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

[EaglesPDX]

My Tesla got approximately rated range at ~70mph on long trips.

That would be an outlier.

"It's interesting to note that we continue to see the trend of Tesla vehicles not being able to reach their highway EPA range rating when we do these 70-mph tests,"

Sponsored

 

[F-150 Prius]

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.

I think "just recording an accurate estimate based on driving conditions" is the same as "it's wrong, that's the nature of electric range estimation". I've owned 3 Teslas since early 2016, more than 5 years and 100K+ miles from California to Chicago via Montana and Colorado in blizzards and heat storms, strong headwinds, steep grades, high speed, hypermiling, Supercharging, home charging … there's simply no such thing as an EV with an "accurate" distance-to-empty display (though some carmakers like Mercedes are working on) because they don't accurately predict terrain or traffic and they don't even try to compensate correctly for ambient temperature or battery behavior.

My interpretation of Occam's Razor is to take verifiable facts and exclude assumptions …. I'm looking at what is published by the automakers, not a single out of context screen shot that is of interest only because that 472 number is implausible (even with 200kWh, it would be implausible in an F-150 … Tesla promised 500+ mile range in its family sedan and has since quit and withdrawn that model … the S Plaid + … so 500 miles' range is not easy and not going to happen in a full size pickup any time soon.)

There is reason to build a 5 or 7 year plan for the F-150 BEV with a 200kWh+ battery capacity because that's the market, that's the competitors already (the Lightning is arriving with less battery than the Hummer … Ford has, I think outflanked GM, with a high volume, low cost vehicle on an existing platform (give or take rear suspension and wholly new major componentry … ) and Ford will have to contend with GM and RAM, not just niche EV makers like Rivian or Tesla.

Back on the speculation end of the spectrum, the Lightning is still facing unknown competition. Rivian has a longer range R1S in 2022 and GM could surprise with more range in the Hummer or Tesla could finally crack the chestnut of mass production of their 4680 cell and give the Cybertruck a lot more range. If I were on product management for the Lightning, I'd be asking engineering to have as much range up the production engineering sleeve as possible then make a very late decision on offering more range soon after selling the initial production runs. I could see them at final numbers in 2022, the 230 mile "normal" model is actually 260 or more, the 300 mile model could be 350 (Tesla is at 400) and once Ford sells the production pipeline, say September 2022 as a 2023 model, they offer a touring-towing model with 480 and that would be possible with existing battery technology … if they get lucky and their battery supplier offers a new technology and 480 is much cheaper and fits the market for competitive pricing. Hardly a week goes by without some major R&D advance in battery "real soon now" technology. https://www.google.com/search?q=new+ev+battery+technology

 

[greenne]

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.

I agree. I find it highly unlikely that Ford would put a larger battery that what was intended for production. A waste of time and energy. Since they are giving media access to the truck, it would be a huge risk/mistake to try to "pull a fast one" especially when we are this close to ordering and production. Besides, a bigger battery would be heavier and change the handling characteristics of the truck. Ford is not going to mess around with that for no reason...

PS-- Ford's recent product launches have not gone particularly well(ex. Explorer). They can't afford to screw this up..it is Ford's money maker. Not gonna mess around with unrealistic battery sizes, etc.

 

[F-150 Prius]

I agree. I find it highly unlikely that Ford would put a larger battery that what was intended for production. A waste of time and energy. Since they are giving media access to the truck, it would be a huge risk/mistake to try to "pull a fast one" especially when we are this close to ordering and production. Besides, a bigger battery would be heavier and change the handling characteristics of the truck. Ford is not going to mess around with that for no reason...

The "waste of time and energy" is conventional product development – the Lightning is multiple models over the model lifecycle (let's call that approximately 2022 to 2030) with multiple variants with different battery sizes and probably a 2WD long range tow vehicle and certainly a 4WD overland/tour/tow model with at least the same performance as the Hybrid (30 gallons at 20 mpg or 10 to 15 mpg towing.)
Vehicle mass and handling are not obstacles – these are simulated in computer models before anything is built. Even if a 500 mile range over a 300 mile range adds 1000lbs to vehicle weight, that need not reduce load or towing capacity. Drive a 5000lb Model X and it does not feel like it's 1000lbs heavier than its competitors.
The problem with bigger kWh for the same Wh/mi is available network rate of charge. It's good to have 500 miles' range, but not if stopping to charge requires finding an Electrify America right where you are with 5% battery remaining … and then needing two hours to recharge to 80% at which point you'd have only 400 miles' range and be charging again at 20 to 40 miles' range remaining, meaning a nominal 360 miles' effective range. If that were towing or cold/hot weather or headwind or high speed, effective range would plummet, perhaps only 150 miles' actual range performance … that's a one hour or longer recharge every two hours … effective road speed average dropping by 50% … imagine setting out on a road trip with a modest trailer and the cruise control at 30 mph …
The main issue is the forthcoming blueovalsk (or whatever it's called) and the battery technology that brings to the game. Whichever EV maker delivers on high energy density and rapid recharging wins. That technology leap will reshape the market overnight. Tesla will either continue to be king or it will have already shape-shifted to be what it really is today: a gigafactory builder that uses cars and batteries as a proof of concept.

