Unreliable Guess-o-meter, range anxiety, and the frigid weather...

[bosox8]

You cannot compare apples and oranges.

You don't achieve EPA range. You achieve YOUR range. You compare YOUR summer range to YOUR winter range, driving as you have been all along.

Do you post on forums complaining that your gas vehicle doesn't get the EPA mileage?

Sheesh, relax pal - no one can post a frickin' observation unless it's completely over the top in love with EV performance - just a flippin' observation - go hug a tree and relax.

Sponsored

 

[greenne]

Sheesh, relax pal - no one can post a frickin' observation unless it's completely over the top in love with EV performance - just a flippin' observation - go hug a tree and relax.

To be fair, some of the posts and replies are more than "observation" and contain misinformation. EVs should be praised and also criticized. But they shouldn't be criticized on information that is flat out wrong.

 

[Amps]

no one can post a frickin' observation

To be fair, your observation is using apples and oranges numbers and probably should be presented as such. The high number you compare to is derived from a strict EPA combined test cycle and intended to compare with other models of EVs. The low number you use is a contrived number based upon your driving history, temperature, and other factors. That's why I inquired about what type of consumption numbers you are observing. You didn't answer that, which I understand now is because you were simply stating your Range readout apple is 45% of the EPA high number orange.

 

[CallOnColin]

Step 1: Person complains about estimated mileage.

Step 2: People who have had their Lightings for a while advise not to use the mileage estimate and stick to mi/kWh and %.

Step 3: Person uses estimated mileage to determine %.

Sigh.

 

[Amps]

Step 1: Person complains about estimated mileage.

Step 2: People who have had their Lightings for a while advise not to use the mileage estimate and stick to mi/kWh and %.

Step 3: Person uses estimated mileage to determine %.

Step 4: Manufacturer issues software update to make the estimated number look bigger to give the Step 2 deniers a false sense of security.

 

[bosox8]

Step 1: Person complains about estimated mileage.

Step 2: People who have had their Lightings for a while advise not to use the mileage estimate and stick to mi/kWh and %.

Step 3: Person uses estimated mileage to determine %.

Sigh.

Step 4: The EV Righteous pontificate and reign down on other EV owner's sharing their observations feeling smug in their superior intellect.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

Well, I followed all of Fords recommendations, but was scared silly with range anxiety on Xmas day. It was around 17 degrees in northern NJ. Point of note, we've owned a Mach E for the past year and half and am familiar with some form of cold weather range decay. Also an engineer, and I understand many of the trade-offs the engineers at Ford dealt with to get this truck into production as designed. I also understand this is the first winter with these F150 Lightnings in service, so we are all going to have to figure this out on the fly.

Kept the truck plugged in yesterday morning, couldn't get the "precondition" schedule thing to work, but did 2 cycles of remote start for 15 minutes, and then actually got in and started the truck with it plugged in. It gave me this idiotic Pro Power message, which makes no sense.... It was plugged into the Charge Station Pro and the charger was charging (flashing blue light). While it was plugged in and on, range INCREASED from 302 to 306 miles, presumably as the truck was heating itself, but I have no way of knowing.

We then set out for the family gathering, which was 70 odd miles away. I actually decided to modulate speed, and try to maximize for range on the drive. I stupidly assumed that the GOM saying 306 miles of range should smartly get me through the 140 mile round trip. Wrong

The cabin was warm, we turned down the seats and set heat to 68. There were three of us in the truck. It was cold outside, and while we tried turning the heat off, it got too cold in the cabin.

Range was plunging at DOUBLE the rate it should have during the first leg of the trip, which was 70 miles. Range dropped from 306 to 165, which is a giant miss..... 141 GOM miles consumed for 71 real miles. That is bad... really bad.

We left to return home after around 5 hours, the truck wasn't plugged in, and I did 1 remote start to heat the cabin. During the remote start period, the truck lost another 5 miles and was at 160 when we set off for the 70 mile return trip. At this point, I was pretty terrified we weren't going to make it, and while there is 1 charger on the route, we were time pressed and was hoping we'd just scrape by.

Again, the GOM plunged by way more than actual miles. I had cruise set to 65, seats on 1, cabin heat on 68. By halfway through the trip, I went into white knuckle mode, and became convinced the battery would die hard before I could make the driveway at home. I was somewhat shocked that this $80k+ truck with a published range of 320 Miles could barely make 140 miles. Not good

By the last 1/3rd of the trip, I was cycling 1 pedal drive regen somewhat aggressively on the down hill sections of the southern most part of the NYS thruway, and started to reduce range decay a bit. The short of it is, the 141 mile round trip consumed 232 on the GOM, which is terribly unsatisfying and candidly, just bad.

