[Updated with Ford statement 2/15/23] 🛑 Lightning Stop Production / Stop Shipment Issued (due to potential battery issue)

[Jim Lewis]

Yeah so ?

You get to draw your own conclusions.

Sponsored

 

[ctuan13]

I've been running the ESTC for over 11 years...I have a lot of anecdotal and historical data I get to pull from. While we have a lot of individual clients, we also run a consortium that tests at the cell level. I will focus on this area since the cell level dictates everything at the module and pack level.

We run several different test groups;

Manufacturing - I will use the manufactures standard charge/discharge cycle until the capacity stops increasing and then use static capacity, DC resistance, OCV at 100% SOC, and discharge/charge polarization time constant to group cells into matching batches. (Doing this now on the harvested Mach E cells)

Characterization - Different C rate discharges at temperatures from -30C - 45C. I use the information here to determine the Cycle Life parameters

Calendar Life - 2 cells in each group of 3 SOC levels and stored at 3 different temperatures (18 cells in total). This really informs me of how cells will react just sitting at different SOC levels (30%, 50%, 80%) and temperatures (25C, 45C, 55C) So when I say that cells prefer to rest at x SOC and x temperature, this is a main area I look at.

Safety - All the things the manufacturers tell you NOT to do, we do them here. Makes for great videos, but unimportant to our discussion here.

Cycle Life - We run an L9 matrix with 3 different levels in each of the following areas; delta SOC (centered around 50% SOC), discharge current, charge current, and cycling temperature.

I really wish I could share normalized graphs for calendar and cycle life so you could see EXACTLY what I see on a daily basis.

Bottom line - higher currents hurt the cell more (both charge and discharge), high SOC levels (both storage and delta during cycling) hurt the cells more, and higher temperatures hurt the cells more.

The more you can reduce these factors, the better it is for the cells.

NOTE: No matter what you do, the cells WILL start to lose capacity after the very first cycle you put on the vehicle! You just won't see it on your display because the manufacturer will not let you use the actual capacity of the battery. This is why some people say that they have been cycling from 100% to 5% and have never seen a capacity loss. They actually do have a capacity loss, it just doesn't show up on the screen.

A very brilliant man I work with has an outstanding analogy when it comes to Li-ion cells. Cells are a lot like humans in the temperatures they like. I will extend that further that they don't like to work like a lot of people don't like to work (they prefer the easy way).

Now, I'm not worried about the life of my battery...I will still have fun during accelerations, but will limit the charging SOC to 85% unless I will need more the next day, limit fast charging as much as possible but will use it on long distance trips, and use shore power to maintaing the temperatures on cold/hot days.

TL;DR - sorry, I'm not going to distill 12 years of knowledge to one line because you don't wont to read several inches on the screen

You're always a great resource for a wealth of information!

So quick question, I hear what you're saying about 85% being the optimal daily charging SOC for the Lightning and its NMC chemistry, but is that for displayed SOC or actually SOC? Because even using a simple OBDII dongle it's easy to see that the PCM and BCM see the SOC as different than the displaySOC. For example at 85% displayed on the dash and in the Sync system, the actual SOC is around 79.5%. At 90% on the dash (what I usually charge to) the actual SOC per the PCM data is 85%.

So should we aim for 85% displayed for a "true" SOC just under 80 or a displayed 90% for a "true" SOC of 85%?

Thanks again!

 

[ctuan13]

I don’t know how that would work engineering-wise. It’s kind of like a glass of water. You fill from the bottom, not from the middle. The reserve (empty area) is always at the top.

I think @Maquis Is probably right, here. If you use the data pulled from the PCM using an OBDII dongle, you'll see even at "100%" displayed on the dash or in the Sync display, the actual SOC is displayed as 95%.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

I think @Maquis Is probably right, here. If you use the data pulled from the PCM using an OBDII dongle, you'll see even at "100%" displayed on the dash or in the Sync display, the actual SOC is displayed as 95%.

I do use an OBDC dongle don’t get that, the BMS only lets out the “clean” version the way I can see it through ABRP - I can get to 100% and it agrees to the truck’s SOC.

 

[MickeyAO]

I do use an OBDC dongle don’t get that, the BMS only lets out the “clean” version the way I can see it through ABRP - I can get to 100% and it agrees to the truck’s SOC.

Try loading up the Mach E PIDs (found on the Mach E forum) to see what the Lightning Actual vs Displayed SOCs are at.

 

[Chado]

So Ford is pulling back some of the Lightnings from delivery but not all?

Someone mentioned they just got theirs from dealer while someone else said theirs went from rail to dealer then delivery date moved to March?

Ford really needs to update owners, after the whole LG Bolt issue any mention of a battery fire has to be treated with kid gloves, this isn't something as minor as wipers or TPMS issues.

 

[Firestop]

Try loading up the Mach E PIDs (found on the Mach E forum) to see what the Lightning Actual vs Displayed SOCs are at.

@MickeyAO , I noted/posted a while back about my observations that the battery data visible in CarScanner didn’t seem to match up with the advertised data as to battery capacity. Tags on the F150L batteries seem to indicate ~143 kWh, advertised is 131 kWh, and CarScanner is showing ~128 kWh available to max charge.

I seen a lot of posts about estimating range based on what is the F150L‘s 100% capacity…many use 131 kWh as 100%. My question is…..what should we be using? I know it’s not 143 KWh, but based on my CarScanner observations, it doesn’t appear we should be using 131 KWh either.

Any thoughts you can share?