 

[Blainestang]

That would be an outlier.

"It's interesting to note that we continue to see the trend of Tesla vehicles not being able to reach their highway EPA range rating when we do these 70-mph tests,"

I never said otherwise. In fact, I said in both of my posts: Not ALL Tesla’s hit EPA in highway trips. However, some do, so I was responding to the implication that EPA range was unreachable without hypermiling down a hill with a tailwind.

 

[greenne]

The "waste of time and energy" is conventional product development – the Lightning is multiple models over the model lifecycle (let's call that approximately 2022 to 2030) with multiple variants with different battery sizes and probably a 2WD long range tow vehicle and certainly a 4WD overland/tour/tow model with at least the same performance as the Hybrid (30 gallons at 20 mpg or 10 to 15 mpg towing.)
Vehicle mass and handling are not obstacles – these are simulated in computer models before anything is built. Even if a 500 mile range over a 300 mile range adds 1000lbs to vehicle weight, that need not reduce load or towing capacity. Drive a 5000lb Model X and it does not feel like it's 1000lbs heavier than its competitors.
The problem with bigger kWh for the same Wh/mi is available network rate of charge. It's good to have 500 miles' range, but not if stopping to charge requires finding an Electrify America right where you are with 5% battery remaining … and then needing two hours to recharge to 80% at which point you'd have only 400 miles' range and be charging again at 20 to 40 miles' range remaining, meaning a nominal 360 miles' effective range. If that were towing or cold/hot weather or headwind or high speed, effective range would plummet, perhaps only 150 miles' actual range performance … that's a one hour or longer recharge every two hours … effective road speed average dropping by 50% … imagine setting out on a road trip with a modest trailer and the cruise control at 30 mph …
The main issue is the forthcoming blueovalsk (or whatever it's called) and the battery technology that brings to the game. Whichever EV maker delivers on high energy density and rapid recharging wins. That technology leap will reshape the market overnight. Tesla will either continue to be king or it will have already shape-shifted to be what it really is today: a gigafactory builder that uses cars and batteries as a proof of concept.

I have no doubt Ford has test mules(or prototypes) of the Lightning all over the place. Batteries of all different designs and capacities. I'm also pretty sure Ford locked an engineer, a public research guy, and a bean counter in a room to figure out the best most profitable business move. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if a few years down the road an extended battery was offered either in an upgraded f150 or a f250/350 variant for those that need more.

But it would be really silly, and risky to put a "test battery" in a press car. I don't believe for one second Ford would risk that less than year out from launch. I'm pretty sure what we saw..sans some minor superficial changes..is what we're gonna get. As an aside, I'm pretty sure Ford has put numerous batteries they plan to use thru the paces for reliability and safety. Nothing would tank the Lightning quicker than a safety issue or battery failures in early units.

If this was Tesla..maybe...Elon likes to pull the "bait and switch" routine on a repeated basis.

As far as weight goes...you don't get something without giving up something. The Model X may handle the weight well...but you can't tell me a 4000lb Model X(lighter, less batteries) is going to handle the same as a 5000lb model X(extended range)..unless some other modifications were made...and even then it would be tough to manage.

Likewise.. an f150 with an extended battery is going to weigh more....has more power..will feel different than the std battery. Same would be true if Ford gave us a mega battery. So, I seriously doubt they are going to sell the media on a truck they don't intend to sell at onset. That makes no sense at all...

R&D yes....media relations, no

 

[greenne]

The Inside EV crew tackled the F150 range on their weekly podcast. they did discuss the article posted to this thread. Interesting. (The F150 discussion starts around 14:00).

They did bring up the point that Ford had time to respond to both Marcus Brownlee and they were given a pre-released copy of this article for comment and they did not raise a stick about the wild mileage claims. You would think if both Brownlee and Inside EV were that far off Ford would want to clarify.

