Anyone done a deep dive into real Level 2 charge efficiency?

[Nklem]

I am a Mechanical Engineer and truly enjoy my Lightning and love to do EV calcs as well proving real energy performance.


We drove 234 Miles on a charge this weekend with 30 miles remaining. Great range, 264 from an SR. No complaints at all. We started with 97.96 kWh in the pack, a true 100% charge. (I have never got that close to rated capacity in any EV).

I am Still trying to get accurate level 2 charging efficiency results. So far it shows the lightning is pretty low.

I have owned 6 EVs. Every one with the exception of the Lightning makes sense with charging energy at home and In vs Out energy. All of my cars were scanned many times and computed repetitively. 8% 2-Hyundai’s (53K miles) and 1-Toyota/Subaru (4K miles) and 10% 2-Mach E losses over 27K miles. I would think the Lightning would be 10% as well or better but it is not.


The Lightning is either really inefficient at a level 2, has inaccurate BMS kWh reporting or uses a ton of energy to condition the battery while charging. My calcs show 80-81% real 32 Amp Level 2 Efficiency for the Lightning on two separate metered events. All power in to all power absorbed by the pack.

Last night I plugged into home and set the charge level to 60%.

We started at 13.43 kWh remaining in the pack and it ended at 52.55 kWh. A Net charge to the battery of 39.12 kWh (all scanned with CarScanner Pro). This also lines up with actual SOC values of 16.32% (before) to 57.15% (after) or 40.83% x 98kWh=40.01 kWh charged (scanned from the BMS as well). Close enough with .9 kWh error. So 39-40 kWh went to the pack between two different reliable methods of verification.

But my ChargePoint Home, with utility grade metering, shows the truck actually took 47.3249 kWh.

Meaning that 7.3-8.2 kWh went to nothing, climate for the battery or were charging losses, or went to the battery with bad kWh BMS reporting data (my guess) , which on average equals 7.75 kWh lost or a charging efficiency of 81% at level 2. This is the second time I have confirmed this (I thought the first was a calc error)

Of course Fordpass shows 44.4 kWh to the battery and would indicate a loss of about 11% which is not true per the actual scanned numbers. My Mach E’s were both 10% firm losses over 27,000 miles.

I do believe the battery absorbed 39-40 kWh and I know I put in 47.3 kWh.

There are some inefficiencies in the lightning that are not properly reported… I may try to leave the truck on and log a full charge session including battery heating and cooling. It was a mild evening in the 50’s and 60’sF so I expected none.

Any insights? Has anyone done this type of analysis?

maybe Ford just cannot calculate real battery available kWh . If there are errors in that , especially sitting parked, that may be the reason and it simply has 8% to 10% losses.

Sponsored

 

[Heliian]

What is your evse output rating?

What is your house voltage?

What is the ambient temperature?

How long after driving did you plug in?

So many factors to account for so there isn't one clear answer.

 

[Tony Burgh]

Observation but no recorded data to back it up. I can read hourly kWh consumption about 2 days afterwards.
The consumption shown and charged by Duquesne Light when charging with FCSP is always around 10% over what Ford Pass shows. Ford Pass shows greater consumption than the truck shows with trip information.
Placing ammeter on the wires (FCSP open, but I’m an engineer so I can do this) reads 74-75 amps flowing at 242 volts. EVSE set at 80 amps.

 

[queuewho]

What is your evse output rating?

What is your house voltage?

What is the ambient temperature?

How long after driving did you plug in?

So many factors to account for so there isn't one clear answer.

Agree here... the cooling loop uses a fair bit of extra power if you plug in right after you were just driving on a hot day. Same goes for winter, it absolutely will heat up the battery first, then begin charging.

While I do think it is a fair bit worse than my model 3 was, my truck doesn't seem that bad as far as charging losses. There is certainly way less phantom drain when sitting a while, so I'd say it evens out pretty well that way.

As for OP's stated range on his SR, I am seeing similar when I avoid toll roads here in PA. For me, ER would be a huge waste with diminishing returns.

 

[RickLightning]

I can tell you that in February when I charged to 100% before a trip, the amount of energy (going from 89% to 100%) didn't make sense to me. I expected (0.11 x 131 = 14.4kW). I put in 23.4kW. My charger showed 25.33 with a 7.6% loss.

I asked an expert on the Mach-E forum, and here's what he said:

"When you charge to 100% there is hidden capacity used because that's the only time the charger operates in constant voltage mode. The cells will take a little bit extra charge. So you can't really compare charging to 100% with other times that terminate less than 100%.

