F-150 Lightning's Estimated Driving Range Shows Incredible 472 Miles

[Blainestang]

I would have 0% range anxiety with 230 miles of range. I'll be very happy if real world range exceeds that figure but would much rather have them focus on charging speed.

Yep. 230 miles is fine for many, many use cases. The Lightning's biggest "issue" right now is probably the charge rate.

44 minutes to add ~150 miles in the SR (15-80%) is actually an average of ~100kW, so that's pretty good, BUT the inherently bad efficiency of a truck really hurts the miles/minute rate.

41 minutes to add ~195 miles in the ER is substantially better. That's averaging ~150kW all the way up to 80%! So, it's either 150kW all the way to 80%, or it's even faster early in the charge curve. Hopefully the latter, IMO, so one could add, say, 150 miles in 25 mins or so.

Personally, my biggest concern is if I want to tow longer distances. The huge efficiency hit is a double-whammy. One, now you only get 1 mi/kWh, probably. And two, in order to make it to the next charging station, you may have to charge nearly all the way full (especially with SR), which for the Mach E means VERY slow charge rates above 80%.

We'll see! Still lots and lots to learn about these trucks!

Sponsored

 

[Blainestang]

Not exactly an accurate comparison between how the "range feature" works on the Tesla 3 vs the Mach E(or Lightning). Ford has been very open and focused on making the range accurate and consistent from beginning of your drive to the end. Ford has said the range estimate takes into account the elevation, speeds it thinks you will be driving(using navigation), winds, temperature, and also load(data from the onboard scales). The goal is to avoid the see-saw range you see in the Tesla(which you described above).

This isn't exactly an apples-to-apples, either.

Tesla has three range estimators.

1) Range estimation that is based solely on battery level times EPA efficiency.

2) "Energy" graph that changes based on your last 15/30/etc. minutes, depending on how you set it, but not using information about your route/destination.

3) The navigation system will estimate your battery level at your destination based on many factors. Fewer than Ford's system, probably, but this doesn't "see-saw" like the others because it has added info: The route to your destination.

Furthermore, if the F-150s in these tests don't have destinations set, then they can't be taking into account elevation, estimated speeds along the route, etc. They would just be estimating based on extrapolating past info like Tesla's "Energy" graph. So the original comparison by @EaglesPDX is closer to apples-to-apples. The Tesla "energy" graph and the Lightning's estimate without having a route in would both be just extrapolating from past info. And that's how you get super, super high estimates. Drive around a parking lot at 20mph for a while and you'll get a ridiculous estimate unless you have given the car a bunch more info by putting in the route/destination.

Also, even if the prototypes DID have destinations put into the Nav in order to get that information, we don't know how good the *current* software is in them. They could be using the same algorithm as the Mach E at the moment, for instance, which would give ridiculously high range estimations.

 

[Sgt Beavis]

I gotta love the intrigue around the Lightning's range.

 

[greenne]

Furthermore, if the F-150s in these tests don't have destinations set, then they can't be taking into account elevation, estimated speeds along the route, etc. They would just be estimating based on extrapolating past info like Tesla's "Energy" graph. So the original comparison by @EaglesPDX is closer to apples-to-apples. The Tesla "energy" graph and the Lightning's estimate without having a route in would both be just extrapolating from past info. And that's how you get super, super high estimates. Drive around a parking lot at 20mph for a while and you'll get a ridiculous estimate unless you have given the car a bunch more info by putting in the route/destination.

Also, even if the prototypes DID have destinations put into the Nav in order to get that information, we don't know how good the *current* software is in them. They could be using the same algorithm as the Mach E at the moment, for instance, which would give ridiculously high range estimations.

Which is almost exactly what I said: " So while I agree that the demo probably was not 100% accurate and based partially upon what it was doing previously...the estimate should have(maybe?) taken take into account temperature, environmental data and load. It wouldn't be entirely accurate as elevation and road speed would not be in the calculation"

IF (big if) the software is working in the demo... don't know if changes are made "real time" or if they are only triggered by the nav system. I would hope that if you loaded something in the truck bed the scales would automatically trigger the system to recalculate the range--on the fly.

I know the range shown in the example only applies if you're tooling around in a parking lot. Or perhaps a short city commute where you never get above 25mph (hello NYC).

But I am also open to the possibility that the f150 will have a larger variance of values on range compared to other EVs because people use them for various activities from hauling to commuting to off roading to everything in between. It seems as if Ford is trying for a realistic EPA number on the conservative side as not to disappoint.

