Lightning EPA Range Confirmation When?

[SendRip]

I am an early reservation holder and am reportedly #1 on my local dealers list. With this, I have a reasonable expectation that I will be included in the first order wave early next month.

Of course, I have seen Ford’s “targeted EPA-expected” ranges (230 SR/300 ER/280 ER Platinum) widely reported. I have also seen speculation that these are very conservative estimates (when not towing) and the actual could be at least marginally longer. Moreover, recent battery size confirmations seem to imply efficiency on par with/better than Rivian is required to achieve these expectations; something that could be suspect given the size difference.

However, it is not clear to me if/when these will be validated/confirmed by the EPA? As a first time EV buyer with a bit of range anxiety, it is interesting to me that we don’t have a explicitly confirmed range only weeks before ordering opens.

I am a buyer either way, but am curious if anyone as any info as to when we can expect this validation to occur and official figures to be released.

Stupid question? If so, take it easy on me.

Sponsored

 

[Pioneer74]

ICE EPA numbers sometimes don't come out until after vehicles are built. There is no way to accurately know when the numbers will be released.

 

[adoublee]

Sorry I can't answer your question but I'm not sure how informative that value is going to be for you if you are making decisions on it. I would much rather they get the production vehicles in the hands of some independent reviewers who would do tests and make comparisons that elimate some of the unknowns that even an EPA rating will have. For example, might Ford elect to have EPA use a number that is lower than they "could" achieve so that customers don't experience extreme underperformance thay can be seen with some of the vehicles described at https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ ?

One thing that interests me is the max tow package with what seems to be a higher capacity battery cooling system. Do we think this option will affect everyday mileage, and if so do we think Ford will rate it seperately or just have EPA derate so it is the same as trims without that option?

 

[rdr854]

Sorry I can't answer your question but I'm not sure how informative that value is going to be for you if you are making decisions on it. I would much rather they get the production vehicles in the hands of some independent reviewers who would do tests and make comparisons that elimate some of the unknowns that even an EPA rating will have. For example, might Ford elect to have EPA use a number that is lower than they "could" achieve so that customers don't experience extreme underperformance thay can be seen with some of the vehicles described at https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ ?

One thing that interests me is the max tow package with what seems to be a higher capacity battery cooling system. Do we think this option will affect everyday mileage, and if so do we think Ford will rate it seperately or just have EPA derate so it is the same as trims without that option?

Why would the max tow package adversely affect range?

 

[adoublee]

Why would the max tow package adversely affect range?

I think the idea us that it could enhance it by more effectively keeping the cells at optimum temperature. So for example if and XLT without option could test at 300 miles and with option tests at 310 miles, they might just make all XLT have a 300 mile EPA rating (numbers used for example only).

 

[cts888]

I am curious about the same thing. I am on my 4th EV and I have a hard time believing the lightning will be close to the R1T in efficiency.. So my guess is the extended range battery comes in at 280 miles EPA. Maybe 215 for the standard. Its a large and boxy truck, I would be surprised if extended gets even 250 miles at 70mph.

 

[BCP28]

Anything under 10k lbs GVWR with an exterior bed length less than 72in and seating capacity of less than 10 people requires EPA fuel economy/range certification prior to being released for sale; as either a light duty passenger vehicle (LDPV; GVWR < 8500lbs) or as a medium duty passenger vehicle (MDPV; GVWR >8500 but <10,000lbs).

So yes, the Lightning will be EPA certified prior to any customer deliveries; so that will likely take place early 2022. That may not happen before the order banks open though.

I don't think size is all that relevant in terms of vehicle efficiency. The Rivian likely has little to no weight advantage over the Lightning, and is likely worse for rolling resistance and vehicle parasitics vs the Lightning (2 vs 4 motors, more aggressive tires, etc). The only likely advantage would be aerodynamics, but the F150 is pretty efficient aerodynamically speaking (for a pickup anyways), but we'll need to see an EPA test car list and/or cert application to know for sure (and real world evaluations).

Perfect example in Ford's own lineup, the Ranger doesn't offer any meaningful advantage over the F150 in terms of fuel economy despite a smaller footprint because it's not much lighter, has a similar powertrain/driveline, and isn't really anymore aerodynamic vs an F150 (even though it may look it on the outside). ?‍

 

[SendRip]

Thanks. All makes sense relative comparing to rivian or even the ranger for that matter.

I share the same curiosity about the max tow package. I plan to add it regardless as it appears to be expected to be fairly cheap and will certainly be a nice to have over the life of the truck.

Thanks all.

 

[thudnblunder]

Anything under 10k lbs GVWR with an exterior bed length less than 72in and seating capacity of less than 10 people requires EPA fuel economy/range certification prior to being released for sale; as either a light duty passenger vehicle (LDPV; GVWR < 8500lbs) or as a medium duty passenger vehicle (MDPV; GVWR >8500 but <10,000lbs).

So yes, the Lightning will be EPA certified prior to any customer deliveries; so that will likely take place early 2022. That may not happen before the order banks open though.

I don't think size is all that relevant in terms of vehicle efficiency. The Rivian likely has little to no weight advantage over the Lightning, and is likely worse for rolling resistance and vehicle parasitics vs the Lightning (2 vs 4 motors, more aggressive tires, etc). The only likely advantage would be aerodynamics, but the F150 is pretty efficient aerodynamically speaking (for a pickup anyways), but we'll need to see an EPA test car list and/or cert application to know for sure (and real world evaluations).

