DC Charging Peak Speed: Extended 155kW, Standard 120kW

[vandy1981]

Ford really should have pursued an 800v charging system, even if they wanted to stick with 400v components elsewhere. Similar to what GM did.

800v components are harder to source and are more expensive than 400v components. If they went with that architecture we would be waiting longer and paying more than we are now. I'd love to have 800v, but expect that we'll have to wait until gen2.

Sponsored

 

[vandy1981]

There are plenty of tradeoffs in battery manufacturing. Perhaps the Lightning is built for exceptional longevity / charge cycles at the tradeoff of output or charging speed. I'd be okay with that if true.

Agreed. Ford is designing for a duty cycle that includes fleets and towing so they're going to be more conservative with things that degrade the battery like DCFC. Ford also has to negotiate risk tolerance with the battery supplier who would be at least partly liable if there is underperformance in pack longevity.

Charging curves will probably improve with subsequent model years as they gather more real-world usage data. Hopefully these changes will trickle back to earlier model years, but I wouldn't count on that given how things have been handled with the MY2021 Mach-E.

 

[hturnerfamily]

I think that while we want to compare and argue and try to 'reason' why these batteries and charging times are what they are, the vast, vast majority of any vehicles charging will be done at HOME, overnight, with little regard to 'speed'... only the very FEW relative times we hit a DC Fast Charger will any of this bear any annoyance, if there really is any in the first place. If you sit at a fast charger 5 minutes longer, you'll sit for a few minutes longer, that's it. Yes, we can speculate 'why' these things are the way they are, but most of the companies have not had Years and Years of building EVs to take the time to 'decide' what might work best, or fastest, or at the highest 'power', etc... they've had to go on what technology and batteries and fast chargers that are only currently available - I imagine we'll see, though, in the not-so-far future, much higher and faster DC Fast Charger options, more powerful and compact and faster charging Batteries, and vehicles that can travel 700 miles without having to even 'stop' at a fast charger.

Maybe in this case, a LEASE is not the worst option : )

 

[gorwell]

Need to see the full charge curve before that can be said. The area under curve is what matters, not the imaginary peak it "could" hit that many advertize on.

You don't need to see a charge curve.

The peak speeds here don't change from the DC charge times they already published, which is ;

44 minutes from 15-80% for standard
41 minutes from 15-80% for Extended

The core issue I have w/ Ford here is that they gimped the Standard charging to a level lower than the already slow Mach-e. Keeping parity w/ the Extended would have decreased 15-80% charge times for the standard by 10 minutes. Arguably more important to have faster charge times on standard given the range.

Rivian fully out designed Ford here. Rivian's are rated to peak ~210kW (on 400v). Rivians are still rough in terms of charging curves, and we'll need to wait for Out of Spec reviews to show his charging curve which I expect to be the best test yet.

 

[adoublee]

You don't need to see a charge curve.

The peak speeds here don't change from the DC charge times they already published, which is ;

44 minutes from 15-80% for standard
41 minutes from 15-80% for Extended

The core issue I have w/ Ford here is that they gimped the Standard charging to a level lower than the already slow Mach-e. Keeping parity w/ the Extended would have decreased 15-80% charge times for the standard by 10 minutes. Arguably more important to have faster charge times on standard given the range.

Rivian fully out designed Ford here. Rivian's are rated to peak ~210kW (on 400v). Rivians are still rough in terms of charging curves, and we'll need to wait for Out of Spec reviews to show his charging curve which I expect to be the best test yet.

No, Rivian gimped the charging. 210kW somewhere under 20% SOC (maybe), 150kW max above. TFL documented a curve and it proves my point exactly - I think you are wanting to flex on competitors with a single number instead of caring about actual time to recharge. Sure it could be better - always can. But reality is that most of the consumer charging that has been installed so far and will probably be installed with federal monies will be in the 150kW range, so better to utilize that across the most SOC than hit 210kW for 30 seconds. Lightning Could Charge Better Than Rivian Above 20% SOC? | F150gen14.com -- 2021+ Ford F-150, Lightning EV, Raptor Forum (14th Gen) | Owners, News, Discussions

 

[Sklith]

800v components are harder to source and are more expensive than 400v components. If they went with that architecture we would be waiting longer and paying more than we are now. I'd love to have 800v, but expect that we'll have to wait until gen2.

As Seageo mentioned, GM's not putting 800V components in their vehicles at this time. Instead, the battery pack has a connector which changes the voltage from 400 to 800 temporarily for DC fast charging.

 

[LightningShow]

I'm fine with 150kW charging if it means I get the truck two years sooner...which, in this case, it does. Sure, 350kW charging would be great but...guess what...there are almost no 350kW chargers around here (and I live in a VERY populous area). They just put brand new EA chargers at the mall up the road from me and they are all 150kW. I've yet to see a 350kW DCFC in person. There are only 4 in northern New England and it would be sheer chance that I would need to charge near one. The 350kW network just isn't ubiquitous enough, outside of the major corridors, to warrant the extra expense and time that Ford would've needed to get it into a 2022 model F-150. It's a very reasonable trade-off IMO.

EDIT: I can't speak to the 120kW limit on the SR. I would've expected both batteries could charge at 150kW but I'm not well versed on the technical limitations.

