2023 F-150 Lightning XLT Yearlong Review: Road-Trip Range Strategies & Optimal Speed

[Pdxguy]

2023 Ford F-150 Lightning XLT Yearlong Review: Road-Trip Range Strategies
We measure our Michigan Lightning’s MotorTrend Road-Trip Range at varying speeds and strategize how best to cover long distances quickly.

https://www-motortrend-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.motortrend.com/reviews/2023-ford-f-150-lightning-xlt-yearlong-review-update-3-road-trip-speed/amp/

Sponsored

 

[sotek2345]

Generally agrees with what I have seen, though their efficiency numbers are a little lower than I see in summer time (not sure what the weather was when they did their testing).

That said, given the very low likely hood of a charger being where you need it and the Lightning's really good charging curve, I find it best to tailor your speed to arrive at the charger with a minimum safe margin and while driving safely. A little slower on longer legs and a little faster on shorter legs.

 

[Heliian]

Ya, there is a point between charging more or driving longer.

I really want an airspeed indicator, that's where the savings are, if you have a good tailwind you'll save a ton of energy VS trying to keep 70mph groundspeed in a 20 mph headwind.

 

[cdherman]

Generally agrees with what I have seen, though their efficiency numbers are a little lower than I see in summer time (not sure what the weather was when they did their testing).

That said, given the very low likely hood of a charger being where you need it and the Lightning's really good charging curve, I find it best to tailor your speed to arrive at the charger with a minimum safe margin and while driving safely. A little slower on longer legs and a little faster on shorter legs.

Or said another way: If driving a little slower gets you to your destination (assuming you can level 2 charge at your destination) with no stops at a fast charge, versus driving fast means stopping once for a charge, you will get to your destination sooner driving slower.

I think the hare and tortoise fable applies!

Charging while you sleep or work is the most painless of all!!!

 

[ctuan13]

Ya, there is a point between charging more or driving longer.

I really want an airspeed indicator, that's where the savings are, if you have a good tailwind you'll save a ton of energy VS trying to keep 70mph groundspeed in a 20 mph headwind.

BRB gotta install the pitot tube mod

 

[casanewt]

Interesting how their graph shows 75 MPH speed and 13 stops for 15 minutes each(3.3 hours total) of charging could get you 1000 miles the fastest.

 

[ivan256]

Or said another way: If driving a little slower gets you to your destination (assuming you can level 2 charge at your destination) with no stops at a fast charge, versus driving fast means stopping once for a charge, you will get to your destination sooner driving slower.

I think the hare and tortoise fable applies!

Charging while you sleep or work is the most painless of all!!!

My experience has been that if you think you might make it by slowing down, or might have to stop to fast charge if you speed up..... floor it and fast charge, because the odds are good you'll end up needing to charge either way.

Also - unless your destination is home - that you're better off assuming there will be rainbows and unicorns at your destination than a functioning and available Level 2 charger.

 

[sotek2345]

Interesting how their graph shows 75 MPH speed and 13 stops for 15 minutes each(3.3 hours total) of charging could get you 1000 miles the fastest.

They assumed no slowing down and no delays to charge which makes the results mostly useless. It should really be recalculated assuming a reasonable delay to get off the highway, get the charge started, and then get back on the highway. (5 to 10 minutes per stop). I am guessing it would bias the results pretty strongly to fewer and longer stops.

 

[FirstF150InCasco]

Bottom line in the article: The 324 miles in the GOM is reduced by 40% if you drive 80 MPH, by 36% if you drive 75 MPH, and reduced by (only) 25% if you drive 70 MPH.

 

[Maxx]

I really want an airspeed indicator, that's where the savings are, if you have a good tailwind you'll save a ton of energy VS trying to keep 70mph groundspeed in a 20 mph headwind.

We have something better. The mi/KWh indicator gives you the impact of the wind, elevation change, tire, whatever sticking out of your bed and whatever you are towing. Ultimately you want to calculate consumption anyways. Doing math hurts my head, especially when it is unnecessary.

 

[mb0220]

We have something better. The mi/KWh indicator gives you the impact of the wind, elevation change, tire, whatever sticking out of your bed and whatever you are towing. Ultimately you want to calculate consumption anyways. Doing math hurts my head, especially when it is unnecessary.

