• We are having a problem with new Hotmail members being unable to receive activation emails. Please avoid using a Hotmail email address. Thanks.

Let’s see who gets rattled - charging details

@Mark Holmes Ive got a workaround for OUR GOMs.

Run in sport mode! On full charge my range is estimated to be 206. Changing to sport mode drops estimate by 20 miles to 186. Yesterday I found it easy to average 4.4mkWh in sport mode. These seem to be the only numbers to make GOM accurate.
 
What a surprise @Mark Holmes ! Does 97% 200 miles seem familiar?
A3EC4EB1-DD3D-40D4-B78B-A586AC212173.jpeg
 
@Mark Holmes Ive got a workaround for OUR GOMs.

Run in sport mode! On full charge my range is estimated to be 206. Changing to sport mode drops estimate by 20 miles to 186. Yesterday I found it easy to average 4.4mkWh in sport mode. These seem to be the only numbers to make GOM accurate.
My current average..(when I get my black beauty back from the bodywork workshop after my little mishap) was 4.4 miles per KWh..I’m still going to ask for all the updates to be checked again on the first service..I like the new dash will that plug and play in the ZS EV I wonder?
 
That explains it, you guys have had MG5 GOM software applied to your ZS’s 🤣
@shikoku14
A very plausible explanation. MG5EV software in ZSEV causing the ZS EV GOM to give wrong figures. Interesting!!!!!!!!
My understanding is that should not happen as the software are chassis number encoded. So if your chassis number does not match with the software it will not load unto your car.
Well I may be wrong or the system may have had a glitch.
Anyway what am I told by those who do GOM work for a living is that when you load a high capacity battery software unto low battery capacity system then what tends to happen is that at the full charge of the low capacity battery the SOC displayed will be a fraction of what is expected. So if this software switch theory was true then what will be happening is that no matter how long the ZS EV is charged for it will never show full capacity as the software will be requiring 52 kWh to indicate full and the ZS EV has only got a 44.5kWh battery.
If SOC is showing correctly then software switch from a larger capacity battery is unlikely. Again I may be wrong.
Anyway what is your personal take on this recurrent unfounded diductions coupled with a ridiculous simple multiplication GOM theory?
These are MG's figures
Screenshot_20200921_230338_com.android.chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20200910_172319_com.android.chrome.jpg

Just wondering in your opinion which numbers you will multiply here to give 231 miles and 163 miles from this data.
Do you think this simple multiplication GOM theory has any credence?
Well hope these car with 'super natural' GOMs get looked at by qualified MG tech and whatever is wrong with them resolved. If not the theories will continue to abound and change and change again and again.
 
I get anything from 197 to 207 on a full charge and I find the GOM very accurate, it reports charge low at 48 miles and I generally charge before the message. My journey to work is 32 miles round trip and I can get to work for 5 days before needing a charge, obviously that will drop as I start using the heater to clear the windscreen and side windows taking around 25-30 miles off the GOM but is still very good.
 
I’m going to do a long run one day soon with heating and everything to see what I can actually get with my normal driving style, as driving style does make a big difference and I do drive steady, years of practice with my Volvo trying to keep costs down...
 
Hi @Bobby759 , can I ask what your miles per kilowatt readings are? On the trip computer it’s displayed on both total accumulated and current journey screens.

There is no way we are getting 200 miles range unless we have Zeus himself sitting in the passenger seat topping up the battery. (Perfect conditions) .Your five trips of 32 miles is about right for range.

Low battery warning comes on at 25% (10.625kWh) your GOM estimate of 48 miles requires you to average 4.6 miles kWh to make this work.

I’m tempted to make a time lapse video of my GOM, show how bad it is if I average 3mkWh.
 
@Mark Holmes its simple maths, your driving style makes your GOM halfway accurate. Depending on SOC % it will estimate between 4.6 and 4.9 mkWh. Your average is 4.4 which we know is 187 miles range. This is only 20 miles off its full charge estimate. On your test, average 70 on the motorway.

I would guess the normal setting for the eZS/mg5 is 4mkWh. That mirrors mixed driving conditions and matches wltp range.

