First DC charging on the Lightning - with drop-off @ 80%!

[FlasherZ]

Well, had the opportunity to do the first DC fast charge. Plugged in at 27% and it raced right up to 160 kW for a couple of minutes:

It charged quite a bit faster than I expected, but I knew the reckoning was coming for me as the SOC approached 80%... so we went from 85.6 kW at 76.5% true SOC, and dropped like a rock to 58.1 kW at 76.6% true SOC:

(True SOC is the truck's view of the real SOC on the battery, versus the displayed SOC, which takes into account various other factors like reserve and maximum voltage for battery health... note the displayed here is 80.0% for both.)

It appears that HVAC for cooling during charging takes about 4 kW (difference between ChgPwr and HVBPwr).

I sure hope @Ford Motor Company works on this charging curve, it needs to maintain a higher level for longer - perhaps to 90%.

 

[COrocket]

Charging rates tapering off as you reach 70%+ is prevalent in every EV. It is done to manage the strain on the battery and keep the battery healthy long term. This is why charging to 100% on road trips is not the fastest way to travel. Arriving with as low SOC as possible and leaving at 70-80% and leapfrogging to the next charger is the fastest way.

Really where the Lightning falls flat is the peak charging. There’s no reason a 131 kWh battery should be capped at 150 kW charge rate. A Tesla Model 3 with a battery half the size of the Lighting can peak at 250 kW+. This is what will really hold the Lightning back from being a solid road trip vehicle. I’m really hoping the truck has the internal wiring sized to support faster charging and can be improved with a software update. Otherwise we will probably keep using the Tesla to road trip since I don’t want to wait an extra half hour at each stop.

 

[FlasherZ]

I'm pretty familiar with taper (10 years of Tesla), but there's no reason for the sudden drop right at 80 percent. I would be fine with a taper.

In this case, it makes the difference between having to stop in 50 miles again to make it home vs. driving directly home.

 

[GDN]

Agree with you all - the curve just dropping at 80 needs to be reworked - that isn't a magical number, it can have a better taper and keep more of that power.

There are times you need that 100%. I'm 200 miles from my moms house. I've made the drive up and back in a day multiple times. There is a charger half way, Tesla is right on the freeway I've used multiple times and thank goodness an EA a mile or so away.

However if I'm up and back in the same day - I stop at this charge location - need it up to almost 100% - that gets me the rest of my trip, gives me a little range for driving while there and then back to the charger on the way home. 80% won't give me any buffer for getting back to the charger.

20% of this battery is still a big amount and it just seems this curve could be moved to the right. And yes - the 150cap is paltry and sad at best. Hoping SW will unlock something here.

 

[adoublee]

Charging rates tapering off as you reach 70%+ is prevalent in every EV. It is done to manage the strain on the battery and keep the battery healthy long term. This is why charging to 100% on road trips is not the fastest way to travel. Arriving with as low SOC as possible and leaving at 70-80% and leapfrogging to the next charger is the fastest way.

Really where the Lightning falls flat is the peak charging. There’s no reason a 131 kWh battery should be capped at 150 kW charge rate. A Tesla Model 3 with a battery half the size of the Lighting can peak at 250 kW+. This is what will really hold the Lightning back from being a solid road trip vehicle. I’m really hoping the truck has the internal wiring sized to support faster charging and can be improved with a software update. Otherwise we will probably keep using the Tesla to road trip since I don’t want to wait an extra half hour at each stop.

I'd say the battery voltage is a bigger disappointment as many chargers are never going to be able to supply even the 150kW.

 

[SmoothJ]

What is the true size of the battery if 131 is usable?

 

[beatle]

If the difference between true and displayed is 3.5%, I'm guessing around 136kwh based on that delta. That seems like a small buffer though.

 

[RickLightning]

At launch, the Mach-E dropped to 14kW at 80%. Ford analyzed usage and in late 2021 upped that to 44kW. They also increased usable battery size from 88 to 91kW. Both done with software updates.

They very carefully watch usage. They were clear to say that they will be fine tuning things on an individual basis, if you are responsible in your use you get more capability, if you are less responsible you get less, or even lose responsibility.