This is well-stated, IMO. I have back-checked the efficiency numbers by doing the math, and it requires me to convert SoC into kWh (multiplying the percentage by 131), because efficiency is stated in terms of mi/kWh. I have found it to be pretty accurate and it has given me a "real world" mental estimate of my range.

For example, if I know I need to drive 230 miles round trip, I will figure starting at 100% and arriving with 10% means I can use 90% of my 131 kwh, which is 117.9. In order to make it 230 miles on 117.9 kwh I would need to average at least 1.95 mi/kwh. You can insert your own numbers to calculate the necessary effieciency for your trip. If you start to fall below the efficiency threshold then you can adjust your speed or turn off the heat, etc.

 

[It's Just Me]

Also - unless your destination is home - that you're better off assuming there will be rainbows and unicorns at your destination than a functioning and available Level 2 charger.

Actually it is unicorns that are pissing rainbows and sh!tting gold nuggets. Get it right will you!

 

[hturnerfamily]

many of these arguments about whether to 'drive further', versus 'stopping more often', assume that you HAVE many charging options along the way, but many time you simply don't - you MUST drive to the 'very end' of your range to even GET to your next DC Fast Charger option...

I've found in 29,000 miles, and much of that while TOWING our camper, that I would never use FORD's navigation, with 'charger' location stops, as my way to travel - it's just too much 'stopping' to charge, versus just getting to your destination, even if you arrive on 'fumes'... I'll agree that those with range anxiety issues will prohibit them from doing the same, but my philosophy is to get where I'm going with the least amount of stopping, although, yes, there are times where you will HAVE to stop simply because your range will not make it to the next charger or destination, making use of the chargers along your path. The higher your battery level is, the longer to the same amount of additional 'miles'.

For instance, if you stop to charge with a 80% battery, you'll be there a VERY LONG while to get to even 90%... your TRUCK will derate the speed to a CRAWL, no matter the 'speed' of the output of the Charger....but, if you pass that charger and arrive instead at one when you have 20% battery, you'll get a MUCH QUICKER charge for the same amount of miles... mostly at FULL speed.

 

[greenne]

Interesting how their graph shows 75 MPH speed and 13 stops for 15 minutes each(3.3 hours total) of charging could get you 1000 miles the fastest.

The problem with this scenario is that it is highly unlikely the DCFC will be available and working at exactly the right interval. for 15min stops. The more times you have to stop and the more times you're plugging in, starting the unit, etc. the more risk something will go wrong(I'm looking at you EA).

In addition you lose any time advantage you may have when you add in time to exit the highway, drive to the DCFC(hopefully close to the exit), exit vehicle, start charge sequence, drive back to highway, etc. That can easily add 5-10min onto every stop....which means if you're doing that 13x vs 8x (or 6x) its not worth it to stop for a 15min charge.

If you're stopping anyway..sure plug it in and get a splash a electrons while you stretch, go pee, grab a burger, etc. but I'm failing to see where it works in practice stopping for all 15min. With a flat curve to 80%..if you've got a good charging session going..just leave it until the charging curve drops.

@tommolog -- this would be a good idea for one of Kyle's "vegas" challenges..... multiple short stops vs. long deep charges. On EVs with a flat curve(aka e-tron, Lightning, etc) I'm thinking deep charge is faster in the real world

 

[ddbrooke]

I hadn't seen the aero calculations before so that was quite interesting. This summer I've easily been averaging 2.7mi/kWh doing local driving (an aside-my dash has never shown me 2.6mi/kWh, but every other increment appears).

When I tow my 3200# camper the efficiency is more like 1.2 to 1.4. My recent experience demonstrated that speed kills range dramatically. While towing to a state park 145 miles away, I decided to slow down to avoid the only DC fast charger at Dubois PA because of reports showing 3 of 4 out of service. I drove no faster than 55mph and arrived at the state park with 22.5% and averaged 1.4 mi/kWh. Had I done 65mph on the approximately 50 miles of interstate, I would have averaged 1.2 (from past experience) and arrived with 7.8% which is only a 10 mile buffer. That's way too nerve racking for me.

Sponsored