Perfect example in Ford's own lineup, the Ranger doesn't offer any meaningful advantage over the F150 in terms of fuel economy despite a smaller footprint because it's not much lighter, has a similar powertrain/driveline, and isn't really anymore aerodynamic vs an F150 (even though it may look it on the outside). ?‍

The Rivian's headlight shape costs 75 miles of range in my head. I just can't get past the shape of those lights even though I love so much else I've read about the Rivian.

Insightful points on comparing the F-150 with the Ranger btw, that's some food for thought.

 

[WRS]

For example, might Ford elect to have EPA use a number that is lower than they "could" achieve so that customers don't experience extreme underperformance thay can be seen with some of the vehicles described at https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ ?

The EPA number is what EPA test results are for a standard test, not what the manufacturer elects for them to use. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves on real range expectations.

 

[adoublee]

The EPA number is what EPA test results are for a standard test, not what the manufacturer elects for them to use. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves on real range expectations.

So you feel that the 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S EPA-range of 203 miles is what EPA's standard test determined, and not that Porsche asked for it as a lower value than the EPA test determined/allowed?

 

[vandy1981]

The EPA number is what EPA test results are for a standard test, not what the manufacturer elects for them to use. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves on real range expectations.

Not exactly true.

The automaker can choose to test the least efficient configuration of their vehicle (i.e. the F150L Platinum with 22" wheels) to get a more conservative number. They also have the choice of two methods of EPA cycles as described here. Tesla is notorious for using the most favorable calculation whereas Porsche uses the least favorable.

 

[adoublee]

Not exactly true.

The automaker can choose to test the least efficient configuration of their vehicle (i.e. the F150L Platinum with 22" wheels) to get a more conservative number. They also have the choice of two methods of EPA cycles as described here. Tesla is notorious for using the most favorable calculation whereas Porsche uses the least favorable.

Electric Vehicle - Adjustment Procedure used to Derive FE Label (Window Sticker) Estimates - EPA regulations require fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 and driving range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) to be adjusted to more accurately reflect the values that customers can expect to achieve in the real world. EPA currently allows fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 values, and range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) for electric vehicles to be adjusted using one of the following methods:

- by multiplying city/highway fuel economy and range values by 0.7 and dividing city/highway energy consumption and CO2 values by 0.7 (Most Vehicles)
- using the derived 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210-12(a)(2) and EPA guidance letter CD-15- 15, June 22, 2015 (available at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/dearmfr.htm) (Tesla)
- using a method which is equivalent to the vehicle specific 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210- 12(a)(1) (with prior EPA approval) such as the method provided in Appendix B of SAE J1634 July 2017 Recommended Practice;
- using adjustment factors which are based on in-use data (with prior EPA approval).

It looks like there are actually 5 paths for manufacturer to consider, with one being "adjustment factors which are based on in-use data (with prior EPA approval). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that EPA is probably going to approve if the value is more conservative than the type 0.7 de-rate. It might be silly for a manufacturer to take something more conservative (a lower EPA range value), but seems easily allowed.

 

[sotek2345]

Electric Vehicle - Adjustment Procedure used to Derive FE Label (Window Sticker) Estimates - EPA regulations require fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 and driving range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) to be adjusted to more accurately reflect the values that customers can expect to achieve in the real world. EPA currently allows fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 values, and range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) for electric vehicles to be adjusted using one of the following methods:

- by multiplying city/highway fuel economy and range values by 0.7 and dividing city/highway energy consumption and CO2 values by 0.7 (Most Vehicles)
- using the derived 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210-12(a)(2) and EPA guidance letter CD-15- 15, June 22, 2015 (available at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/dearmfr.htm) (Tesla)
- using a method which is equivalent to the vehicle specific 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210- 12(a)(1) (with prior EPA approval) such as the method provided in Appendix B of SAE J1634 July 2017 Recommended Practice;
- using adjustment factors which are based on in-use data (with prior EPA approval).

It looks like there are actually 5 paths for manufacturer to consider, with one being "adjustment factors which are based on in-use data (with prior EPA approval). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that EPA is probably going to approve if the value is more conservative than the type 0.7 de-rate. It might be silly for a manufacturer to take something more conservative (a lower EPA range value), but seems easily allowed.

Ford did exactly that for the Mach-e to bring the EPA numbers down (a little bit)

 

[PungoteagueDave]

The EPA number is what EPA test results are for a standard test, not what the manufacturer elects for them to use. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves on real range expectations.

Not true at all. First, the EPA does not provide the rating - the manufacturer does the calculation for the printed Monroney sticker on every car using the EPA-specified methodology. That methodology for EVs has several alternatives for doing the calculation, including adjustments that are fairly broad brush. Some manufacturers, like Tesla, have been aggressive in applying the calculations to arrive at high range numbers, which have been tough for consumers to achieve in the real world. Others, like Porsche, have been conservative, perhaps overly so, and have published numbers that are being exceeded by most owners in the Taycan and its derivatives. Ford is apparently pursuing that approach, as MachE owners are reporting meeting or exceeding the EPA numbers, and Ford has indicated that it is projecting initial Lightning numbers using a 1,000-pound payload. Whether that is for the EPA range or not remains to be seen.

Sponsored