My basic takeaway is that the truck's range of 320 is not true in general. All the stuff that the Ford EV GM said during the SOC youtube interview about cold weather operation didn't work at all, and that those of us who purchased the Lightnings as a family hauler need to be super cautious this winter to not get stranded.

Choosing between range and freezing inside the cabin, or being basically comfortable inside the cabin and getting stranded is a terrible trade-off. The fact that they deleted my heated steering wheel doesn't help.

This truck is one of the most beautiful vehicles I've owned (out of way more than 100), but if it can't be reliable with some reasonable range, then it might be too early for something this big and heavy to be a practicable EV for family service.

It’s your trip that freaks you out.

Leg 1 from NJ to NYS Thruway is uphill, and gets colder as you go with likely more wind. That leg you drove 70 miles and consumed 141

Leg 2 return is downhill and gets slightly warmer as you return. Your efficiency would therefore improve. That leg you drove 71 miles and consumed 67 on the GOM.

I know you modulated on the way back but even if you didn’t it would be the case. We go up that way and regardless of time of year the return trip is always more efficient. I’m surprised you didn’t notice it on your MachE in prior years.

More importantly, your truck doesn’t know that you’re going uphill and decreasing temperatures while it sits in your garage. That is more of a flaw of the integration of the navigation system, weather system, and the GOM than just the GOM itself.

 

[RickLightning]

I find it startling that a Mach-E owner of some time has anxiety with the Lightning.

 

[Kev12345]

Why does the guess-o-meter not pay attention to the miles/kWh?

 

[Skidrowe]

Did any of you use the GOM in your gas vehicles? My 2014 F-150 EcoBoost had a 36 gallon tank. When it said there were 0 miles left, it would take 31-32 gallons of gas. After every fill-up, the GOM would say that it could go 480 miles. I got 15 mpg and at almost all fill-ups, put in about 30 gallons. So I got 300 miles per tank. I watched the tank gauge that had markings for 25, 50, and 75%. I knew what my truck did and based on conditions and terrain had a rough idea whether I needed to fill up for any trip or leg of a trip. I don't know anyone else who actually relied on their GOM in gas vehicles. Why does it appear so many more people are suddenly reliant on it with EVs, and why are they so appalled when they find out that it's no more accurate than it was in gas vehicles where they didn't use it?

 

[TaxmanHog]

Why does the guess-o-meter not pay attention to the miles/kWh?

I think there is an inadvertent flaw in the program, start with the battery SOC and environmental conditions, then up/down factor the drivers recent drive behavior from from a long term hidden log "Drivers History", this part of the calculation appears to be missing in the latest release.

 

[vandy1981]

I watched the tank gauge that had markings for 25, 50, and 75%. I knew what my truck did and based on conditions and terrain had a rough idea whether I needed to fill up for any trip or leg of a trip.

Exactly. People just need to ignore the GOM unless it's calculated through the route planning feature in the Ford navigation system which supposedly incorporates elevation, traffic and weather conditions on a specific route.

I don't know how people expect the GOM to be perfect when routes, ambient temps, traffic, and wind patterns change with every drive.

 

[Texas Dan]

On a back to college trip almost half a century ago I rode a 1968 Yamaha YR1 from Arizona to Alabama. The YR1 only had a range of about 100 miles. I had to refuel about once an hour but I was always glad for a chance to get off that bike and stretch my legs.

The point is perceptions change with time and experience. The GOM is a relatively new feature on cars but it sounds like some people have lost the ability to estimate range without it. There are still a lot of people that routinely run their cars out of gas so I guess at least for now we should just get used to people getting into trouble because they depended too much on their GOMs.

 

[Texas Dan]

I don't know how people expect the GOM to be perfect when routes, ambient temps, traffic, and wind patterns change with every drive.

At the risk of sounding like a commercial, ABRP uses real time weather and topography to calculate range. I was skeptical at first but now that I have experience, I have a lot of confidence in ABRP. I don’t have my F150L yet but I assumed it was going to take real time weather into account to calculate range the way ABRP does.

 

[vandy1981]

At the risk of sounding like a commercial, ABRP uses real time weather and topography to calculate range. I was skeptical at first but now that I have experience, I have a lot of confidence in ABRP. I don’t have my F150L yet but I assumed it was going to take real time weather into account to calculate range the way ABRP does.

Yes, ABRP is great, especially when it's hooked up to an OBD II reader. The ford navigation is supposed to use weather and topography for distance calculation, but I haven't done a head-to-head comparison.

I much prefer ABRP to the Ford Navi because you can tweak the charging strategy and the routes seem to make more sense from an EV perspective.

Sponsored