 

[hellb0y]

120kw into a 98kwh pack is 1.22C
155kw into a 131kwh pack is 1.18C

The ER has an even weaker charge rate than the SR. The 800V system is not going to change the C rating; it will only alleviate current demands from the charger. If a DCFC cannot provide enough current for the desired kw, then voltage of the systems involved need to increase. That said, if the EA systems can deliver 350kw at 800v, as you said they're only going to get to 175kw at 400v, and that's still well above what even the Lightning ER can take.

The Lightning uses batteries from SK Innovations, the MachE uses batteries from LG Chem. The Lightning uses different chemistry as well: https://fordauthority.com/2020/10/ford-f-150-electric-battery-chemistry-will-be-unique-to-model/

There are plenty of tradeoffs in battery manufacturing. Perhaps the Lightning is built for exceptional longevity / charge cycles at the tradeoff of output or charging speed. I'd be okay with that if true.

This!!!...lower charge rate is likely to bring longer battery life.

 

[vandy1981]

No, Rivian gimped the charging. 210kW somewhere under 20% SOC (maybe), 150kW max above. TFL documented a curve and it proves my point exactly - I think you are wanting to flex on competitors with a single number instead of caring about actual time to recharge. Sure it could be better - always can. But reality is that most of the consumer charging that has been installed so far and will probably be installed with federal monies will be in the 150kW range, so better to utilize that across the most SOC than hit 210kW for 30 seconds. Lightning Could Charge Better Than Rivian Above 20% SOC? | F150gen14.com -- 2021+ Ford F-150, Lightning EV, Raptor Forum (14th Gen) | Owners, News, Discussions

Additionally, CCS2 cannot pull more than 200 kw @ 400V at the plug. The only way they're going to get anywhere near the peak is probably by over-rating the Rivian Adventure Network chargers like Tesla does with their SC.

I completely agree that there is far too much emphasis on peak kW when AUC rules the day.

As Seageo mentioned, GM's not putting 800V components in their vehicles at this time. Instead, the battery pack has a connector which changes the voltage from 400 to 800 temporarily for DC fast charging.

I don't believe the hardware that switches between parallel and serial configuration is off the shelf. Also, there are components between the plug and pack that would need to be rated for 800v. Both of these would cost money and development time.

 

[EVBill]

Additionally, CCS2 cannot pull more than 200 kw @ 400V at the plug. The only way they're going to get anywhere near the peak is probably by over-rating the Rivian Adventure Network chargers like Tesla does with their SC.

I completely agree that there is far too much emphasis on peak kW when AUC rules the day.



I don't believe the hardware that switches between parallel and serial configuration is off the shelf. Also, there are components between the plug and pack that would need to be rated for 800v. Both of these would cost money and development time.

Care to spell out what AUC means in the statement above?

 

[sotek2345]

Care to spell out what AUC means in the statement above?

Area Under the Curve. Basically the peak rate doesn't matter much it is what can be sustained over time.

 

[LightningShow]

If you look at the Lyriq the 15-80% charge rate looks very similar to the F150. More “miles” obviously but similar avg kW, in the 125kW ballpark. GM claims 190kW max charge rate for the Lyriq but it clearly won’t take that for very long.

 

[gorwell]

No, Rivian gimped the charging. 210kW somewhere under 20% SOC (maybe), 150kW max above. TFL documented a curve and it proves my point exactly

Yes TFL proves your point. But, you missed my commentary:

Rivians are still rough in terms of charging curves, and we'll need to wait for Out of Spec reviews to show his charging curve which I expect to be the best test yet.

One datapoint proves your point for an item that is continually tweaked, and highly subject to temperature and charging tech in the charger itself. Rivian is too new to have much data on the charging curve.

As noted, Out of Spec reviews will have a definitive charge curve as they get into the details on how to get the best charge -- TFL isn't a good source for EV reviews. Getting peak charging rates of 185-210kW is only possible on 350kW chargers that are being fed by a full 500 amps. We'll see that charge curve from out of spec.

 

[greenne]

You don't need to see a charge curve.

The peak speeds here don't change from the DC charge times they already published, which is ;

44 minutes from 15-80% for standard
41 minutes from 15-80% for Extended

The core issue I have w/ Ford here is that they gimped the Standard charging to a level lower than the already slow Mach-e. Keeping parity w/ the Extended would have decreased 15-80% charge times for the standard by 10 minutes. Arguably more important to have faster charge times on standard given the range.

Rivian fully out designed Ford here. Rivian's are rated to peak ~210kW (on 400v). Rivians are still rough in terms of charging curves, and we'll need to wait for Out of Spec reviews to show his charging curve which I expect to be the best test yet.

A charge curve would be helpful..we all don't have the option of stopping at exactly 15% or charging to 80%. You have to work stops along a road trip.

Lets say you need to stop for lunch and you can either stop at 70% battery or drive a bit further down the road and charge at say 40%(or 30%). In either case you're gonna spend 15min at a fast food joint to grab a burger and take a restroom break.

It would be good to know if the curve (charging speed) drops at 50%, or if it continues at a fairly good clip to 80%(even 90%). This helps you get the max power during your stop so you can reduce dwell time on down the road.

 

[VTbuckeye]

Area Under the Curve. Basically the peak rate doesn't matter much it is what can be sustained over time.

SR 15 to 80 percent x 98kwh. 44 minutes = 0.65x98kwh/0.733h = 89.6 kw average charge rate.
ER 15 to 80 percent x 131kwh. 41 minutes = 0.65x131kwh/0.6833h= 124.6kw average charge rate. A high maximum rate is great, but the average charge rate is what really matters.

Sponsored