 

[Maquis]

At launch, the Mach-E dropped to 14kW at 80%. Ford analyzed usage and in late 2021 upped that to 44kW. They also increased usable battery size from 88 to 91kW. Both done with software updates.

They very carefully watch usage. They were clear to say that they will be fine tuning things on an individual basis, if you are responsible in your use you get more capability, if you are less responsible you get less, or even lose responsibility.

I must be a “good boy”. The last time I DCFC’d, my MME was at 51KW when I disconnected at 86%.

 

[beatle]

So the MME went from a 0.15C to a 0.5C rating when hitting 80%. The Lightning is just shy of 0.5C already.

My old-ass Model S has a 0.4C rating at 80% and 0.26C at 90%. When new it charged faster, but Tesla nerfed charging speeds for many early models.

A Taycan drops TO 1.0C (but tapers a bit more) at 80%.

Without much data on their fleet, I think Ford is just playing it safe. A lot of Tesla owners were upset about the reduction in charging speeds from new. If Ford increases the power or SoC charging cliff after purchase, they'll look like nice guys.

 

[CRAIGC540]

At launch, the Mach-E dropped to 14kW at 80%. Ford analyzed usage and in late 2021 upped that to 44kW. They also increased usable battery size from 88 to 91kW. Both done with software updates.

They very carefully watch usage. They were clear to say that they will be fine tuning things on an individual basis, if you are responsible in your use you get more capability, if you are less responsible you get less, or even lose responsibility.

Are you saying that if I charge the way Fords recommends that they will see it and allow my Lightning better charging rates? How can they do that on a individual basis?

 

[RickLightning]

So the MME went from a 0.15C to a 0.5C rating when hitting 80%. The Lightning is just shy of 0.5C already.

My old-ass Model S has a 0.4C rating at 80% and 0.26C at 90%. When new it charged faster, but Tesla nerfed charging speeds for many early models.

A Taycan drops TO 1.0C (but tapers a bit more) at 80%.

Without much data on their fleet, I think Ford is just playing it safe. A lot of Tesla owners were upset about the reduction in charging speeds from new. If Ford increases the power or SoC charging cliff after purchase, they'll look like nice guys.

That's exactly what they did with the Mach-E, and I expect they'll be doing with the F-150. The question is - are Mach-E owners different from F-150L owners, and will F-150L owners "abuse" their vehicles more?

By "abuse" I mean do things that discourage, vs. encourage, battery longevity. Ford has made it clear that they take steps to ensure that at 8 years / 10,000 miles the vehicles have a minimum of 70% of original capacity.

If you watch the video, Darren Palmer hits on some of what they're watching.

 

[metroshot]

.....
(True SOC is the truck's view of the real SOC on the battery, versus the displayed SOC, which takes into account various other factors like reserve and maximum voltage for battery health... note the displayed here is 80.0% for both.)

It appears that HVAC for cooling during charging takes about 4 kW (difference between ChgPwr and HVBPwr).

I sure hope @Ford Motor Company works on this charging curve, it needs to maintain a higher level for longer - perhaps to 90%.

Very good info!

Where did you get this app ?

I had no idea 3.5% buffer was the difference between real/true SOC and displayed SOC!

 

[vandy1981]

Really where the Lightning falls flat is the peak charging. There’s no reason a 131 kWh battery should be capped at 150 kW charge rate.

I've been getting up to 168 kW on the Signet EA chargers. I don't know what the pack voltage was at that point, but I suspect I was getting pretty close to the 500 amp CCS1 limit. Peak voltage is not going to get better on this generation given the limits of a 400 v system and CCS1 amperage ratings.

I suspect the curve will improve over time given the headroom engineered into the thermal management system. As it stands charging performance is better than I expected when it was announced.

 

[RickLightning]

Are you saying that if I charge the way Fords recommends that they will see it and allow my Lightning better charging rates? How can they do that on a individual basis?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Watch the video (Darren is at the beginning of it).

Of course it's not "Hey, did you see that Craig is only charging to 90% as we recommend, never using DC fast charging, and drives like a grandmother?" vs. "Hey, Bob is an a-hole. He's drag racing the truck, and DC fast charges in the morning, lunch, and dinner." But they clearly are segmenting usage, and in the future will make decisions that those that take care of the battery will get capabilities (or retain capabilities) that those that do not won't.

Sponsored