Report: F-150 Lightning loses about quarter of its range when carrying maximum payload

[BoomerRocco]

Short article on testing done by AAA. I haven't seen too much on payload impact and I am not sure how this compares to the impact on an ICE truck.

Ford F-150 Lightning loses about a quarter of its range when carrying maximum payload - The Verge

The test version of the F-150 Lightning has an EPA-rated range of 300 miles — but that didn’t quite measure up to AAA testing. With no payload, AAA found the driving range to be 278 miles (7.3 percent less). With 1,400 pounds of sandbags added, the group found the range to be 210 miles, a 24.5 percent reduction compared to the unloaded test condition and a 30.0 percent reduction compared to the EPA estimate.

Went and found the original AAA news release. They link to the full 23-page report with much more detail on methodology.

Heavy payloads hurt EV range (aaa.com)

For the unloaded condition, AAA found the test vehicle to have an efficiency of 62 MPGe (1.84 kWh/mi). This is 6.1 percent less than the EPA estimated efficiency of 66 MPGe (1.96 kWh/mi). In the loaded condition (1,400 pounds added), the test vehicle was found to have an efficiency of 47 MPGe (1.39 kWh/mi), a 24.2 percent decrease from the unloaded condition.

I haven't read the full report, but glad to see something a little more well-defined and controlled.

Sponsored

 

[mr.Magoo]

Bit torn about the test...

On one hand it's a bit of a "no s-t Sherlock !?" result... yes, adding payload will reduce range and efficiency and your point is ?

On the other hand it's fairly scientifically done and I applaud the effort, it's also interesting to see the difference compared to the EPA results, but then again, it's more of a shoulder shrug "yeah it's different and we have no idea why".

If people are interested, check out the graph on page 13 or table on page 23, that'll give you an indicator of the impact of speed.
https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/download/21146/?tmstv=1684852926

 

[Blainestang]

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

They added 20% more weight (7,040 -> 8,440 lb) to the truck and it resulted in a 25% decrease in range despite no meaningful aero effect and despite regen braking offsetting the "cost" of accelerating extra weight.

Also, Out of Spec Motoring did a similar test and found the the range loss was only 5%.

 

[vandy1981]

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

They added 20% more weight (7,040 -> 8,440 lb) to the truck and it resulted in a 25% decrease in range despite no meaningful aero effect and despite regen braking offsetting the "cost" of accelerating extra weight.

Also, Out of Spec Motoring did a similar test and found the the range loss was only 5%.

The difference is that the AAA study used the SAE drive cycles which involve acceleration and deceleration. The Out of Spec test was done at a constant speed on a relatively flat ground loop if I'm remembering correctly.

You're going to have a much bigger hit from payload with stop-and-go traffic or hilly terrain than at constant speed on flat ground.

 

[Zprime29]

I get better efficiency driving in stop-and-go traffic vs on the open road. I'm confused why that's the reverse with a heavier payload.

 

[Blainestang]

The difference is that the AAA study used the SAE drive cycles which involve acceleration and deceleration. The Out of Spec test was done at a constant speed on a relatively flat ground loop if I'm remembering correctly.

You're going to have a much bigger hit from payload with stop-and-go traffic or hilly terrain than at constant speed on flat ground.

That's a variable, but not THAT big, especially when you've got regen working to mitigate the added weight. I could see the range loss from 20% weight increase being bigger than OOS's 5%, say, 10% or whatever, but losing 25% range from 20% increase in weight is ridiculous.

Here's another example:

Lightning SR = 240 miles / 98 kWh = 2.44 mi/kWh
Lightning ER = 320 miles / 131 kWh = 2.44 mi/kWh

And yet the ER is basically an SR with 500lb of battery added to it.

Weight doesn't have anywhere near a proportional effect on range for EVs. Certainly not a greater-than-proportional effect like AAA is claiming (25% loss from 20% weight increase).

 

[Amps]

AAA is claiming (25% loss from 20% weight increase).

I haven't noticed any range reduction that high when loaded. When I saw 25%, I really thought AAA had failed to take their Platinum's reduced EPA rating into account. I'm glad the report is posted–they used the correct number.

 

[Gewalt]

The efficiency loss should be less than an ICE truck carrying the same thing since none of their braking goes back into the battery. Yawn.

 

[Monkey]

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

They added 20% more weight (7,040 -> 8,440 lb) to the truck and it resulted in a 25% decrease in range despite no meaningful aero effect and despite regen braking offsetting the "cost" of accelerating extra weight.