The math won't work out because there's uncertainty at the top and bottom of the packs due to accumulated errors over time. If you regularly charged to 100% then the error would probably be less, so you'd use less kWh on subsequent charge cycles.

Remember the rated capacity is only achieved when the battery is at 77ºF. At colder temps the kWh to empty figure will be less.

If you want an accurate test, charge to 90%, drain it down, then charge back to 90% with the same charger (and try to keep the battery temp the same the whole time). "

On the trip, I recorded my available kW of energy at 100% several times, and it varied quite a bit, never getting over 127.XX, despite showing a 99.5% SOH or 100% SOH.

 

[ccough]

Interesting... I do not (yet) have an OBD scanner, but comparing charge logs between what the Ford Pass app has said was "received" and what the Emporia EVSE app reports as "sent" to the battery, charging losses of around 7% were being indicated. I haven't monitored this lately, but in my spreadsheets from December Ford Pass reported 37.2 kWh received and Emporia indicated 40.1 kWh sent (92.8% efficient between these two points). Another session soon after reported 33.5 kWh received versus 35.8 kWh sent (almost 93.6% efficiency).

Of course, junk in = junk out if the truck is reporting incorrect numbers via Ford Pass. There are informative threads on this forum discussing SOC reporting (what the dashboard reports to users vs what OBD reports), but I have uncertainty on which value best reflects the true/usable SOC.

Also, I don't know if colder ambient temperatures would lower thermal losses (have not researched the specifics on inverter losses nor have run numbers heading into summer...).

 

[RickLightning]

Interesting... I do not (yet) have an OBD scanner, but comparing charge logs between what the Ford Pass app has said was "received" and what the Emporia EVSE app reports as "sent" to the battery, charging losses of around 7% were being indicated. I haven't monitored this lately, but in my spreadsheets from December Ford Pass reported 37.2 kWh received and Emporia indicated 40.1 kWh sent (92.8% efficient between these two points). Another session soon after reported 33.5 kWh received versus 35.8 kWh sent (almost 93.6% efficiency).

Of course, junk in = junk out if the truck is reporting incorrect numbers via Ford Pass. There are informative threads on this forum discussing SOC reporting (what the dashboard reports to users vs what OBD reports), but I have uncertainty on which value best reflects the true/usable SOC.

Also, I don't know if colder ambient temperatures would lower thermal losses (have not researched the specifics on inverter losses nor have run numbers heading into summer...).

7% level 2 loss between charger and battery is normal.

 

[ccough]

It might be worth computing [edit for clarity] (the "mi/kWh) efficiency: miles driven per month and divide by the reported Emporia kWh sent to get miles/kWh and then compare to what the dashboard efficiency is for the month (again, assuming that number is correct...). May try this comparison. Last month I drove 1,296 miles with 562 kWh sent as reported by the Emporia app. This is an efficiency of 2.3 mi/kWh. I did not have a "trip" active to record the efficiency on the dashboard, but I am confident that I was getting under 2.7 mi/kWh there, overall (which would yield an 85% efficiency or better). Of course, need more data to confirm.

 

[TaxmanHog]

I am a Mechanical Engineer and truly enjoy my Lightning and love to do EV calcs as well proving real energy performance.


We drove 234 Miles on a charge this weekend with 30 miles remaining. Great range, 264 from an SR. No complaints at all. We started with 97.7 kWh in the pack, a true 100% charge. (I have never got that close to rated capacity in any EV).

I am Still trying to get accurate level 2 charging efficiency results. So far it shows the lightning is pretty low.

I have owned 6 EVs. Every one with the exception of the Lightning makes sense with charging energy at home and In vs Out energy. All of my cars were scanned many times and computed repetitively. 8% 2-Hyundai’s (53K miles) and 1-Toyota/Subaru (4K miles) and 10% 2-Mach E losses over 27K miles. I would think the Lightning would be 10% as well or better but it is not.


The Lightning is either really inefficient at a level 2 or uses a ton of energy to condition the battery while charging. My calcs show 80-81% real 32 Amp Level 2 Efficiency for the Lightning on two separate metered events. All power in to all power absorbed by the pack.

Last night I plugged into home and set the charge level to 60%.

We started at 13.43 kWh remaining in the pack and it ended at 52.55 kWh. A Net charge to the battery of 39.12 kWh (all scanned with CarScanner Pro). This also lines up with actual SOC values of 16.32% (before) to 57.15% (after) or 40.83% x 98kWh=40.01 kWh charged (scanned from the BMS as well). Close enough with .9 kWh error. So 39-40 kWh went to the pack between two different reliable methods of verification.

