MG4 SE vs Long Range - Battery Technology

[Jonperry64]

Hi. I'm a new member. I always thought an EV was a pipe dream for me but I was amazed to see the price of used MG4s. I've read a lot of reviews now and they seem great value. I went for a test drive in one today and was very impressed (mind you, I'm coming from a 2004 mk1 skoda fabia so I'm easily impressed!).
As the title of the post suggests, my question is about the battery technology in the se and long range. It seems to me that the se has the newer technology allowing regular 100% charges vs the 80% of the long range. It strikes me that as most of my journeys are fairly local, there's no real advantage to the long range. Indeed, the base model is both cheaper and seems to have a better battery.
I've only just started to look into EVs so I'm happy to be corrected on this but I'd appreciate your views.

 

[webhiker]

I have the Extended range.
80%/100%?
I charge for what I need. If I'm on the road for long hauls I charge to about 50-60% af that is quicker. As a preparation for a long haul I always charge to 100%
For day to day I charge to 60%
If I vaguely consider a long Sunday drive I charge to 100%
I guess my point is, enjoy your car and drive as often and as long as you please. Don't let theory ruin that.

 

[siteguru]

I got the SE SR over 2 years ago. Like you, most of my trips are fairly local so the shorter range of the SR is not a problem for me. Even longer trips aren't really an issue - you just learn to plan your charging stops. The way I look at things is ... the range of the SE SR exceeds the range of my bladder. So when I stop for me I simply plug my car in to get enough charge to cover the next leg.

 

[Rolfe]

Welcome to the forum, @Jonperry64!

My view is that it's not that important. I have the SE SR, the only one with the LFP battery - the others are all NMC.

[I see @siteguru has cross-posted some of what I was about to say. And to address his edit, my bladder range is longer than the car's range on the motorway.]

I was attracted by the fact that the LFP seems less finicky to look after, seems likely to be longer-lasting (I intend to keep the car a long time) and I could blow off idiots going on about children grubbing cobalt out of the ground with their bare hands. Also, it was cheaper.

The range didn't bother me, because I very seldom drive more than about 100-120 miles in a day, which the SR can eat for breakfast. The charging speed didn't bother me because the chargers I was coming across were nearly all 50 kw units anyway, so it didn't seem to make much difference.

However, although I'm still happy with my choice and getting on very well with the car, there are some considerations after nearly two years of ownership.

• I like driving the car so much that I'm going on road trips at a rate I never envisaged when I bought the car. There are days when I feel I could use the faster charging time and the longer range.
• There are loads of chargers around now that will let the NMC chemistry charge at 145 kw, you're not often going to be restricted to 50 kw.
• Looking after an NMC battery probably isn't particularly onerous. Just charge it to 80% for normal day-to-day use and take it to 100% and balance once a month or so.
• Longevity of even NMC batteries is looking better all the time, as the figures come in. I saw a study the other day that claimed they weren't really significantly worse than LFP. Don't know how reliable that is.
• Idiots who go on about child slave mining are just that, idiots.

Bear in mind that if you think you'll hardly ever need to charge away from home, even with the SR range, then most of that doesn't matter at all. I'd just note that I'm charging away from home more often than I thought I would. Also bear in mind that a slightly longer charging time can be useful if you don't like shovelling your lunch down your throat at double-speed and running back to the car.

It's horses for courses. I love my SR to bits. I'd probably love him just as much if he was the LR, but I'm very happy and don't regret my purchase. Just some thoughts to stimulate the debate.

 

[Jonperry64]

Thanks for the comprehensive response. Sounds like it isn't a big deal at end of the day. The fact that the SR versions seem to be cheaper will probably swing it for me. (and the SR range would probably exceed my bladder range even if it was only 40 Mike's!)

 

[Rolfe]

In winter, going at motorway speeds over the Southern Uplands, I can reliably make Tebay, which is 110 miles away and tends to take me about 2 hours to reach. I probably wouldn't stop as early as that if I had a longer range car, but it's still a decent length of leg. I can go from central Scotland to the south coast of England with only three charging stops.