Also, Out of Spec Motoring did a similar test and found the the range loss was only 5%.

I have to also say there's something not right here. I've had over 1600lbs on my Lightning a few times now with a 4-wheeler in the bed and tools and stuff in the frunk plus 4 adult passengers. Have not seen 25% reduction in range. Sure, there probably is a lot more range loss if I were driving aggressively, but under normal conditions I'd say 5% or somewhere around there is not too far off. Out of Spec's payload test seems to mimic my results pretty well and I've also found TFL's towing test to match up with my results too. Both of those guys are local to me and we're driving all the same roads and highways so maybe that helps too...

 

[Blainestang]

I have to also say there's something not right here. I've had over 1600lbs on my Lightning a few times now with a 4-wheeler in the bed and tools and stuff in the frunk plus 4 adult passengers. Have not seen 25% reduction in range. Sure, there probably is a lot more range loss if I were driving aggressively, but under normal conditions I'd say 5% or somewhere around there is not too far off. Out of Spec's payload test seems to mimic my results pretty well and I've also found TFL's towing test to match up with my results too. Both of those guys are local to me and we're driving all the same roads and highways so maybe that helps too...

Yep, another good data point, and the 4-wheeler might have a notable aerodynamic effect that the sandbags that AAA used wouldn't have.

25% loss is way out there. They messed something up, IMO, either their unladen range was too high or their laden range was too low, but 25% range drop from a 20% increase in weight is way too high.

 

[vandy1981]

Yep, another good data point, and the 4-wheeler might have a notable aerodynamic effect that the sandbags that AAA used wouldn't have.

25% loss is way out there. They messed something up, IMO, either their unladen range was too high or their laden range was too low, but 25% range drop from a 20% increase in weight is way too high.

This is more a commentary on the silliness of SAE test cycles than anything else.

 

[Blainestang]

This is more a commentary on the silliness of SAE test cycles than anything else.

Yeah, I mean, the problem with AAA's testing could be that the tests just aren't very good.

I'm confident if they did a real-world test that the range loss would be far smaller than 25%.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

They added 20% more weight (7,040 -> 8,440 lb) to the truck and it resulted in a 25% decrease in range despite no meaningful aero effect and despite regen braking offsetting the "cost" of accelerating extra weight.

Also, Out of Spec Motoring did a similar test and found the the range loss was only 5%.

Disclaimer: I still need to read the article.

I wonder if any suspension movement was accounted for. With 1400lbs in the bed the nose points up, which would affect aero.

At 1.39mi/kWh, that's less than what I was getting towing a full blown 25' trailer with a CAT scale confirmed 1100lb increase on the rear axle. (as reported here: https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...htning-pulled-great-better-than-rivian.15096/)

 

[Blainestang]

Disclaimer: I still need to read the article.

I wonder if any suspension movement was accounted for. With 1400lbs in the bed the nose points up, which would affect aero.

At 1.39mi/kWh, that's less than what I was getting towing a full blown 25' trailer with a CAT scale confirmed 1100lb increase on the rear axle. (as reported here: https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...htning-pulled-great-better-than-rivian.15096/)

Good info on you towing (which of course would have a HUGE aero component).

I thought about potential aero effect of the weight on the "attack angle" of the truck. But two things made me think it wasn't a major factor:

1. Out of Spec's test showed 25% loss is crazy high even though they had ALL the weight in the bed.

2. AAA's test actually placed sand bags in the passenger seat, rear seats, and bed, so it was relatively distributed throughout the truck, not just 1400lb plopped at the back of the bed, for instance.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

Good info on you towing (which of course would have a HUGE aero component).

I thought about potential aero effect of the weight on the "attack angle" of the truck. But two things made me think it wasn't a major factor:

1. Out of Spec's test showed 25% loss is crazy high even though they had ALL the weight in the bed.

2. AAA's test actually placed sand bags in the passenger seat, rear seats, and bed, so it was relatively distributed throughout the truck, not just 1400lb plopped at the back of the bed, for instance.

Point #2 definitely changes things, and IIRC Out of Spec even noted the high loss might be attributed to the water container sticking out and affecting aero as it didn't impact the Rivian as much (which also self levels - which is annoying as it levels itself when you're trying to unhook a trailer!)

Based on the driving I've done, which includes sticking a 800lb lawn mower into the bed - I just don't buy it and I'm not sure how the results came to be...time to read the article.

Sponsored