Dealer asked me to bring my car in but this isn’t urgent. Mg Europe offered me a job in research and development but saic cancelled my contract because of my low social score.

Donkey disclaimer: this issue only affects 2 or 3 owners so far.
 
I’m going to do a long run one day soon with heating and everything to see what I can actually get with my normal driving style, as driving style does make a big difference and I do drive steady, years of practice with my Volvo trying to keep costs down...
Weather has quite an effect on what you'll get as well, into the wind, the rain, snow etc. will reduce your range, the MG has the aerodynamics of a brick.
 
I get anything from 197 to 207 on a full charge and I find the GOM very accurate, it reports charge low at 48 miles and I generally charge before the message. My journey to work is 32 miles round trip and I can get to work for 5 days before needing a charge, obviously that will drop as I start using the heater to clear the windscreen and side windows taking around 25-30 miles off the GOM but is still very good.
@Bobby759
Well done on your performance in terms of range and efficiency.
Clearly you figures are as can be expected as MG data shows upto 163 miles mixed driving @ efficiency of 3.3 and up to 251 miles in town driving only.
The issue here is one of some ill informed members trying to claim they know exactly how our GOM works when in actual fact their theories are far from the truth. It is quite important that you do not let them confuse you.
The way the GOM works is that it uses the most recent and current data to make estimations of distance that may achieve on charge remaining.
It is intentionally designed to do that. It does not use acummulated data. For example, there is no benefit in using data acquire in the peak of summer to predict distance you are likely to travel in Winter as conditions of travel differ greatly.
A lot of science and tech has gone into designing GOM. The current consensus on GOM design is that the driving data over a the most recent "X" miles and or "Y" minutes is combined with the battery state of charge to give you an estimate of how far you are likely to travel if the driving conditions remain unchanged.
The system is self updating every minute or less. The exact value of X and Y are trade secrets and manufacturers to not publish it.
The reason it is designed this way is because it is the most scientific way of giving an estimate based on current conditions. Using accumulated summer data to predict what happens in Winter like some are peddling is "bonkers" and should be avoid like the plague along with all the simple multiplication theories that go with it.
It is interesting reading through this thread how many times these bonkers theories have changed...
Just a short list of how these theories have changed....
1. It is was that the ZS EV GOM was basic and had a fixed formula of 4.7 acummulated efficiency times 42.5 (SOC)..... This is absolutely false as multiple factors affected the GOM in a current and dynamic non linear manner.
2. When their own figures did not add up it became GOM is only correct for half of a journey...... This is just false.
3. The latest is that their GOMs have MG5EV software and hence shows values over and above that of a ZS EV..... Well I think you get the trend
It is a pity that some people can not acknowledge their lack of understanding and knowledge about some simple issues. It is their right to hold unto what they want to believe no matter how ill founded but we should not allow them to use this ill founded opinions to confuse others.
 
You’re absolutely right @Kithmo, I’m aware of all the variables that will affect range. I’ve been getting as low as 2.8 miles/kWh on a morning.

My broken GOM still believes I can do over 200 miles easy at this rate.

I will make a two hour time lapse video to demonstrate how bad ‘my’ GOM is.
 
I've always kept details of the running costs of my cars in the past and have been doing the same with my ZS. I have solar panels and a Zappi charger and so far have always charged at home taking advantage of solar power as much as possible.
I have been following the discussion about GOM with interest. I tend to use the SOC and the overall miles/Kwh figure (with one eye on the GOM!).
have just done a check on my records of charging over 1000 miles.
I calculated that the overall miles per Kwh calculated from the actual total recorded Kwhs was 3.95.
However the overall figure shown is 4.3 and has been for some time. In future I shall use 4.00 m/Kwh to estimate my own GOM.
 
You’re absolutely right @Kithmo, I’m aware of all the variables that will affect range. I’ve been getting as low as 2.8 miles/kWh on a morning.

My broken GOM still believes I can do over 200 miles easy at this rate.