 

[MickeyAO]

@MickeyAO , I noted/posted a while back about my observations that the battery data visible in CarScanner didn’t seem to match up with the advertised data as to battery capacity. Tags on the F150L batteries seem to indicate ~143 kWh, advertised is 131 kWh, and CarScanner is showing ~128 kWh available to max charge.

I seen a lot of posts about estimating range based on what is the F150L‘s 100% capacity…many use 131 kWh as 100%. My question is…..what should we be using? I know it’s not 143 KWh, but based on my CarScanner observations, it doesn’t appear we should be using 131 KWh either.

Any thoughts you can share?

No

 

[3LCD]

The Latest I read : https://www.notebookcheck.net/F-150...is-wary-of-industrial-espionage.696389.0.html

 

[luebri]

interesting article / update from a tech journalist regarding Ford and SK lightning battery fire and relationship. Fascinating if close to true. It does pass the smell test to me.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/F-150...is-wary-of-industrial-espionage.696389.0.html

 

[luebri]

The Latest I read : https://www.notebookcheck.net/F-150...is-wary-of-industrial-espionage.696389.0.html

Lol… you beat me! I shouldn’t have typed my preamble!

 

[GolfJRM]

So Ford is pulling back some of the Lightnings from delivery but not all?

Someone mentioned they just got theirs from dealer while someone else said theirs went from rail to dealer then delivery date moved to March?

Ford really needs to update owners, after the whole LG Bolt issue any mention of a battery fire has to be treated with kid gloves, this isn't something as minor as wipers or TPMS issues.

My delivery date keeps getting pushed back but in small increments. Sometimes by just a day. The last time I was 4 days into the 7 day window and they changed to a week from yesterday. Frustrating with all the close but no delivery windows but better than a move to March

 

[MRButtler]

All I can say is that my (Japanese-built) 2007 Honda Accord Hybrid has NEVER had any recalls. It's 16 years old with something like 75,000 miles on it and has needed next to no service other than scheduled maintenance and NIMH hybrid battery replacement (they only last 7 to 8 years, and the car isn't driveable without it!). My Honda dealer says the vehicle is in excellent shape, and I will test his claim when I try to sell it back to him (Ford doesn't want it as a trade-in)! The wife has had some Takata airbag recalls with her Hondas. But starting in 1981, when we bought a Nissan Stanza hatchback (IMHO, the nicest vehicle we've ever owned), we've never owned an American vehicle since then. Being a rather right-wing American youth, I felt like a traitor to my country. In the '80s, I knew a number of other folks who had bought a foreign-made vehicle and said there was no way they were returning to American vehicles again. I just hope my Ford F-150 Lightning has half the reliability of the Japanese vehicles we've owned since the 1980s. (my first car, besides a hand-me-down from my dad, was a '74 Chevy Vega! - which I actually liked and maintained entirely by myself).

I remember, as a high-school graduate, being rushed by Beta Theta Pi at MIT. The frat brother sent to recruit me bragged that he had a well-paying summer-time union job with U.S. Steel, IIRC, and his foreman allowed him to sleep on the job and still get paid. And this is a guy who, when he graduated from college, would probably get a high-paying administrative or engineering job in American industry! So my opinion then, and still is now, is that this is what's wrong with American culture. Like Dire Straits sang,

"That ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free."

Maybe the basic problem is just to err is human, and Americans are good at it. We need more robots! Or more OCD humans on the assembly line (and not sleeping in a breakroom).

TLDR; Where's there's smoke, there's fire. Recalls are the smoke and some auto makers have a lot of things on fire, like Li-ion batteries.

Edit_Update: USA Today summary of Consumer Reports 2023 relative ranking of auto makers:
Best new cars, trucks and SUVs of 2023, according to Consumer Reports (usatoday.com)

2023 Auto Brand Rankings
Also Thursday, Consumer Reports released its annual Auto Brand Report Card Rankings, which look at which automakers are producing the best-performing, safe, and reliable vehicles based on independent testing and surveys. (Higher scores are better.)

1. BMW: 81
2. Subaru: 79
3. Mini: 79
4. Lexus: 77
5. Honda: 77
6. Toyota: 76
7. Genesis: 76
8. Mazda: 75
9. Audi: 74
10. Kia: 73
11. Acura: 72
12. Buick: 71
13. Hyundai: 71
14. Porsche: 70
15. Dodge: 68
16. Lincoln: 66
17. Tesla: 66
18. Infiniti: 65
19. Volkswagen: 64
20. Volvo: 64
21. Nissan: 63
22. Ford: 63
23. Chevrolet: 62
24. Cadillac: 62
25. Chrysler: 62
26. Mercedes-Benz: 56
27. GMC: 55
28. Mitsubishi: 54
29. Alfa Romeo: 53
30. Jaguar: 52
31. Jeep: 46
32. Land Rover: 45

Wonder how the tailpipe smells.

 

[Lightning Rod]

My delivery date keeps getting pushed back but in small increments. Sometimes by just a day. The last time I was 4 days into the 7 day window and they changed to a week from yesterday. Frustrating with all the close but no delivery windows but better than a move to March

This has been my life for about 4 weeks. Every 3 days my ETA gets pushed back. I'd rather they tell me March... at least i won't wake up everyday checking if it's shipped or delivered. Ford is playing a very cruel game.

 

[GolfJRM]

This has been my life for about 4 weeks. Every 3 days my ETA gets pushed back. I'd rather they tell me March... at least i won't wake up everyday checking if it's shipped or delivered. Ford is playing a very cruel game.

Where is yours? I had mine built in Dec and then it was on a chip delay. Finally shipped and is in town just not at the dealer yet

Sponsored