Lightning performance expectations - 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile

[LightningShow]

Truly hoping t

Hopefully it is a software issue and can be corrected once they fully review the data.

I would suspect it is some kind of thermal management limiting acceleration but that's pure speculation. It could be in the design of the electric motors as well.

This video is the Base Model Y vs the base Mach-E. The MME is clearly designed to limit acceleration above 50 mph. Start at 3:00 in the video and you can really see it. The MME does 60-80 in ~3s in the video, he doesn't go much above that but 9 seconds 60-100 seems like a lot even for the base model if it's doing 60-80 in 3s. Obviously it doesn't makes any sense that the GT, with +200hp/+300tq, would be slower than the base. If the 100mph trap numbers are real then it sounds like a heavy handed thermal management issue.

Sponsored

 

[F150ROD]

Here is an article talking about this subject. Looks like the lightning falls flat on its face right at 70 and now I might be having second thoughts......

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/09/21/2022-ford-f150-lightning-prototype-first-ride/

"Steady, hard acceleration continued to just over 70 mph, but it seemed to drop off a bit above highway speeds. We hit 82 mph on the straightaway at M1 Concourse, but Adewusi didn’t stay in the throttle to the very last second, so there’s no way of knowing what the truck feels like above 80 mph."

 

[sotek2345]

Here is an article talking about this subject. Looks like the lightning falls flat on its face right at 70 and now I might be having second thoughts......

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/09/21/2022-ford-f150-lightning-prototype-first-ride/

"Steady, hard acceleration continued to just over 70 mph, but it seemed to drop off a bit above highway speeds. We hit 82 mph on the straightaway at M1 Concourse, but Adewusi didn’t stay in the throttle to the very last second, so there’s no way of knowing what the truck feels like above 80 mph."

Not nearly as big a concern as in the more performance oriented Mach-E. My 2016 F150 (2.7l) doesn't exactly have tons of gusto at those speeds either - even with a performance tune.

 

[F150ROD]

Not nearly as big a concern as in the more performance oriented Mach-E. My 2016 F150 (2.7l) doesn't exactly have tons of gusto at those speeds either - even with a performance tune.

yeah man, what’s happening to the GT’s is crazy.

 

[Tommy303]

Just my opinions...

I'm one of the guys that's been reporting the numbers at that forum. The car is REALLY quick up to around 80, then it just falls on it's face. Off the line it's faster than my modified GT-500, (unless I'm at the drag strip with heated sticky tires and fully ready to launch the car). But whereas my Mach-E takes almost 9 seconds to go from 60-100, my 500 will go 60-130 in less than 6 seconds. I realize that comparing the 2 cars is pointless, but I'm just trying to illustrate the difference in numbers. I think most people were hoping for a car that was more than a 1/2 second quicker in the quarter mile and at least 10-15 mph faster. Maybe hopes were too high? On the street there's more than enough power for the Mach-E, and with the AWD you'll effortlessly leave everyone behind if you go full send from the light.

With that said, however, hopefully Ford can tweak the performance, as it IS supposed to be a performance vehicle after all. Ford used the Tesla as a benchmark and ended up behind it in many ways from the start. Arguments have been made that people are comparing an SUV with a sedan, but Ford chose to call it a Mustang. Regardless, we all know that it won't be long before 480 hp and 600+ tq will be on the bottom end of the performance scale as many companies are going nuts on the power they're developing.

There are rumors that there will be an OTA upgrade next month that might address the issue.

***fingers crossed***

 

[F150ROD]

Just my opinions...

I'm one of the guys that's been reporting the numbers at that forum. The car is REALLY quick up to around 80, then it just falls on it's face. Off the line it's faster than my modified GT-500, (unless I'm at the drag strip with heated sticky tires and fully ready to launch the car). But whereas my Mach-E takes almost 9 seconds to go from 60-100, my 500 will go 60-130 in less than 6 seconds. I realize that comparing the 2 cars is pointless, but I'm just trying to illustrate the difference in numbers. I think most people were hoping for a car that was more than a 1/2 second quicker in the quarter mile and at least 10-15 mph faster. Maybe hopes were too high? On the street there's more than enough power for the Mach-E, and with the AWD you'll effortlessly leave everyone behind if you go full send from the light.

With that said, however, hopefully Ford can tweak the performance, as it IS supposed to be a performance vehicle after all. Ford used the Tesla as a benchmark and ended up behind it in many ways from the start. Arguments have been made that people are comparing an SUV with a sedan, but Ford chose to call it a Mustang. Regardless, we all know that it won't be long before 480 hp and 600+ tq will be on the bottom end of the performance scale as many companies are going nuts on the power they're developing.

There are rumors that there will be an OTA upgrade next month that might address the issue.

***fingers crossed***

It doesn't necessarily need to match the GT-500 but at the same time it should a bit quicker. It's one of the reasons I got rid of my Model 3, anything above 80 mph was a crawl and there was no tuning or anything you could do about it. I am worried the Lightning will suffer the same fate and to be honest I'd rather have a slower 0-60 but consistent power all the way up to 100 mph. Granted it is a truck but with my ICE F-150 there is always power and it's the lowly 2.7.

One thing I learned driving a Tesla was that SOC was important when trying to get the most power out of the car, I'm not sure how you tested the Mach-E, but have you tried it with 100% charge?

 

[Tommy303]

It doesn't necessarily need to match the GT-500 but at the same time it should a bit quicker. It's one of the reasons I got rid of my Model 3, anything above 80 mph was a crawl and there was no tuning or anything you could do about it. I am worried the Lightning will suffer the same fate and to be honest I'd rather have a slower 0-60 but consistent power all the way up to 100 mph. Granted it is a truck but with my ICE F-150 there is always power and it's the lowly 2.7.

One thing I learned driving a Tesla was that SOC was important when trying to get the most power out of the car, I'm not sure how you tested the Mach-E, but have you tried it with 100% charge?

I tested it at a drag strip, plus I have a few Dragy runs. At the strip I had a 70% charge and nearly 90% with the Dragy. The results were negligible so far, but I only have a few runs with each.

 

[F150ROD]

I tested it at a drag strip, plus I have a few Dragy runs. At the strip I had a 70% charge and nearly 90% with the Dragy. The results were negligible so far, but I only have a few runs with each.

This is a good video on how the Model 3 also suffers from the same fate.... everything over 70 is going to be slow as molasses, but again if you are putting the Mustang name behind it then it better go all the way.

 

[ShirBlackspots]

Here is an article talking about this subject. Looks like the lightning falls flat on its face right at 70 and now I might be having second thoughts......

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/09/21/2022-ford-f150-lightning-prototype-first-ride/

"Steady, hard acceleration continued to just over 70 mph, but it seemed to drop off a bit above highway speeds. We hit 82 mph on the straightaway at M1 Concourse, but Adewusi didn’t stay in the throttle to the very last second, so there’s no way of knowing what the truck feels like above 80 mph."

I'm wondering if its the bobby pin style windings Ford and everyone else uses. Tesla uses thin wire windings, and their cars have a higher acceleration rate than the other manufacturers.

 

[Rando]

GTPE Delivers 5 Seconds of Full Power on Acceleration Then Reduces Battery Power to Limit Heating

Womp womp. I’m really starting to lean the tuned 3.5L route until tech improves.

 

[BennyTheBeaver]

Womp womp. I’m really starting to lean the tuned 3.5L route until tech improves.

You should! Just be sure to cancel your reservation first ?

Sponsored