I will make a two hour time lapse video to demonstrate how bad ‘my’ GOM is.
Well, well, well.
I thought someone used to claim that their GOM worked only by a fixed 4.7 kWh Formula. What is the new theory now?
@Kithmo you are right!!!!
A GOM that is working correctly modifies it's figure minute by minute. If you are driving along and it starts raining and becomes windy or there is snow then surely a good working GOM would modify to the current conditions and not be using previous summer data to maintain figures that do not reflect the current conditions.
I think the bonkers theory of simple multiplication and division formula using accumulated data is unravelling again.
 
Last edited:
I've always kept details of the running costs of my cars in the past and have been doing the same with my ZS. I have solar panels and a Zappi charger and so far have always charged at home taking advantage of solar power as much as possible.
I have been following the discussion about GOM with interest. I tend to use the SOC and the overall miles/Kwh figure (with one eye on the GOM!).
have just done a check on my records of charging over 1000 miles.
I calculated that the overall miles per Kwh calculated from the actual total recorded Kwhs was 3.95.
However the overall figure shown is 4.3 and has been for some time. In future I shall use 4.00 m/Kwh to estimate my own GOM.
@Sriv
The method you are using is a fixed approximation approach. It is not as accurate as the dynamic method used in the actual GOM in cars unless you live in a place with no big fluctuations in temperature and driving conditions and your driving route and style is persistently the same.
It however helps when you have range anxiety. It gives you something you can work with personally.
What is not helpful is proclaiming that the ZS EV GOM is not good because it does not fit your private fixed approximation. Why some persist in doing so is just strange.
It is very good that you and others are putting out data that shows how wrong the simple multiplication theory is.
 
Very interesting @Scriv thanks for your post. Is it possible you're getting 4.3 because of kers adding a bit of energy back? I would agree that 4.0 is average, mine is 3.9 after 2,500 miles.
 
@lee graham, I was really only concerned with the actual miles that I had achieved per Kwh purchased/charged, and that was 3.95 over 1000 miles.
What confuses me is that the display says 'accumulated' miles and I assumed that referred also to the Kwh used. but 4.3 was shown. I had not considere kers however!
 
@lee graham, I was really only concerned with the actual miles that I had achieved per Kwh purchased/charged, and that was 3.95 over 1000 miles.
What confuses me is that the display says 'accumulated' miles and I assumed that referred also to the Kwh used. but 4.3 was shown. I had not considere kers however!
@Scriv
Your assumption is right all data in the accumulated data is accumulated be it miles or kWh. Where you are going wrong and why this issue of false claims about GOM has come about is the premises that the whole system works by simple arithmetic rather than complex correlations which are affected by temperature, wind, rain, road surface and driving style etc.
So far as you are aware that it is not simple arithmetics then the values will make sense.
Accumulated efficiency of 4.3kWh is very good but I am afraid it will not magical translate into range of 4.3 X 44.5 miles like some will have you believe.
 
Thanks for the replies.......I have always considered the various factors affecting the GOM and have looked for an alternative quick and simple way to determine approximate range. I do wish that I could more easily and quickly find the SOC. I make no claims about the range of my car. I am more interested in the miles/Kwh.........rather like mpg in the ICE days!
When I have charged my car I usually check the SOC and Range. Recently the SOC was 87% and Range 138 miles.......using simple arithmetic I make that 158.62 miles for 100% charge.........I feel that it is a reasonable indication of the car's range on a 'full tank', but is it accurate?
 
I would say 100% accurate, miles per kilowatt hours is measured empirically. If your journey is averaging 3.75 miles/ kilowatt then your range will be 158. Your total average is 4.3 so 182.75 is your real range.

This is perfect and realistic as it’s very easy to average 3.75. Obviously if current journey is higher/lower then that is reflected in real range.
My GOM acts like holly from red dwarf. Literally takes SOC % and multiplies by 2. So 25%*2=50 miles, 50%*2=100 miles etc if my car had 87% SOC my GOM would shrug and guess 174. I would need to drive at 4.7mkWh for that to be accurate.
 
Last edited:
Support us by becoming a Premium Member

Latest MG EVs video

New EVs from MG: MG S9 & MG9 plus hot topics from the forums
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom