Lightning Battery Teardown by Munro

[Mr. Flibble]

Sponsored

 

[ctuan13]

The built-in increased serviceability of the Lightning's pack gives me hope that down the road, even long after the warranty period is up, there will be companies that refurbish and remanufacture battery packs for the Lightning like they do for the Prius.

 

[queuewho]

The temperature management only being on the bottom edge of each cell is kind of surprising. I wonder if this contributes to the slower charge speed of these packs.

 

[ctuan13]

The temperature management only being on the bottom edge of each cell is kind of surprising. I wonder if this contributes to the slower charge speed of these packs.

End cooling is a commonly deployed strategy for thermal management. A bigger factor in the charging speed limitation of the Lightning is its pack architecture. The system being a 400V pack, means that to charge very fast requires an enormous amount of current to achieve the same Kw rate. Whereas super fast charging vehicles like the Hummer EV, Ioniq 5 and EV6 are based on an 800V architecture, allowing them to achieve much higher charge rates eith the same current.

 

[MickeyAO]

I laughed every time they compared the 'evolution' between the Mach-E pack and the Lightning pack in the different videos...these were two completely different battery manufacturers. While I'm sure FoMoCo had design inputs, I doubt they drove evolution changes in the packs.

As far as the 'edge cooling', I would be very surprised if there was not a metal plate that touched the cooling plate and covered the entire side of a cell, so it was not just the narrow edge of a cell being cooled. I know LG Energy packs utilize this (Bolt, Mach-E, etc), however the only SK Innovations pack I have disassembled (Kia Soul) used forced air cooling plates, but I would expect much the same cooling strategy here as most other manufacturers using liquid cooling.

 

[COrocket]

End cooling is a commonly deployed strategy for thermal management. A bigger factor in the charging speed limitation of the Lightning is its pack architecture. The system being a 400V pack, means that to charge very fast requires an enormous amount of current to achieve the same Kw rate. Whereas super fast charging vehicles like the Hummer EV, Ioniq 5 and EV6 are based on an 800V architecture, allowing them to achieve much higher charge rates eith the same current.

400V vs 800V explains some of the difference, but the Lightning charging is still very slow compared to other 400V vehicles, especially when adjusted for battery size. For example a 400V Tesla Model 3 or Y with a 75kwh battery can peak charge at 250kw, whereas a long range Lightning has nearly double the battery size peaks around 170kw.

If you extrapolate the Lightning charge rates to get similar energy input per unit of battery, the Lightning should easily be able to take advantage of the EA 350kw stations (at peak). Either Fords battery chemistry R&D lags Tesla by 5+ years, or in my opinion there may be some other limiting factor, like the gauge of DC cables running from the charge door to the HV battery, the cooling system capacity required during DCFC sessions, physical cooling limitations of pouch cell geometry, or something else that requires the Lightning charge rate to be handicapped.

Charge rate improvements is something that I would keep my eyes peeled for the second gen Lightning. It’s the reason we are keeping a Tesla as our primary road-tripping vehicle and the Lightning will be a daily driver. The real world translation is that a 10-15 minute DCFC session at a Tesla Supercharger can get us the same range boost as a 30-45 minute DCFC session with the Lightning. So it will add up on long trips.

 

[BennyTheBeaver]

I laughed every time they compared the 'evolution' between the Mach-E pack and the Lightning pack in the different videos...these were two completely different battery manufacturers. While I'm sure FoMoCo had design inputs, I doubt they drove evolution changes in the packs.

As far as the 'edge cooling', I would be very surprised if there was not a metal plate that touched the cooling plate and covered the entire side of a cell, so it was not just the narrow edge of a cell being cooled. I know LG Energy packs utilize this (Bolt, Mach-E, etc), however the only SK Innovations pack I have disassembled (Kia Soul) used forced air cooling plates, but I would expect much the same cooling strategy here as most other manufacturers using liquid cooling.

I was waiting for Mickey's reaction before watching it...just so I knew if their commentary was BS or not.

 

[MickeyAO]

I was waiting for Mickey's reaction before watching it...just so I knew if their commentary was BS or not.

Lots of good high-level (and kind of hidden/not talked about) information that I can use when I attack the Lightning pack in a couple of months, just ignore the 'evolution' between the Mach-E and Lightning packs.

 

[Fryballin]

End cooling is a commonly deployed strategy for thermal management. A bigger factor in the charging speed limitation of the Lightning is its pack architecture. The system being a 400V pack, means that to charge very fast requires an enormous amount of current to achieve the same Kw rate. Whereas super fast charging vehicles like the Hummer EV, Ioniq 5 and EV6 are based on an 800V architecture, allowing them to achieve much higher charge rates eith the same current.

Kyle Konner recently did a charging curve video on the Hummer EV and basically he determined that the Hummer EV charges best between 0-65% and if road tripping the vehicle that is where you want to be during charging sessions. What was interesting to me is that it took 40 minutes for the Hummer EV to charge 0-65% and if you do the math on the 70 MPH range (Kyle went 318 miles at 70 MPH in another test) that would give you about 206 miles added in 40 minutes. Compare that to the Lightning and what you find is that 0-80% charging takes about 50 minutes (results from Kyle Konner and Tom Moloughney charging tests both say right at 50 minutes) and that 50 minutes adds about 216 miles at 70 MPH speeds (270 miles of range is what Tom got at 70 MPH in the Lariat Trim and Kyle's was slightly less in the Platinum which is expected). So essentially if you actually look at the charging curve and how you apply that to real world charging while road tripping, the Lightning is impressively close even without the 800v architecture. In my opinion based on what the charging tests have shown I would say on average, the lightning will add the same amount of range as the Hummer EV in about 5 minutes more charging time. The lightning is repeatedly criticized for its "low pack voltage" which indicates slower charging, but honestly what FORD has done already with the Lightning charging is keeping it competitive even with the more advanced 800v platforms.

The most interesting thing about this is, I would expect the Silverado EV to charge similar if not identical to the Hummer EV, and although it will be slightly more efficient than the Hummer EV, I don't expect the Silverado EV's charging sessions to be significantly faster than the Lightnings.

Here's the link to that charging video on the Hummer EV Kyle Posted if anyone wants to check it out.

 

[Fryballin]

400V vs 800V explains some of the difference, but the Lightning charging is still very slow compared to other 400V vehicles, especially when adjusted for battery size. For example a 400V Tesla Model 3 or Y with a 75kwh battery can peak charge at 250kw, whereas a long range Lightning has nearly double the battery size peaks around 170kw.

If you extrapolate the Lightning charge rates to get similar energy input per unit of battery, the Lightning should easily be able to take advantage of the EA 350kw stations (at peak). Either Fords battery chemistry R&D lags Tesla by 5+ years, or in my opinion there may be some other limiting factor, like the gauge of DC cables running from the charge door to the HV battery, the cooling system capacity required during DCFC sessions, physical cooling limitations of pouch cell geometry, or something else that requires the Lightning charge rate to be handicapped.

Charge rate improvements is something that I would keep my eyes peeled for the second gen Lightning. It’s the reason we are keeping a Tesla as our primary road-tripping vehicle and the Lightning will be a daily driver. The real world translation is that a 10-15 minute DCFC session at a Tesla Supercharger can get us the same range boost as a 30-45 minute DCFC session with the Lightning. So it will add up on long trips.

Some of what you have to consider with comparing how much range is added when charging EV's is the efficiency of the EV. As I compared the Hummer and the Lightning charging in another post, part of the reason the lightning is competitive in its charging time to add a particular number of miles of range is that it is more efficient that the Hummer. On paper the Hummer EV can charge significantly faster than the Lightning at its Peak Charge rate, however over the entire charging curve and in real world applications, if you are spending more than 10-15 minutes at a charger, then the Hummer EV and the Lightning are going to charge much closer than the specs would indicate. Same thing is true for your Tesla, part of the reason you only need 10-15 minutes of charging to add the same number of miles of range as the Lightning needs 30-45 minutes for is because the Lightning is less efficient that your Tesla. But again we expect this, and I highly doubt at any point in the future is a full size Electric pick up truck going to be as efficient as a sedan EV.

 

[GDN]

End cooling is a commonly deployed strategy for thermal management. A bigger factor in the charging speed limitation of the Lightning is its pack architecture. The system being a 400V pack, means that to charge very fast requires an enormous amount of current to achieve the same Kw rate. Whereas super fast charging vehicles like the Hummer EV, Ioniq 5 and EV6 are based on an 800V architecture, allowing them to achieve much higher charge rates eith the same current.

I've not watched the video yet nor read the rest of the posts, but there is no excuse other than likely poor or cheap engineering that our trucks don't charge at maybe twice the rate they do today.

My 4.5 year old Model 3 can take full advantage of the 250kW newer superchargers for a period of time. The ER battery being almost twice the size of the 3 - should be able to do the same for a longer period of time.

No excuses for Ford and the battery manufacture, just being cheap on the architecture.