Conversely in summer I once drove for almost four hours non-stop, going to Fort William. The roads aren't all that fast and there were significant traffic hold-ups. It's about 140-150 miles I think.

Given that if I'm driving a long distance I'm probably going to be going fast, I wouldn't rely on getting further than 150 miles in the SR, even in summer. On the other hand touring around sightseeing would extend that quite a lot.

If you're OK about that sort of performance, and your normal daily drive doesn't exceed maybe 120 miles overall in cold weather with the heating on, the SR should suit you fine. On the other hand if you have a requirement to crack on when you're on a long road trip, then you should consider the LR, not just for range but for the faster charging. For one thing, if you hit bad traffic, then with the SR you can't cut your charging/rest stop short and get on, because the car needs the time it needs.

One thing I do find with the EV is that it breaks your journey up so that you're no longer heading for a destination 450 miles away, you're heading for your next planned charging stop, where you'll get to stretch your legs and have a cuppa and mess around on Twitter or something for maybe 45 minutes (in the SR). I find this much less stressful.

 

[Jonperry64]

Good to hear about real world range. I didn't know about the fact that you can't charge the SR battery as fast.

 

[Rolfe]

That's something new owners often don't pick up on, so think about it. Top speed for the SR is 88 kw, but for the LR it's 145 kw. Sometimes (a lot of the time) I'm happy with what the SR does. Just now and again, I'd like that 145 kw!

 

[Jonperry64]

That's something new owners often don't pick up on, so think about it. Top speed for the SR is 88 kw, but for the LR it's 145 kw. Sometimes (a lot of the time) I'm happy with what the SR does. Just now and again, I'd like that 145 kw!

When you say top speed are you talking about speed or power? In the what car review I read it said 0-60 was slightly quicker in the SR because of the lower weight?

 

[dsimpkins]

Speed of charging is what @Rolfe is referring to. I went middle of the road, SE, with the LR battery (NMC) Got mine before the ER came out. Most of my journeys are commuting, but when I do go on long journeys to visit family and friends I want to be able to travel without having to stop. Even in Winter when range is reduced (batteries don't like cold weather) it's still more than enough to reach my furthest family.

 

[Jonperry64]

Speed of charging is what @Rolfe is referring to. I went middle of the road, SE, with the LR battery (NMC) Got mine before the ER came out. Most of my journeys are commuting, but when I do go on long journeys to visit family and friends I want to be able to travel without having to stop. Even in Winter when range is reduced (batteries don't like cold weather) it's still more than enough to reach my furthest family.

Thanks. I still need to get used to the EV lingo!

 

[FrancisM]

I bought an SE LR not realising it had NMC batteries. I had planned on getting LFP because of increased safety and longevity. If you are someone who might worry about the risk of a car fire, then choose LFP. However, I'm happy with my purchase for the reasons Rolfe gives. NMC batteries don't need the regular balancing of LFP batteries to keep the range meter accurate.

 

[siteguru]

The increased risk of fire with the NMC chemistry vs the LFP is tiny ... it might look, say, double the risk, but we're talking (made up numbers for comparison purposes only) 0.002% vs 0.001%

 

[FrancisM]

The increased risk of fire with the NMC chemistry vs the LFP is tiny ... it might look, say, double the risk, but we're talking (made up numbers for comparison purposes only) 0.002% vs 0.001%

I agree. I'm not aware of any MG4 NMC battery fires and there must be hundreds of thousands of such models now. The batteries are made by CATL and I havent heard any scare stories about their batteries.

 

[Buster72]

Welcome to the forum, @Jonperry64!

My view is that it's not that important. I have the SE SR, the only one with the LFP battery - the others are all NMC.

[I see @siteguru has cross-posted some of what I was about to say. And to address his edit, my bladder range is longer than the car's range on the motorway.]

I was attracted by the fact that the LFP seems less finicky to look after, seems likely to be longer-lasting (I intend to keep the car a long time) and I could blow off idiots going on about children grubbing cobalt out of the ground with their bare hands. Also, it was cheaper.

