Official: Ford Confirms F-150 Lightning EPA Range for All Models

[KniceHit]

Now the question to answer is, why does the Platinum charge so much faster at 240VAC than some of the other trims with the same ER battery and onboard chargers.

It has been speculated that because the Max tow package is standard and an option on the others. Extra cooling for the batteries may help the rate of charge.

Sponsored

 

[FordTough98198]

Why didn't they just set it to 400?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the battery is probably capable of giving us that 400 mile range or even more… However people who buy F150 pick-ups typically keep them for a number of years; 5, 10, 15… we already know from using batteries that over time there will be some degradation and you will lose some of that range. This is a way to keep the truck relevant for a number of years… Over time they can release additional pockets of energy to keep the performance matching what it is on day one. It may not be what everybody wants to see out of the gate, but it is in their long-term best interest not to have a $90,000 truck that can only go 3/4 of the distance five or six years from now… Again, I am just guessing here.

 

[MickeyAO]

Why didn't they just set it to 400?

Because it is Ford, not Tesla.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

So no bump for the SR? Hopefully there is at least a small increase in range for the SR and Ford just wants the ER appear a better value and left it at 230. Yes I have a SR on order and yes I'm deluding myself!

Not officially. Do you really want to give your SR folks a reason to stay with an SR instead of upgrading?

What I find interesting is the ER models are more efficient than the SR models. I’m curious as to why that is.

I also don’t understand the backwards math.

ER is rated at 480Wh/mi. At 320mi range that implies 153kWh battery pack.

SR is rated at 490Wh/mi. At 230mi range that implies a 113kWh pack.

Those are much higher than the stated capacities. Am I doing math wrong?

 

[vandy1981]

Not officially. Do you really want to give your SR folks a reason to stay with an SR instead of upgrading?

What I find interesting is the ER models are more efficient than the SR models. I’m curious as to why that is.

I also don’t understand the backwards math.

ER is rated at 480Wh/mi. At 320mi range that implies 153kWh battery pack.

SR is rated at 490Wh/mi. At 230mi range that implies a 113kWh pack.

Those are much higher than the stated capacities. Am I doing math wrong?

MPGe takes charging losses into account. It's typically on the order of 10-15%.

I'm guessing the ER's dual on-board charger system is more efficient than the single charger on the SR.

See this post.

 

[gorwell]

battery is probably capable of giving us that 400 mile range or even more

I agree. Totally capable. Assuming you are going downhill in a tailwind.

Ford cannot defy physics.

Lots of people are likely going to be disappointed when it doesn't get 300 miles of freeway range. Then when they see it barely break 200 when driving in freeing temps. Then in freezing temps and towing, it only get 100 miles.

 

[greenne]

Here's my fear. Or Ford may have decided to play the same games Tesla plays and is using the more optimistic factor they are allowed to use in EPA ratings for the ER/Platinums.

Can't wait for the real world reviews. If the Lightning is anything like the Mach E, reviews will be embargoed until after the trucks starts selling.

It's more likely Ford underestimated the range (like they actually did with the Mach E) so as not to disappoint customers. Tesla plays games with range to win over customers.. its an extension of Elon's personality. They post big numbers but usually do not meet EPA rating in the real world.

Ford on the other hand, is very conservative with the EPA range estimates and often drivers meet them in real world conditions more often than not. It is also common for the Mach E to regularly exceed EPA expectations.

 

[FordTough98198]

I agree. Totally capable. Assuming you are going downhill in a tailwind.

Ford cannot defy physics.

Lots of people are likely going to be disappointed when it doesn't get 300 miles of freeway range. Then when they see it barely break 200 when driving in freeing temps. Then in freezing temps and towing, it only get 100 miles.

Thankfully I’m not a highway driver and in two years I’ve gone 12,000 miles in my 2020 Expedition. I rarely tow and i live in Seattle where the average temps don’t freeze. It’s gonna be a perfect vehicle for my needs. 200 miles a day is enough. 300 will be a bonus. ??‍ If ya need to stick with ICE then stick with ICE. You do you, boo. I’ll do me.

 

[FordTough98198]

It's more likely Ford underestimated the range (like they actually did with the Mach E) so as not to disappoint customers. Tesla plays games with range to win over customers.. its an extension of Elon's personality. They post big numbers but usually do not meet EPA rating in the real world.

Ford on the other hand, is very conservative with the EPA range estimates and often drivers meet them in real world conditions more often than not. It is also common for the Mach E to regularly exceed EPA expectations.

We also have a Mach-E and are perfectly happy with it, it’s performance, it’s range and it fits our lifestyle. If you (generically, “you”, not you specifically) have range anxiety or harsh demands from your vehicle… I’ve got great news for you… ICE vehicles still exist and are in plenty of supply. Buy one. Get off the EV forums. You’re not ready. And that’s ok. Those of us who are, don’t need your constant negative attitude. Take it elsewhere. ?