But my ChargePoint Home, with utility grade metering, shows the truck actually took 47.3249 kWh.

Meaning that 7.3-8.2 kWh went to nothing, climate for the battery or were charging losses, which on average equals 7.75 kWh lost or a charging efficiency of 81% at level 2. This is the second time I have confirmed this (I thought the first was a calc error)

Of course Fordpass shows 44.4 kWh to the battery and would indicate a loss of about 11% which is not true per the actual scanned numbers. My Mach E’s were both 10% firm losses over 27,000 miles.

I do believe the battery absorbed 39-40 kWh and I know I put in 47.3 kWh.

There are some inefficiencies in the lightning that are not properly reported… I may try to leave the truck on and log a full charge session including battery heating and cooling. It was a mild evening in the 50’s and 60’sF so I expected none.

Any insights? Has anyone done this type of analysis?

Recently I had a charging session that showed that I added 40 kWh raising the SOC from 85% to 90%, that 40 kWH was clearly bogus, your shot is closer to reality though still optimistic 112/44.4 @ 2.52 MPK.

I've been tracking the Fordpass reported session kWh, with the FCSP records and my Emporia Vue2 energy monitor which exclusively tracks the 240vx80a feeds, comparing these measurements against the anticipated energy based on the delta of displayed SOC.

 

[Nklem]

What is your evse output rating?

What is your house voltage?

What is the ambient temperature?

How long after driving did you plug in?

So many factors to account for so there isn't one clear answer.

This is all scanned real BMS from then Fod and Metered data from my ChargePoint home charger. We have 241V and the CP puts out 32 amps. I trust the Chargepoiny energy as I have checked it against my electric meter. Every other EV I have had works out to 8-10% losses with BMS data scanned before and after in summertime against my Chargepoint data.. It was 70F yesterday and 60F overnight. There was a pause of 3.5 hour's after driving and before charging started due to my time of use schedule. Maybe Fords kWh in the BMS is just not that accurate. It must be tough to know especially when not driving….

 

[Nklem]

Recently I had a charging session that showed that I added 40 kWh raising the SOC from 85% to 90%, that 40 kWH was clearly bogus, your shot is closer to reality though still optimistic 112/44.4 @ 2.52 MPK.

I've been tracking the Fordpass reported session kWh, with the FCSP records and my Emporia Vue2 energy monitor which exclusively tracks the 240vx80a feeds, comparing these measurements against the anticipated energy based on the delta of displayed SOC.

Great log. You should get Carscanner so you can see real SOC and not rely on Displayed…as there is a lot of variables in the displayed value… great data….

 

[TaxmanHog]

Great log. You should get Carscanner so you can see real SOC bad not rely on Displayed…as there is a lot of variables in the displayed value… great data….

Truth, I wanted to keep it simple, I'm a data junkie, if I went with a scanner I'd go overboard.

 

[Newton]

This is very interesting, thanks. I have never seen more than 95kWh after a 100% charge on my SR, and that time it rapidly dropped to 91.48. If you are getting 97.7 on a SR then maybe something is in fact wrong with mine - I never see anywhere near 264 miles of range. Is yours a 2024?

I have noticed that after charging to 100%, the "kWh to empty" rapidly drops a significant amount in the first half hour after charging, which I attribute to the truck attempting to recalibrate the internal state of charge (it does not bother to recalibrate the displayed state of charge which has caused people to have problems.) This will throw your calculations off if this is by design or would explain that something is wrong with my truck if it doesn't happen to you.

I have noticed oddities that remind me of problems of out of whack BMSs in other situations. I do not recall the exact numbers since I don't charge to 100% much but I have noticed it taking significant amperage even though the batteries are reported to be 99-100% as if the batteries were actually at a lower state of charge than reported (even accounting for whatever kluge they are doing to try to reserve some at the top and bottom.) While charging in off grid situations I learned to look at the amperage the batteries are accepting to determine the state of charge rather than the BMS, it only ever approaches reality after full 100% charges.

One difference is that I charge at a much lower amperage (32A or 20A) but that has not proven to have any effect on my other EVs.

 

[Nklem]

This is very interesting, thanks. I have never seen more than 95kWh after a 100% charge on my SR, and that time it rapidly dropped to 91.48. If you are getting 97.7 on a SR then maybe something is in fact wrong with mine - I never see anywhere near 264 miles of range. Is yours a 2024?

I have noticed that after charging to 100%, the "kWh to empty" rapidly drops a significant amount in the first half hour after charging, which I attribute to the truck attempting to recalibrate the internal state of charge (it does not bother to recalibrate the displayed state of charge which has caused people to have problems.) This will throw your calculations off if this is by design or would explain that something is wrong with my truck if it doesn't happen to you.

