Consumer Reports Real-World EV range test, 22 EVs tested for range; F150 Lightning tested worst (50 miles less range than EPA estimate/claim)

[Zaptor]

They got 270 miles with it instead of 320, fairly similar to my experience. What do you think, is the current rating system fair, or does EPA need to change testing to better align with real-world conditions? Did Ford optimize the truck for the EPA test?

https://www.consumerreports.org/car...-epa-estimates-a1103288135/?EXTKEY=YSOCIAL_TW

Sponsored

 

[Blainestang]

The Lightning is very un-aerodynamic.

Therefore, it makes sense that it takes a bigger hit when average speeds increase, since aerodynamic drag increases exponentially with speed, not just linearly.

Still it's disappointing how far off it is. It lost a notably higher percentage compared to EPA than even the Tesla did.

 

[Pioneer74]

I think automakers need to do a better job of stating range at city and highway speeds, instead of relying on a combined or "best" number.

I also think the highway cycle needs to reflect real world driving, and all automakers should use the exact same test.

 

[Zaptor]

The Lightning is very un-aerodynamic.

Yeah, they definitely had the option and opportunity to reduce frunk size but gain aero and range, but they chose to keep it looking like the ICE truck. I suspect next-gen trucks will not be as slabby (I hope).

 

[Pioneer74]

Yeah, they definitely had the option and opportunity to reduce frunk size but gain aero and range, but they chose to keep it looking like the ICE truck. I suspect next-gen trucks will not be as slabby (I hope).

You wouldn't be driving a Lightning right now if they didn't utilize the ICE truck dimensions like they did. It wouldn't have made economic sense.

 

[Zaptor]

You wouldn't be driving a Lightning right now if they didn't utilize the ICE truck dimensions like they did. It wouldn't have made economic sense.

Sure. To be fair, if the ICE trucks were reasonably aero and not bricks, themselves, to begin with, we wouldn't be here either.

 

[Blainestang]

You wouldn't be driving a Lightning right now if they didn't utilize the ICE truck dimensions like they did. It wouldn't have made economic sense.

They changed the bumper, hood, fenders, and all the stuff under the hood, anyway. They probably could have made it somewhat less snub-nosed. But would the increased range (mostly at high speeds) be enough to justify the smaller frunk? Or would it look so weird it would push away more people than the range would bring in?

 

[RickKeen]

Trying to extrapolate 70mph range from the EPA numbers is just folly.

EPA range is based on a mix of City and highway driving.
The City driving is stop and go typically around 30mph when "going" with an average of just under 20MPH overall.

The highway driving is more continuous, but never above 60MPH, and an average of 48 mph:

Then they apply a 70% fudge factor.

We all know that EV's have great efficiency in stop and go traffic. And we all know that they burn the electrons a lot faster at highway speeds above 60.

 

[Zprime29]

CR is going down hill in my view.
"... we perform all our range tests in summer at temperatures between 70 and 90° F ..."

That's a really broad range for temperature, I can report that I lose about 10% range in the summer when running the AC. No mention of wind conditions or traffic or elevation change. This is hardly any more reliable than the already unreliable EPA test. Do they run a rush-hour/stop and go traffic test for ICE cars and compare that to EPA? I'll stick with what Kyle and Tom report when they do their tests. 70-75mph netted me 280 miles which was right in line with what Tom tested.

CR needs to step up their game and start educating with their EV tests. Run the vehicles in numerous weather conditions and report their efficiency. THAT would be useful.

 

[EdRudy]

It's hard for me to say, I average about 50/50 hwy vs city driving and average about 75MPH when on the hwy. I only charge to 80% and the GOM says I have about 225 - 230 miles of range. For me it doesn't really matter anyway. I am fine with with I have.

 

[GarageMahal]

Not sure which real world Consumer Reports lives in but in mine, I often get better than EPA range in the summer (250+ on my SR). Winter is if course a much different story (I can count on at least 140+).

 

[Blainestang]

Not sure which real world Consumer Reports lives in but in mine, I often get better than EPA range in the summer (250+ on my SR). Winter is if course a much different story (I can count on at least 140+).

It's not spelled out in the original post, above, but the test was done at a constant 70mph.

I definitely do better than EPA in normal driving, but at 70mph, I'm more like ~1.9 mi/kWh or so vs the EPA ~2.4 mi/kWh.

 

[Pioneer74]

They changed the bumper, hood, fenders, and all the stuff under the hood, anyway. They probably could have made it somewhat less snub-nosed. But would the increased range (mostly at high speeds) be enough to justify the smaller frunk? Or would it look so weird it would push away more people than the range would bring in?

By changing anything in the front, the hydroformed tubes under the fenders would have had to be redesigned. Ford was never going to pay for that for a limited run vehicle.

You have to remember. When the Lightning was launched, they were forecasting about 50k a year. I talked to the launch engineers. There was a lot of pushback in the executive levels about producing this truck at all because of the cost.

 

[swajames]

I do roughly get the EPA combined estimate on my Lightning and I could easily exceed it with the most minor of accommodations to economy.

The article talks about being a test of "real world" range relative to EPA combined estimates, but it isn't as it's a 100% highway test which bears little relevance to most real world driving or the EPA estimates which assume a 55/45 city/highway blend. It's also a test that will automatically disadvantage a huge EV like ours given the small matter of aerodynamic drag which is greater at highway speeds and proportional to the square of speed. Our trucks are remarkably efficient in town, IMO, but higher speed is inevitably going to have a bigger impact on a bigger vehicle than a smaller vehicle. I'm not generally a CR basher, but this test strikes me as an odd one. No manufacturer claims their vehicles meet EPA estimates ar highway speeds. That most get within a reasonable distance of the EPA combined and (even more so) that some exceed it is remarkable.

 

[Henry Ford]

Range at anything other than highway speeds is useless information. An average speed of 30mph is 10 hours of driving in the city. That's a crazy use case. A standardized chart with range on one axis and speed on the other would be useful. If they need a range to print on a window sticker take the 35mph range and the 70mph range.

While I'm whining, I'd like to see a real time range indicator. How hard could this be?

Sponsored