I guess we'll all see when the reviews start rolling in. I would be happy with a 300mi range....very happy if it were to end up being more. I think Ford gave us the minimum so nobody come away disappointed and many come away pleasantly surprised.

PS-- there is another video out there from a 3rd source where they trigger the range screen on their media review and it shows 383mi with around 90% charge.

 

[greenne]

I gotta love the intrigue around the Lightning's range.

Besides-- without "what type of oil should I use" and the std "87 vs 93" octane thread, what are we going to argue about?

 

[Blainestang]

I guess we'll all see when the reviews start rolling in. I would be happy with a 300mi range....very happy if it were to end up being more. I think Ford gave us the minimum so nobody come away disappointed and many come away pleasantly surprised.

Agreed. I think Ford was probably conservative with those numbers. I believe the Mach E's numbers improved between announcement and production, too.

 

[F-150 Prius]

It's more the lack of credibility of the two EV media guys making the claim. It all depends on what the vehicle was doing previously. There's a screen on the Tesla called "Projected Range" which will differ wildly from the rated 310 miles (in the case my Model 3 LR AWD) based on the last 30 miles. If I'm cruising down the back side of the Cascade range in mostly regen mode it can show 400+ mile range with 60% charge. If i was going the upside or passing slow traffic at 100 mph, it's going to show an "incredible" range of 120 miles.

That is likely what the two saw on a back screen on the truck and reflects some easy driving in a test vehicles.

More likely is the F150EV will match the MachE in a good conservative rating with results similar to this.

The estimated remaining range was saying the vehicle could go on for another 3 miles. That's an impressive 14.5% farther than the EPA highway range and 5.5% more than the combined EPA range rating.

You're right about the Tesla range modes … one is only 10% optimistic, the rated range is as if hypermiling downhill in warm weather with a stiff tailwind …
I'm guessing this is a development mule with a much larger battery than whatever 100 kWh +/- that goes into the first production of the Lightning then after those are all sold, there will be a 500 mile battery Lightning.

 

[EaglesPDX]

I'm guessing this is a development mule with a much larger battery than whatever 100 kWh +/- that goes into the first production of the Lightning

This was a near production vehicle. It's that range estimates on EV's can vary wildly depending on power draw and the time frame you are measuring. If I punch it on the Tesla (102 getting around slow traffic on an incline) my Projected Range at 5 mile increments drops by 40% and then starts going back up. Same in reverse if you are rolling down Mt. Hood on regen. You can see in pic below how energy usage was literally off the charts for one section of the drive and range estimate cut in half.



Ford would not build in a 40% buffer, the cost in battery on a heavy vehicle like the F150EV would $10k range.

I'm sure what they saw was range estimator reporting a transient low draw usage of some kind.

A bit disappointing that EV media reporters would not know this or that, knowing it, they'd post a deceptive headline for attention.

 

[Blainestang]

You're right about the Tesla range modes … one is only 10% optimistic, the rated range is as if hypermiling downhill in warm weather with a stiff tailwind …

My Tesla got approximately rated range at ~70mph on long trips. Good weather, but 4 people, and not hypermiling or stiff tailwind.

Not all of them will, but my Model 3 Long Range RWD did. And the Model S that Motor Trend drove from SF to LA did... comfortably beat it actually. Again, good weather, but a normal, real-world drive.

 

[F-150 Prius]

This was a near production vehicle. It's that range estimates on EV's can vary wildly depending on power draw and the time frame you are measuring. If I punch it on the Tesla (102 getting around slow traffic on an incline) my Projected Range at 5 mile increments drops by 40% and then starts going back up. Same in reverse if you are rolling down Mt. Hood on regen. You can see in pic below how energy usage was literally off the charts for one section of the drive and range estimate cut in half.



Ford would not build in a 40% buffer, the cost in battery on a heavy vehicle like the F150EV would $10k range.

I'm sure what they saw was range estimator reporting a transient low draw usage of some kind.

A bit disappointing that EV media reporters would not know this or that, knowing it, they'd post a deceptive headline for attention.

So there's two ways to explain the display:
1) it's wrong and that's the nature of electric range estimation.
2) it's a long range battery not going into the initial production models.

I assume, he Lightning will have several models and I assume the first model will be the "normal" battery spec, then a larger battery, then a smaller battery for the entry level price. But the business of product development means they have the design of the big "tow" battery done now, even if it's two years away from market and knowing suppliers can change, battery technology will change, etc.