I have noticed oddities that remind me of problems of out of whack BMSs in other situations. I do not recall the exact numbers since I don't charge to 100% much but I have noticed it taking significant amperage even though the batteries are reported to be 99-100% as if the batteries were actually at a lower state of charge than reported (even accounting for whatever kluge they are doing to try to reserve some at the top and bottom.) While charging in off grid situations I learned to look at the amperage the batteries are accepting to determine the state of charge rather than the BMS, it only ever approaches reality after full 100% charges.

One difference is that I charge at a much lower amperage (32A or 20A) but that has not proven to have any effect on my other EVs.

Mine is 23. Here is my CarScanner Pro Scan right after 100% charge at work on Friday. 97.96 KWh battery energy to empty…. @100%, And like you, previous to this I was around 95-96 kWh max Energy to empty at 99%. This was my warmest day so far too. Maybe my BMS is still calibrating over 4700 miles? We did drive 234 miles to a 14% SOC, meaning over 260 driveable. I did not dare to go under 10%, maybe I would have had the truck Die at 7%-10% but the scan showed over 14% remaining….and 13.43 kWh remaining as well in the pack. Maybe this is why some are having the 0% at 7% issue due to BMS calibration….I still love my truck…

sorry that my Carscanner in IPhone loses data if not on the screen constantly (that drop over the first 5 mins). I just switched to a dedicated Android phone for Carscanner only and it never misses a Beat.

 

[Ventorum94]

I am a Mechanical Engineer and truly enjoy my Lightning and love to do EV calcs as well proving real energy performance.


We drove 234 Miles on a charge this weekend with 30 miles remaining. Great range, 264 from an SR. No complaints at all. We started with 97.7 kWh in the pack, a true 100% charge. (I have never got that close to rated capacity in any EV).

I am Still trying to get accurate level 2 charging efficiency results. So far it shows the lightning is pretty low.

I have owned 6 EVs. Every one with the exception of the Lightning makes sense with charging energy at home and In vs Out energy. All of my cars were scanned many times and computed repetitively. 8% 2-Hyundai’s (53K miles) and 1-Toyota/Subaru (4K miles) and 10% 2-Mach E losses over 27K miles. I would think the Lightning would be 10% as well or better but it is not.


The Lightning is either really inefficient at a level 2, has inaccurate BMS kWh reporting or uses a ton of energy to condition the battery while charging. My calcs show 80-81% real 32 Amp Level 2 Efficiency for the Lightning on two separate metered events. All power in to all power absorbed by the pack.

Last night I plugged into home and set the charge level to 60%.

We started at 13.43 kWh remaining in the pack and it ended at 52.55 kWh. A Net charge to the battery of 39.12 kWh (all scanned with CarScanner Pro). This also lines up with actual SOC values of 16.32% (before) to 57.15% (after) or 40.83% x 98kWh=40.01 kWh charged (scanned from the BMS as well). Close enough with .9 kWh error. So 39-40 kWh went to the pack between two different reliable methods of verification.

But my ChargePoint Home, with utility grade metering, shows the truck actually took 47.3249 kWh.

Meaning that 7.3-8.2 kWh went to nothing, climate for the battery or were charging losses, or went to the battery with bad kWh BMS reporting data (my guess) , which on average equals 7.75 kWh lost or a charging efficiency of 81% at level 2. This is the second time I have confirmed this (I thought the first was a calc error)

Of course Fordpass shows 44.4 kWh to the battery and would indicate a loss of about 11% which is not true per the actual scanned numbers. My Mach E’s were both 10% firm losses over 27,000 miles.

I do believe the battery absorbed 39-40 kWh and I know I put in 47.3 kWh.

There are some inefficiencies in the lightning that are not properly reported… I may try to leave the truck on and log a full charge session including battery heating and cooling. It was a mild evening in the 50’s and 60’sF so I expected none.

Any insights? Has anyone done this type of analysis?

maybe Ford just cannot calculate real battery available kWh . If there are errors in that , especially sitting parked, that may be the reason and it simply has 8% to 10% losses.

1) There are always energy losses in charging. I’ve actually never checked my Lightning, because it always fully charges overnight, and frankly, a few pennies worth of electricity losses don’t matter to me. Doesn’t seem any worse than on my Teslas.
2) Hopefully, no one expects anything resembling efficiency from a brick-shaped 1.7-2.4mi/kWh Lightning anyway.
3) Anecdotal impression of my Lightning is that phantom drain is practically nil (much less than my Teslas).

Sponsored