The range didn't bother me, because I very seldom drive more than about 100-120 miles in a day, which the SR can eat for breakfast. The charging speed didn't bother me because the chargers I was coming across were nearly all 50 kw units anyway, so it didn't seem to make much difference.

However, although I'm still happy with my choice and getting on very well with the car, there are some considerations after nearly two years of ownership.

• I like driving the car so much that I'm going on road trips at a rate I never envisaged when I bought the car. There are days when I feel I could use the faster charging time and the longer range.
• There are loads of chargers around now that will let the NMC chemistry charge at 145 kw, you're not often going to be restricted to 50 kw.
• Looking after an NMC battery probably isn't particularly onerous. Just charge it to 80% for normal day-to-day use and take it to 100% and balance once a month or so.
• Longevity of even NMC batteries is looking better all the time, as the figures come in. I saw a study the other day that claimed they weren't really significantly worse than LFP. Don't know how reliable that is.
• Idiots who go on about child slave mining are just that, idiots.

Bear in mind that if you think you'll hardly ever need to charge away from home, even with the SR range, then most of that doesn't matter at all. I'd just note that I'm charging away from home more often than I thought I would. Also bear in mind that a slightly longer charging time can be useful if you don't like shovelling your lunch down your throat at double-speed and running back to the car.

It's horses for courses. I love my SR to bits. I'd probably love him just as much if he was the LR, but I'm very happy and don't regret my purchase. Just some thoughts to stimulate the debate.

This very much accords with my view. I have had my lovely SE SR for just over 2 years and have never even been close to having a range problem. As others have rightly said, you just need to plan. And this is more than made up for by the ease of use and pleasurable driving experience.

 

[rpannell]

One area not mentioned so far is where you are charging. If you are charging on a cheap tariff at home, then a SR or LR will be suitable. However if you have no access to home charging and have to always rely on the public network, then a LR will be more suitable in order to minimise the number of times you have to charge away from home

 

[Rolfe]

I bought an SE LR not realising it had NMC batteries. I had planned on getting LFP because of increased safety and longevity. If you are someone who might worry about the risk of a car fire, then choose LFP. However, I'm happy with my purchase for the reasons Rolfe gives. NMC batteries don't need the regular balancing of LFP batteries to keep the range meter accurate.

Like everybody else has said, yes the fire risk is lower, but it's low in the NMC anyway, far lower than in an ICE car. The chances of any battery going into spontaneous thermal runaway are infinitesimal. Maybe in a bad smash, the LFP is safer than the NMC, but let's hope nobody is having any bad smashes. The longevity factor probably isn't a huge difference either, as NMC batteries are proving longer-lived than people originally thought.

You don't need to balance the NMC pack so often, but balancing the LFP isn't a chore because you charge it to 100% anyway, so all you need to do is leave it plugged in and on charge at the end long enough for it to finish. The other night I noticed mine was advertising a finish time of 5.10 am. I realised that wouldn't give enough time to finish balancing before the scheduled charge cut off at 5.30. So I just added an extra schedule to the Zappi from 5 am to 6 am to give it time, knowing that any power it drew during the peak-tariff time would be negligible anyway. Checked on the app in the morning and it had finished balancing by about 5.45 am, so I knew we were all good.

 

[dsimpkins]

The increased risk of fire with the NMC chemistry vs the LFP is tiny ... it might look, say, double the risk, but we're talking (made up numbers for comparison purposes only) 0.002% vs 0.001%

PLus the risk of an EV fire compared to an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) car is lower.

 

[bedsev]

Just chipping in on the DC charging speed, whilst 145 is great if you are in a hurry (it doesn't stay at 145 very long, drops quite a lot after 60%), I've actually had times where its too fast especially if you want to eat whilst charging and there's overstay charges. Tesla is £1 a minute, so you don't want to go over if you can help it. 20-100 on a fast Tesla charger is not enough time for dinner.

First world problems only on long journeys I guess.

 

[RaspberryMan]

Can you limit the current draw in the car to give you an extra 20 minutes for pie, beans and chips?