Based on real world experience, just raining is 5% to 10% range loss. Once you get to heavy rain or significant water on the roadway it can get closer to 20%. Based on my experience to date. Takes energy to push through the water.
But hopefully you aren't driving 85 mph with standing water on the road, so heavy rain actually increases your efficiency.
Agree with you completely. I just started thinking about it myself. Just because I can drive 80 mph doesn't mean my average speed will be that high. There are usually a lot of slowdowns during a trip.
Depends upon where you live.
The only way you know that, as you know, is to test it scientifically. People have registered a 10% loss with non-aero wheels.
Most people with non aero wheels are using "off road" tires with aggressive thread patterns so I don't think one can make a general statement that non-aero means a 10% loss, now, I'm not saying that it won't be a loss, it definitely will be, simply from non-aero and the fact that the 22's are 17lbs heavier (92 vs. 75 as measured on a scale) than the stock rims/wheels.
I have a 2023 ford lightning that I bought new in Jan 2024 and have made 3 trips to my ranch that is 525 miles from my main home one way. At 80 mph you won't see 1.8 or 2 per KW but you will see 1.2 and 1.4 respectfully. Now Ford, has fudged the numbers using the EPA as the bad guys and accepts no responsibility for you not achieving a good range. How Ford fools you is by redirecting you to a charging station when the vehicle is close to not being able to make it to the charging station you chose for your next recharge. I experienced this while driving from Ft Stockton, TX to Van Horn, TX every time and the NAV display kept on redirecting me to Pecos, TX. Also, I did find that it was less expensive to charge my truck with my 8,75 KW inverter generator than charging at electrify America at .56 per KWH at 7.2 hours of run time on 4.2 gallons of gas because you don't have to search or drive out of your way to find a charging station. I have even had Electrify America say that they can put 133 KW in a 98 KW battery when their charging station wasn't working properly. The EPA mileage is only relevant while driving 50 to 55 mph and then you may come close to getting the 320 for extended and 240 for the standard range batteries. But there is no guarantee! I have put my truck into the shop 2 times for not achieving the expected mileage and I hope with my next trip to my ranch that I will have better results than 1.2 and 1.4 miles per KWH. Don't get me wrong, I do like my Ford Lightning because it is comfortable and looks good but the range is not what Ford has been putting out. The Lightning that I have, based on the 138 miles of range at 100 percent that I have achieved, wouldn't make it to a charging station along my route to my ranch while pulling a 7000 lb utility trailer. This fact means that the only size battery that should be in a Lightning XLT is the 131 KW battery and Ford owes everyone who has a 98 KW battery a refund for not being able to pull anything far enough to reach a charging station at an acceptable rate of speed when you have a truck with the XLT trim.
The EPA rating is a synthetic test cycle, I don't think it's Fords fault for reporting a standardized number in a standardized way.
I am at 9K, and my total average has been 2.4-2.5 depending on proportion of winter to summer miles I have had on it. Almost exactly as Ford has advertised. However regardless of the details of his complaint, I agree with underlying cause of it. For EVs, both manufacturer and EPA should forget about the current cycle and just do what a lot of youtubers are already doing; A 70 mph loop and use that to publish a range. You see a lot less complaint from Porsche owners than you do from Tesla owners because the published range is closer to highway range. Once they match it, most of the complaints will go away.The EPA rating is a synthetic test cycle, I don't think it's Fords fault for reporting a standardized number in a standardized way.
"We understand this is the numbers we're required to report, but trust us, our vehicles are much worse than that"
Not sure marketing would let that statement through.
I'm also sure that if you follow the EPA cycle you'll get close to, or even get better range than the rating.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
If you look at the highway, high speed, cycle, it's only 10min long and during that cycle they average 48mph and top speed if 80mph for about 15s, so yeah, hardly your 200miles @80mph non-stop cycle, but again, that's not Fords fault.
The 320mile range is an average between 55% city where the lightning would get, say, 3 m/kW and 45% highway "high speed" which is 60-65mph at 2.2m/kW.
(3x.55)+(2.2x.45)=2.64
130kw x 2.64 = 343 miles of glorious range.
Could Ford have been more open with real range at continuous speeds vs. EPA cycles, sure, bad marketing probably, but sure.
Should consumers educate themselves more before they drop 50-100K (or any amount for that matter) on their first EV, absolutely!
The people that report far better mileage than you while traveling at 80 mph are driving on busy interstates. They are moving with traffic, thus drafting. The busier the interstate, the better the mpg. I-10 for you is like I-37 for me between CC and San Antonio. Sometimes a mile to the nearest car, and never in heavy traffic. I get 1.5 at 75 in those conditions. Less with a headwind.