 

[Fryballin]

I've not watched the video yet nor read the rest of the posts, but there is no excuse other than likely poor or cheap engineering that our trucks don't charge at maybe twice the rate they do today.

My 4.5 year old Model 3 can take full advantage of the 250kW newer superchargers for a period of time. The ER battery being almost twice the size of the 3 - should be able to do the same for a longer period of time.

No excuses for Ford and the battery manufacture, just being cheap on the architecture.

I guess some of what I’m saying is I’m impressed with what the lightning does on its “limited” voltage pack and not impressed with what the hummer does with 800volt capability

 

[sotek2345]

I've not watched the video yet nor read the rest of the posts, but there is no excuse other than likely poor or cheap engineering that our trucks don't charge at maybe twice the rate they do today.

My 4.5 year old Model 3 can take full advantage of the 250kW newer superchargers for a period of time. The ER battery being almost twice the size of the 3 - should be able to do the same for a longer period of time.

No excuses for Ford and the battery manufacture, just being cheap on the architecture.

A lot of that comes down to voltage. Ford package tend to use lower voltage (370ish) while Telsa's use closer to 450ish even though both are nominally 400V systems. If you apply that as a ratio it explains much of the difference.

170kw x 450v / 370v = 206kw.

I think the balance is just Ford conservativism.

 

[ElectrifyCLT]

400V vs 800V explains some of the difference, but the Lightning charging is still very slow compared to other 400V vehicles, especially when adjusted for battery size. For example a 400V Tesla Model 3 or Y with a 75kwh battery can peak charge at 250kw, whereas a long range Lightning has nearly double the battery size peaks around 170kw.

If you extrapolate the Lightning charge rates to get similar energy input per unit of battery, the Lightning should easily be able to take advantage of the EA 350kw stations (at peak). Either Fords battery chemistry R&D lags Tesla by 5+ years, or in my opinion there may be some other limiting factor, like the gauge of DC cables running from the charge door to the HV battery, the cooling system capacity required during DCFC sessions, physical cooling limitations of pouch cell geometry, or something else that requires the Lightning charge rate to be handicapped.

Charge rate improvements is something that I would keep my eyes peeled for the second gen Lightning. It’s the reason we are keeping a Tesla as our primary road-tripping vehicle and the Lightning will be a daily driver. The real world translation is that a 10-15 minute DCFC session at a Tesla Supercharger can get us the same range boost as a 30-45 minute DCFC session with the Lightning. So it will add up on long trips.

That's not how any of this works, at all. It's everything to do with voltage. EA chargers are 500a max (I believe that's actually the max CCS spec). 500a * 370v (Lightning nominal voltage) is a maximum charge rate of 185kw at nominal. As others have mentioned, newer Teslas are closer to 450v nominal while still being considered a 400v class vehicle (older teslas are more similar to Ford's pack voltage)

I'm not sure what v3 superchargers put out in terms of maximum amperage, but if we assume the same 500a you get a maximum charge rate of 225kw at nominal voltage.

Take an 800v architecture car and your theoretical maximum suddenly doubles. Not because of anything to do pack design or chemistry but simply the voltage. 800v * 500a = 400kw theoretical maximum.

The reality is that there's tons of other considerations like pack size, bus bar size, thermal management that dictate the charge curve. But there's no way to fake volts times amps. So while both the Tesla and the Ford are considered 400v cars, their voltage being meaningfully apart, and that impacts your theoretical maximum charge speed.

 

[Maquis]

That's not how any of this works, at all. It's everything to do with voltage. EA chargers are 500a max (I believe that's actually the max CCS spec). 500a * 370v (Lightning nominal voltage) is a maximum charge rate of 185kw at nominal. As others have mentioned, newer Teslas are closer to 450v nominal while still being considered a 400v class vehicle (older teslas are more similar to Ford's pack voltage)

I'm not sure what v3 superchargers put out in terms of maximum amperage, but if we assume the same 500a you get a maximum charge rate of 225kw at nominal voltage.

Take an 800v architecture car and your theoretical maximum suddenly doubles. Not because of anything to do pack design or chemistry but simply the voltage. 800v * 500a = 400kw theoretical maximum.

The reality is that there's tons of other considerations like pack size, bus bar size, thermal management that dictate the charge curve. But there's no way to fake volts times amps. So while both the Tesla and the Ford are considered 400v cars, their voltage being meaningfully apart, and that impacts your theoretical maximum charge speed.

All correct. The short answer is that Tesla does not use or adhere to the CCS standards.

Sponsored