Efficiency Help

[JRT]

36psi is spare tire, 42psi is your normal tires. In any case, your truck sounds fine, the temps and wind are your issue most likely. I assume those tires are also stock size too.

This is reality for us, it's a brick and a amazing m/kwh posting is misleading from most experience and pretty much ever review I've seen.

Sponsored

 

[VAF84]

A mix of concrete and asphalt roads here, so maybe (?) it is rougher roads.

Did the neutral hill test, the truck didn't hold on a slight decline and proceeded to move. So I don't think it's the brakes grabbing.

I just did a loop with car scanner on a flat area. The test was to wait for energy use to stabilize after reaching speed, set cruise, and then allow for another 5 seconds of cruise before taking the readings. Readings were taken for 30 seconds and averaged.

Slight headwind (5-7kph/3.1-6.2mph):
90kph/55.92mph = 28.40 kWh/100km or 2.19 mi/kWh
100kph/62.13mph = 30.99 kWh/100km or 2.00 mi/kWh
110kph/68.35mph = 35.27 kWh/100km or 1.76 mi/kWh

Return, slight tailwind (5-7kph/3.1-6.2mph):
90kph/55.92mph = 24.40 kWh/100km or 2.55 mi/kWh
100kph/62.13mph = 28.58 kWh/100km or 2.17 mi/kWh
110kph/68.35mph = 34.06 kWh/100km or 1.82 mi/kWh

Average:
90kph/55.92mph = 26.40 kWh/100km or 2.34 mi/kWh
100kph/62.13mph = 29.79 kWh/100km or 2.09 mi/kWh
110kph/68.35mph = 34.67 kWh/100km or 1.79 mi/kWh

Coolant heater at 0.75-1.6kW during the trip

Yesterday temp warmer 21C degrees (70f) when I drove, while this morning 12C degrees (54f). It was a bit windier yesterday (20-25kph/12.42-15.53mph) vs today (5-7kph/3.1-6.2mph).

Those numbers look typical to me. I have the same issues. We take long drives, that means massive efficiency hits. Worse for you that you're in Canada where it's colder. I just got back from KY, and I didn't see anything over 2 until I got back to Texas.

For frequent road tripping it's going to cost more than an unleaded vehicle that gets at least 20mpg on the highway, plus frequent stopping.

Unless you baby it, for lots of hwy driving under 70 degrees, you'll be around 1.7 kwh/m. Not much better over 70 degrees. I have a lifetime average of 1.7 kwh/m with 80% hwy driving. Price for DC fast charging is increasing exponentially. It was in the $.30's, now seeing $.67 in some places. I'm barely breaking even with gas if paying less than $.50 kwh/m to charge; not accounting for loss of time.

You may be in the same boat as I'm in, where going back to ICE is a serious consideration; even if you love the truck. Just for practical reasons.

 

[Newton]

You are getting better efficiency than I am in town by a fair bit. I live where it is hilly but fairly protected from the wind. I also tend to drive around 60mph due to preference and the speed limits here. I would not be surprised if wind was a big factor, and you probably do not make as much with a tail wind as you lose with a headwind. I probably lose more in town due to the hills. From experience, 15mph wind is pretty significant if you are on a bicycle.

If this is of more than academic interest (I have done 1500 mile trips without really worrying about it) you can draft trucks within reason, it makes a big difference. Also try to avoid acceleration, I do all of this but mainly to fight boredom rather than because I have to.

Note that this is an F-150 thing, not an EV thing. My Kia EV6 will be pushing near 4 mi/kWh with a 10 minute recharge on trips like this. It probably does better in the wind but I don't know (it is a Wind version so maybe that helps ) It is the car I thought we would use for our longer trips but although it is a comfortable car we prefer the Ford and just take the range hit.

As far as EVs go, I'd say the Ford is a Gen2, the Kia is a Gen 4 and Tesla is Gen 5. The Silverado will probably be a better EV, it should be since they have had many more years to design it. The F-150 is an ICE with an electric motor, which is its strength and its weakness. The Kia has a heat pump and shuts off the front motors for efficiency (other cars use inductive motors on the front which does essentially the same thing without a mechanical link) Higher level cars and trucks can adjust the suspension lower for efficiency. We do none of that but it is still a damn great truck.

