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

[ctuan13]

Interesting how Edmunds found the Lightning to be in the top 10...

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html

Sponsored

 

[TheBigBezo]

Your mileage will vary. I get easily 350+ miles to a charge, sometimes even as high as 400 based off my driving with zero hypermiling. The secret is I don't go any faster than 50mph and only for a brief stint, it's just how my commute shakes out and why I was so enthusiastic about getting the Lightning. I get significantly better than EPA and save money for it.

EVs, and by extension the Lightning, are seriously based off individual use cases. I personally think the Lightning is a fantastic commuter / urban truck. I imagine it dominates in a short range, lower speed environment which has plenty of demand in different areas of the country. But it'll never be fantastic on the interstate, not as is, and while I'm cool with that there's plenty that won't be and that's okay. At the end of the day, Ford made a truck that was uniquely perfect for me and I love it so far.

 

[Ventorum94]

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

Nothing new here. Tom Moloughney shared one of the first-in-media 70mph Lightning range tests over a year ago (“State of Charge” Youtube channel) and reported- (you guessed it) 270mi range!

 

[Blainestang]

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.

They did change things in the front: hood, bumper, fenders, under hood stuff. Now, I’m sure there’s a limit to how much they can change before it requires more major changes, but clearly they can change some things.

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.

Yeah, as a shareholder, hopefully whoever thought 50k/year has since been fired.

 

[Grease Lightning]

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

I generally average the EPA combined mileage. In the freeway I also get the EPA stated mileage. The trick is not to drive it like you stole it if you want to capture efficiency.

 

[Blainestang]

I generally average the EPA combined mileage. In the freeway I also get the EPA stated mileage. The trick is not to drive it like you stole it if you want to capture efficiency.

I average approximately EPA range, as well, because my "normal" driving is well over EPA, but you get ~2.4 mi/kWh at interstate speeds?! Or like 50-60 mph?

 

[Grease Lightning]

I average approximately EPA range, as well, because my "normal" driving is well over EPA, but you get ~2.4 mi/kWh at interstate speeds?! Or like 50-60 mph?

my round trip today was 2.5 kW/m with 54 miles on I-5 at 65-70. That include the approximate 5 miles of city driving between destinations. My straight hwy was about 2.3 kW/m. But I am old school and use my foot and monitor the “tach” to control my output and regen instead of relying on cruise control staying at a constant 65 mph. That way I can “hypermile” for lack of a better word then hold a constant.

 

[intensifi]

Anyone have any data about tire road resistance at various speeds?

It would interesting to compare that against aerodynamic drag at various speeds.

We know the Lariat has better range (20 miles) due primarily to the wheel/tire sizes. That’s a large percentage of the 50 miles CR is quoting. Is it possible to increase Lightning ER range even more with a different wheel tire combo? Maybe the upcoming Toyo EV truck tires will make an appreciable difference? Or whatever Goodyear built for the Cybertruck when available in Lightning form?

 

[sstevetx]

Wind resistance definitely plays into it. My dad had a broken TV I offered to haul to the dump near my house. I had the 86" TV box strapped in my bed with the tailgate up. I drove it 50 miles (~50% highway @70mph). That total drive normally gets me 2.1 kW/m. I got 1.6 kW/m on that trip from the drag introduced from the box sticking up at the rear.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

my round trip today was 2.5 kW/m with 54 miles on I-5 at 65-70. That include the approximate 5 miles of city driving between destinations. My straight hwy was about 2.3 kW/m. But I am old school and use my foot and monitor the “tach” to control my output and regen instead of relying on cruise control staying at a constant 65 mph. That way I can “hypermile” for lack of a better word then hold a constant.

Must be a busy highway. Driving in traffic at 65-70 increases mileage by about 20% compared to open road driving with no one to draft on. I get about 1.8 at 65-70 on a long straightaway that I drive regularly with no wind and no traffic and a consistent 5' above sea level. And no, I don't drive poorly. That's just the facts.

 

[Zprime29]

Must be a busy highway. Driving in traffic at 65-70 increases mileage by about 20% compared to open road driving with no one to draft on. I get about 1.8 at 65-70 on a long straightaway that I drive regularly with no wind and no traffic and a consistent 5' above sea level. And no, I don't drive poorly. That's just the facts.

I notice the same. Driving 70mph inner city highway with light to moderate traffic nets way better efficiency than I get 70mph between cities and no traffic.

 

[Grease Lightning]

Must be a busy highway. Driving in traffic at 65-70 increases mileage by about 20% compared to open road driving with no one to draft on. I get about 1.8 at 65-70 on a long straightaway that I drive regularly with no wind and no traffic and a consistent 5' above sea level. And no, I don't drive poorly. That's just the facts.

Nope not busy at all and when near traffic if anything spaced out to the point I was in their “jet wash” rather then having and benefit of drafting and sharing a wake bubble. My lightning has always given me great mileage. Even a longer colder weather trip through the gorge that is extremely windy have me 2.3 m/kW average over 350 miles.

My current lifetime mileage is 5,500 at 2.4 m/kW

 

[1Jetpilot]

they need to test and publish the range at summer and winter temperatures. You can't take an average, because temperature is a constant at that moment in time. They also need to publish range just for city and just for highways. Same reasoning as for the temperature. Let the consumer come up with their conclusion at the end, because different temperatures and driving conditions, such as city vs highway driving, have different affects on our Lightning and for all EVs.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

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

In line with mine as well. 290 was the highest I’ve gotten.

I am suprised it was the worst though as my Tesla is horrendous (although an older model) and it’s right that my Rivian regularly beats EPA

 

[tgphoto]

Note that they state setting region to its lowest setting. Does that mean they have one pedal driving off? Considering the size/weight/aero of the Lightning, regen is a key part of its range with outsized impact compared to a EV car, so I wonder if CR inadvertently disadvantaged the truck.

I consistently out perform range ratings and expectations in my Lightning XLT standard range, but I also drive the speed limit. When I (rarely) drive 75+ or crank the heat, I am still surprised at the range. In fact, even when towing, I have been very impressed with the performance & range. (180 mile round trip, 19' equipment trailer, 6000#.) Certainly the battery capacity doesn't make towing long distances convenient, but for the average guy and average use case, it's perfectly fine. I do find it annoying to read when folks rage/complain about range and and then admit that they've been driving 85, cranking heat and/or towing.

I guess part of my point is that, it is not unreasonable to have to make adjustments, or even compromises, with switching to new technology. The Lightning is my 4th EV and I think it is awesome. However, we're still in early development compared to 100+ years of ICE. But making this transition is essential -- the climate/sustainability/pollution/geo-political real world situations require it and I am willing to make some 'sacrifice' for the long term. Improvements have happened at light(ning) speed!I believe that once we pass the tipping point of adoption and banish all of the misleading anti-EV propaganda, we'll be in a better place.

Sponsored