 

[data003]

Thankfully I’m not a highway driver and in two years I’ve gone 12,000 miles in my 2020 Expedition. I rarely tow and i live in Seattle where the average temps don’t freeze. It’s gonna be a perfect vehicle for my needs. 200 miles a day is enough. 300 will be a bonus. ??‍ If ya need to stick with ICE then stick with ICE. You do you, boo. I’ll do me.

But where will you park it? ?

Having lived there for several years… hopefully you have a house.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

MPGe takes charging losses into account. It's typically on the order of 10-15%.

I'm guessing the ER's dual on-board charger system is more efficient than the single charger on the SR.

See this post.

I’m not using the MPGe number, I’m using the wh/mi number, unless that number takes into account the charger loss too.

If it does, that means the actual driving consumption is closer to 408wh/mi while driving.

For comparison, my Model X gets 380-430wh/mi depending on whether it’s warm or cold. That would place the Lightning at the same consumption as my Model X…which doesn’t seem right either

 

[vandy1981]

I’m not using the MPGe number, I’m using the wh/mi number, unless that number takes into account the charger loss too.

If it does, that means the actual driving consumption is closer to 408wh/mi while driving.

For comparison, my Model X gets 380-430wh/mi depending on whether it’s warm or cold. That would place the Lightning at the same consumption as my Model X…which doesn’t seem right either

Wh/mi also includes charging losses.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

Wh/mi also includes charging losses.

I originally posted:
ER is rated at 480Wh/mi. At 320mi range that implies 153kWh battery pack.
SR is rated at 490Wh/mi. At 230mi range that implies a 113kWh pack.

With the 10% taken into account it comes out to:
ER @ 432wh/mi. At 320 mi range that implies a 138kWh pack
SR @ 441wh/mi. At 230 mi range that implies a 101kWh pack.

With a 15% taken into account it comes out to:
ER @ 408wh/mi. At 320 mi range that implies a 131kWh pack
SR @ 416wh/mi. At 230 mi range that implies a 96kWh pack.

So the ER is dead on with a 15% charging loss. The SR however would reflect a smaller pack at the rated numbers than the stated 98kWh usable. If we assume Ford underrated the SR and assume 416wh/mi and a 98kWh pack, that works out to be 235mi of range. A 5mi buffer doesn't seem too unrealistic and would be ford underpromising and overdelivering but certainly interesting.

 

[adoublee]

I originally posted:
ER is rated at 480Wh/mi. At 320mi range that implies 153kWh battery pack.
SR is rated at 490Wh/mi. At 230mi range that implies a 113kWh pack.

With the 10% taken into account it comes out to:
ER @ 432wh/mi. At 320 mi range that implies a 138kWh pack
SR @ 441wh/mi. At 230 mi range that implies a 101kWh pack.

With a 15% taken into account it comes out to:
ER @ 408wh/mi. At 320 mi range that implies a 131kWh pack
SR @ 416wh/mi. At 230 mi range that implies a 96kWh pack.

So the ER is dead on with a 15% charging loss. The SR however would reflect a smaller pack at the rated numbers than the stated 98kWh usable. If we assume Ford underrated the SR and assume 416wh/mi and a 98kWh pack, that works out to be 235mi of range. A 5mi buffer doesn't seem too unrealistic and would be ford underpromising and overdelivering but certainly interesting.

It seems to me the wh/mi sticker values are fairly useless, unless questioning if manufacturer is being honest about kWh available to the driver. Even then, there are to many variables that go into it to make it really useful for that. For example, turtle mode energy is real energy put into the battery but might exist under what is advertised as available to the consumer, so one needs to know if that energy was part of the charging - trying to dig on the listed charging time at 240VAC I found that is supposed to be time "to charge" a "fully empty" battery for example.

 

[LightningShow]

I originally posted:
ER is rated at 480Wh/mi. At 320mi range that implies 153kWh battery pack.
SR is rated at 490Wh/mi. At 230mi range that implies a 113kWh pack.

With the 10% taken into account it comes out to:
ER @ 432wh/mi. At 320 mi range that implies a 138kWh pack
SR @ 441wh/mi. At 230 mi range that implies a 101kWh pack.

With a 15% taken into account it comes out to:
ER @ 408wh/mi. At 320 mi range that implies a 131kWh pack
SR @ 416wh/mi. At 230 mi range that implies a 96kWh pack.

So the ER is dead on with a 15% charging loss. The SR however would reflect a smaller pack at the rated numbers than the stated 98kWh usable. If we assume Ford underrated the SR and assume 416wh/mi and a 98kWh pack, that works out to be 235mi of range. A 5mi buffer doesn't seem too unrealistic and would be ford underpromising and overdelivering but certainly interesting.

I came to 15% charging loss when I ran the numbers for the ER, as well.

Based on my reading of the the EPA numbers, 320mi range tells you that the combined driving efficiency is 320/131kWh = 2.44 mi/kWh. Using the MPGe numbers, you get 2.72 mi/kWh for city cycle and 2.20 mi/kWh for highway cycle. That implies a range of 356 miles in city driving and 288 miles in highway driving.

Sponsored