 

[Zprime29]

Unless you baby it, for lots of hwy driving under 70 degrees, you'll be around 1.7 kwh/m.

I disagree with this blanket statement. Could you please quantify "baby it"?

I've driven multiple trips in 110F heat, full A/C and family loaded with gear. Still got 2.0 at 70mph ( I did follow semi's where possible ). That's Tucson to El Paso, lots of elevation changes and wind.

 

[HHI-Lightning]

Per the Ford website, ICE F150 EPA mileage is:

2024 Ford F-150 Fuel Efficiency
The 2024 Ford F-150 fuel efficiency equipped with the turbocharged 2.7-liter V-6 is estimated to achieve a maximum of 20 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg on the highway. Meanwhile, the twin-turbo 3.5-liter V-6 variant boasts estimates of up to 18 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway. In contrast, the hybrid version showcases impressive estimates, reaching as high as 25 mpg in city conditions and 26 mpg on the highway.

(End of Ford website quote)

So…. If you’re comparing a Lightning with an ICE equivalent, you should be thinking ~20 mpg in the City and ~25 on the highway.

The Lightning has better energy use (mi/kwh) driving in the City vs highway, largely due to regenerative braking helping to restore the battery in city driving.

So now let’s put this into $$ (US dollars).

If unleaded fuel is $3.25/gallon, the ICE would be costing $0.16 / mile in the city and $0.13 / mile on the highway.

Compare that to electric, and here’s where the DC fast charger kills…

Home charger @ $0.10 / kWh
DC fast charger @ ~ $0.50 / kWh (with some higher @ $0.65)

City driving I see ~2.5 miles / kWh, which effectively costs me $0.04 per mile since I universally use my home charger for this type of driving. This is substantially lower cost than an ICE ($0.16 / mile) equivalent.

Highway driving I see ~2.0 miles / kWh. If it’s a home-based charge, that’s a cost of $0.05 per mile. Still happy!

However, if I’m using a DC charger with my $0.50 / kWh assumption, my cost is now $0.25 / mile. Significantly higher than the ICE at $0.13 / mile (almost double the cost)

Of course, your local cost of electric, gas, terrain, driving style all have a direct impact to everything in this post.

Bottom line, stay away from DC fast chargers WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

 

[VAF84]

You are getting better efficiency than I am in town by a fair bit. I live where it is hilly but fairly protected from the wind. I also tend to drive around 60mph due to preference and the speed limits here. I would not be surprised if wind was a big factor, and you probably do not make as much with a tail wind as you lose with a headwind. I probably lose more in town due to the hills. From experience, 15mph wind is pretty significant if you are on a bicycle.

If this is of more than academic interest (I have done 1500 mile trips without really worrying about it) you can draft trucks within reason, it makes a big difference. Also try to avoid acceleration, I do all of this but mainly to fight boredom rather than because I have to.

Note that this is an F-150 thing, not an EV thing. My Kia EV6 will be pushing near 4 mi/kWh with a 10 minute recharge on trips like this. It probably does better in the wind but I don't know (it is a Wind version so maybe that helps ) It is the car I thought we would use for our longer trips but although it is a comfortable car we prefer the Ford and just take the range hit.

As far as EVs go, I'd say the Ford is a Gen2, the Kia is a Gen 4 and Tesla is Gen 5. The Silverado will probably be a better EV, it should be since they have had many more years to design it. The F-150 is an ICE with an electric motor, which is its strength and its weakness. The Kia has a heat pump and shuts off the front motors for efficiency (other cars use inductive motors on the front which does essentially the same ting without a mechanical link) Higher level cars and trucks can adjust the suspension lower for efficiency. We do none of that but it is still a damn great truck.

Don't know what to tell you there. Maybe it is the hills, I've driving flatter terrain mostly. I am looking forward to the Silverado, that's probably going to eliminate the last of my issues with that sweet big battery.

I disagree with this blanket statement. Could you please quantify "baby it"?

I've driven multiple trips in 110F heat, full A/C and family loaded with gear. Still got 2.0 at 70mph ( I did follow semi's where possible ). That's Tucson to El Paso, lots of elevation changes and wind.

Do you have retractable steps? LOL, jk... I've never seen 2.0 at 70. I get a solid 1.6 to 1.8. By babying it I meant not driving the speed limit in areas where posted speeds are 70 or more.

