered EV. Same speed, same HP. I had the sound off, but it appeared to be about 3x more in the ICE. And the VOLUME of space needed for the tank significantly bigger than a 55gal drum, about two drums, for the V8 internal combustion hydrogen vehicle.
oddly enough water has about the same energy density of gasoline. its about 26 MPG [of water], the issue is once hydrogen is extracted from the water it is a gas and that takes up a lot of volume
 
I just watched a FB video of an engineer comparing how much hydrogen it would take to go 300 miles in a V8 Internal Combustion hydrogen engine vs a hydrogen fuelcell powered EV. Same speed, same HP. I had the sound off, but it appeared to be about 3x more in the ICE. And the VOLUME of space needed for the tank significantly bigger than a 55gal drum, about two drums, for the V8 internal combustion hydrogen vehicle.
You should have listened. It's much worse than the visuals show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surly Bill
I got the Transit to convert to a rolling hotel room. I'll get an EV van when charging stations are at least as common as gas stations. Till then, I still think that a full EV van is only going to be functional in an urban environment. Plumbers, electricians, delivery services, EMT's, shuttle buses and the like, that can return to a charging station every night would be the practical uses.
 
300 miles! This is great news - more progress in the right direction.
Greater range is obviously better than less range, everything else being equal, but we need to be careful how we define “progress”.

In my opinion the true goal is to reduce green house gases and or other adverse affects on environment, and if a van like this Sprinter is given greater range at expense of doubling battery capacity, which adds significant mass, and therefore makes van less energy efficient to drive, it’s difficult to call that progress depending on context

If range was main problem, we could just drive Tesla-semi-size electric vans with close to 1,000 kWh of battery capacity, but who could afford them? And what affect would a van weighing 20,000+ pounds have on environment?

For me, when manufacturers improve range by improving technology, that is progress. Adding range by making vehicles larger, heavier, and less efficient is not moving in right direction for me.
 
Greater range is obviously better than less range, everything else being equal, but we need to be careful how we define “progress”.

In my opinion the true goal is to reduce green house gases and or other adverse affects on environment, and if a van like this Sprinter is given greater range at expense of doubling battery capacity, which adds significant mass, and therefore makes van less energy efficient to drive, it’s difficult to call that progress depending on context

If range was main problem, we could just drive Tesla-semi-size electric vans with close to 1,000 kWh of battery capacity, but who could afford them? And what affect would a van weighing 20,000+ pounds have on environment?

For me, when manufacturers improve range by improving technology, that is progress. Adding range by making vehicles larger, heavier, and less efficient is not moving in right direction for me.
this is true, the vast majority of tesla's have have 2-4 times more battery than they need. i'm sure it is nice for a few people who want/need to drive their car 300-400 miles between charging but 80% of the population don't need that kind of range and 90% of the people can deal without having that range. if we could eliminate 'range anxiety' and 'rugged independence' we would have a surplus of batteries right now.
 
Load has much less affect on range than speed and selected route. Every time they showed speedometer in video it suggests speed was fairly slow. With Eco tires shown in pictures, driving at steady modest speeds can result in 2.84 miles per kWh. I’m sure eTransit can do similar efficiency if driven slow enough and without too many stops.

We have seen this before when GM tested their electric commercial van. Unless they state the average speed during the 475 km trip, it means little compared to real highway driving at steady 70 MPH or similar.

The other interesting point is that US will be first to receive the large battery option for extended range. No kidding. In Europe where vehicle gross weight is often limited to 3,500 kg, Mercedes could not previously install larger battery because payload was too low. What’s the point of going far if having to drive empty, or only hauling potato chips or toilet paper.

In US the Sprinter can have much greater GVWR, so possible to haul a ton of battery weight and still have some payload left.

It is a great looking van, but we need a lot more useful data.
Hi Chance,
The last comment on the page the video is on says:

Translated from german elektroauto-news.net:
On board were two drivers (each weighing 80 kilograms) and a payload of 120 kilograms at an average speed of 73.5 km/h. The maximum speed was limited to 90 km/h.

So, a 45 mh average.
For a 45 MPH average, maybe 50+ MPH on their open highway sections?

Not quite up to realistic camper van trips, but seems like good news to me.

Gary
 
Hi Chance,
The last comment on the page the video is on says:

Translated from german elektroauto-news.net:
On board were two drivers (each weighing 80 kilograms) and a payload of 120 kilograms at an average speed of 73.5 km/h. The maximum speed was limited to 90 km/h.

So, a 45 mh average.
For a 45 MPH average, maybe 50+ MPH on their open highway sections?

Not quite up to realistic camper van trips, but seems like good news to me.

Gary
maybe for the causal, retired, not in a hurry and taking the back roads camper van
 
For a 45 MPH average, maybe 50+ MPH on their open highway sections?
OK, not real-world in US applications. One foray onto an interstate for 10-20 miles and the range will tank as you have to maintain 65-70 lest you be squashed by a semi.

We do backroads most of the time. Those are the kind of speeds where we get 21-22 mpg in our MR. IOW, possible, but not practical.

I was disappointed earlier this year to hear that Merc cancelled the ICE Metris in the US due to poor sales, so obviously is not bringing the electric version over here. Apparently the minivan stigma is still controlling that market.
 
you can drive more than 20mph on your highways?! How many people live near, like, 9?
 
21 - 40 of 69 Posts