 

[F-150 Prius]

My Tesla got approximately rated range at ~70mph on long trips. Good weather, but 4 people, and not hypermiling or stiff tailwind.

Not all of them will, but my Model 3 Long Range RWD did. And the Model S that Motor Trend drove from SF to LA did... comfortably beat it actually. Again, good weather, but a normal, real-world drive.

No, it didn't.

 

[Blainestang]

I'm guessing this is a development mule with a much larger battery than whatever 100 kWh +/- that goes into the first production of the Lightning then after those are all sold, there will be a 500 mile battery Lightning.

I believe this *could* be the case.

I think that it's more likely that it's just a miscalculation of the range because it's just being driven around at 20mph or that it's the Mach E's algorithm right now, BUT I wouldn't be that surprised if there's actually an even-bigger battery version.

I can't find any proof of it, but I'm 95% sure that the ORIGINAL article that Yahoo posted just hours before the Lightning unveiling (it was one of or the only one with real info BEFORE the unveiling) indicated that that the 300-mile battery was a mid-level battery... but that article got nuked/updated and it's gone forever as far as I can tell, so I can't go back and look at it. For that matter, even "Extended Range" doesn't sound like the *biggest* version of the battery. They're definitely leaving room for a "Max Range" or something, but it may not necessarily be coming anytime really soon. They're actually better off selling trucks with smaller batteries for the moment rather than burning all of their battery supply on fewer trucks.

 

[F-150 Prius]

I believe this *could* be the case.

I think that it's more likely that it's just a miscalculation of the range because it's just being driven around at 20mph or that it's the Mach E's algorithm right now, BUT I wouldn't be that surprised if there's actually an even-bigger battery version.

I can't find any proof of it, but I'm 95% sure that the ORIGINAL article that Yahoo posted just hours before the Lightning unveiling (it was one of or the only one with real info BEFORE the unveiling) indicated that that the 300-mile battery was a mid-level battery... but that article got nuked/updated and it's gone forever as far as I can tell, so I can't go back and look at it. For that matter, even "Extended Range" doesn't sound like the *biggest* version of the battery. They're definitely leaving room for a "Max Range" or something, but it may not necessarily be coming anytime really soon. They're actually better off selling trucks with smaller batteries for the moment rather than burning all of their battery supply on fewer trucks.

re. battery supply, I think you're right – all the EV makers are spending billions to have their own battery manufacturing because of supply constraints (and once bitten by supply chain failures in 2020-21 attributed to "covid" there's some real mistrust of suppliers.)
I'm optimistic that once the initial "first kid on the block" buyers are satisfied, say 2023, Ford will offer a touring/towing battery option, probably a $10K upgrade to any model of the Lightning.

 

[Blainestang]

No, it didn't.

The Model S beating EPA with Motor Trend is well documented.

My trip is as well. For instance:

Start:
Gainesville, FL
90% SOC
3:49pm

End:
Tifton, GA
39% SOC
6:04pm

Total:
149.8 miles
51% SOC used
34kWh used per onboard
~67mph average speed, incl driving between the interstate and Superchargers (and time between my photo and actually driving)
Cruise set to 70-74mph
177ft elevation gain
4 people
Wind was basically perpendicular (W) to our drive direction (N), per weather history data

So, not hypermiling, 4 people, elevation gain, no wind assistance.

If you go by change in SOC, total range would be 294 mi (vs 310 rated), which would exclude the known buffer at the bottom.

If you go by kWh used vs typical total usable capacity (~73kWh), then total range would be 326 miles.

My Tesla got approximately rated range at ~70mph on long trips. Good weather, but 4 people, and not hypermiling or stiff tailwind.

Do they all? Nope. Are they going to hit EPA in the cold, especially the ones without heat pumps? No. Do some of them reach approximately EPA on trips? Yeah.

 

[EaglesPDX]

o there's two ways to explain the display:
1) it's wrong and that's the nature of electric range estimation.
2) it's a long range battery not going into the initial production models.

No. The display was not wrong, just recording an accurate estimate based on driving conditions.

This was a production vehicle for all intents and purposes. Engineering in a much larger battery would completely change the truck and there's no point in doing that.

Occams razor applies here, just a range estimate from a particular driving scenario not a range will see from the actual EPA tests or Ford's released range from the EPA.

Sponsored