... in all seriousness, I do wonder if retractable steps help.

 

[RickLightning]

36psi is spare tire, 42psi is your normal tires. In any case, your truck sounds fine, the temps and wind are your issue most likely. I assume those tires are also stock size too.

This is reality for us, it's a brick and a amazing m/kwh posting is misleading from most experience and pretty much ever review I've seen.

Nope. Look on the door tag of a truck with AT tires.

 

[Newton]

So…. If you’re comparing a Lightning with an ICE equivalent, you should be thinking ~20 mpg in the City and ~25 on the highway.

Um, in Ford's wildest dreams. I owned the exact equivalent of my Lighting (Lariat Ecoboost) and lifetime was around 18mpg. Worse in the city, of course, but it was a really good day if I could break 20 on the highway. This was driving very conservatively, I drive my Lightning faster because it feels more planted. It was actually rather frustrating because I know all of the tricks and the damn thing just liked to drink gas - and at $6/gallon (Island prices) that was not much fun.

 

[Zprime29]

Do you have retractable steps? LOL, jk... I've never seen 2.0 at 70. I get a solid 1.6 to 1.8. By babying it I meant not driving the speed limit in areas where posted speeds are 70 or more.

Stock fixed steps on mine. @tommolog did a very thorough range test at 70 mph and achieved 2.1 mpk.
https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...by-tom-moloughney-270-miles-2-1-mi-kwh.11162/

Most of my trips (either to/from El Paso or Phoenix) have been 70-75mph and I can usually get close to 2.0 pending weather.

 

[Newton]

On recall, I did have the tow package and the tow mirrors so that probably didn't help. I liked those tow mirrors.

 

[Scorpio3d]

I have roughly the identical truck to you (lariat ER max tow-but I do not have mudflaps or cover )and I am about 50/50 city/highway now as I purchased my vehicle and drove my truck from Maryland to Texas (home mid march)when I purchased it! I have noticed that my efficiency has gone up with the heat even using my air conditioning (mostly city driving lately )it is in the low to mid 90s the last few days in the Dallas area. Here is a pic of my trip one which is all but a couple miles of the total it was 2.0 or 2.1 a few weeks ago.

 

[VAF84]

I'm truly starting to wonder if I did get a real lemon. I'm not getting any of these range numbers. I'm averaging 1.7 on the clock, and I've driven nearly 13k miles since my purchase in December. If I choose to replace mine with an LER vs ICE on my buyback, I'll get to try it again. Difference is the new one will have retractable steps from factory.

Then again, maybe it makes a difference that at least 35% of the total miles were at sustained highway speeds for a duration of at least an hour or more. Then 80% of those miles did not begin from being plugged in (preconditioned) as I was away from home.

OP, only thing we can deduce here is mudflaps, tires, or terrain/temp. If you look at the aero graphics a lot of turbulence comes from the wheel well section. Additional unsprung weight from all-terrain tires, less aero from tires/flaps, could be playing an outsized role.

 

[Newton]

Have you checked that your speedometer is accurate? I was definitely getting 2.4 mi/kWh from Eugene to Salem which was pretty open (for I-5) and running about 65 mph for 78 miles. Kalama to Chehalis was 2.3. Other stretches I was getting 2.1, somewhat ironically on slower roads.

I do think that the most recent update made a slight change to this, the mi/kWh seems to be more reactive than it was before.

 

[mb0220]

Tires should be inflated to the recommended level. 44 cold for a 36psi recommendation is 22% too high. AT tires from the factory are 36. Non-AT are 42.

I'm not trying to start an argument - I'm genuinely curious if my understanding is incorrect...
I know extreme over/under-inflation can cause uneven wear, but apart from the extremes it was always my understanding that lower pressure gives a softer ride, and higher pressure gives more efficiency (harder tire -> less rolling resistance). So you just need to find your personal preference in the tradeoff. I don't give too much consideration to the door sticker recommendation because that value is designed to maximize softness for stock tires. My rule of thumb has always been to inflate somewhere about halfway between door sticker recommendation and max PSI printed on the tire. (Unless max is something like 80 PSI, in which case I don't do the halfway rule.)

Change my mind.

Sponsored