 

[EaglesPDX]

the Lightning is still facing unknown competition

Lightning's competition is more the ICE F-150's.

Cybertruck is a geek product, it may well sell a lot to that demographic, but the F150 and HummerEV are the real thing. Rivian a bit of niche product and they made it weird with the pointless headlights.

Driving the other day in fishing buddies F350 maxed out, lifted (I can barely get up into it) pickup. He'd consider an EV Hummer but not the F150.

 

[F-150 Prius]

The Inside EV crew tackled the F150 range on their weekly podcast. they did discuss the article posted to this thread. Interesting. (The F150 discussion starts around 14:00).

They did bring up the point that Ford had time to respond to both Marcus Brownlee and they were given a pre-released copy of this article for comment and they did not raise a stick about the wild mileage claims. You would think if both Brownlee and Inside EV were that far off Ford would want to clarify.

skip to 14:00 in this hour plus video if you want to see the not-a-journalist youtuber talk about seeing 472 estimated range and ever so politely demurring without asking the hard question "what does that number mean?"
Ford can't "clarify" because this is the "can neither confirm nor deny" of any corporate/government response … this is a typical UFO sighting … wait 50 years and the government will release grainy videos and say "yeah, that happened" when it suits their purposes.

(I think it's a development mule with a larger battery for an F-150 Lightning to be released in 2023.)

 

[greenne]

skip to 14:00 in this hour plus video if you want to see the not-a-journalist youtuber talk about seeing 472 estimated range and ever so politely demurring without asking the hard question "what does that number mean?"
Ford can't "clarify" because this is the "can neither confirm nor deny" of any corporate/government response … this is a typical UFO sighting … wait 50 years and the government will release grainy videos and say "yeah, that happened" when it suits their purposes.

(I think it's a development mule with a larger battery for an F-150 Lightning to be released in 2023.)

In his defense he alludes the the fact he saw very similar results to Marques Brownlee even though they were is two different trucks and at two separate times. He also gave Ford a chance to clarify, explain, or request he not release that observation. That speaks volumes to me.

The guy is no Bob Woodward but he does do quite a few EV reviews and does a real world EV range test at 70mph.

You think its a larger battery, I say that would be a really stupid move on Ford's part and completely the opposite of what they have done with the MME launch.(Underpromise and overdeliver). They have nothing to gain and everything to lose if when the Lightning is released and it doesn't live up to the range expectations. I know they are sticking to the 300mi story, but I'd like think if there wasn't some chance that it gets more than 300mi when empty/low speed they would deny the story or explain it away(i.e. Its trial software, etc.)

I still think Ford is playing it extremely safe here... can't believe they don't see Rivian/CT pushing 400mi and don't factor that into their offering....

 

[EaglesPDX]

You think its a larger battery, I say that would be a really stupid move on Ford's part and completely the opposite of what they have done with the MME launch.

More that a larger battery would require a completely different vehicle from suspension to impact on cabin and payload to internal structure. It would provide no good info about the current F150EV to be rated at 300 (we hope).

Did Ford build a completely different MachE? No.

Getting 300 miles EPA range will be quite an accomplishment for the non-aerodynamic working pickup. It may beat the 300 miles on the EPA tests and Ford as it did on the MachE, will use a SLIGHLTY lower number on the sticker.

 

[greenne]

More that a larger battery would require a completely different vehicle from suspension to impact on cabin and payload to internal structure. It would provide no good info about the current F150EV to be rated at 300 (we hope).

Did Ford build a completely different MachE? No.

Getting 300 miles EPA range will be quite an accomplishment for the non-aerodynamic working pickup. It may beat the 300 miles on the EPA tests and Ford as it did on the MachE, will use a SLIGHLTY lower number on the sticker.

Furthermore... physics tells me if Ford wants the Lightning to meet EPA combined rating in a variety of real world conditions(loaded, at hwy speeds, etc) like the MME does...it will need substantially more range under ideal low speed conditions.

If I can get close to 300mi at 65-70mph I'd be so very happy. Almost every EV except for the MME the highway range drops like a rock compared to EPA. (Porsche Taycan is the other exception.)

https://insideevs.com/news/497559/epa-highway-rating-value/
https://insideevs.com/reviews/520484/mustang-mach-e-range-test/

 

[BennyTheBeaver]

Likewise.. an f150 with an extended battery is going to weigh more....has more power..will feel different than the std battery. Same would be true if Ford gave us a mega battery.

This is most likely why there is the difference in HP between the Standard and Extended Batteries. According to specs, the extended battery model will have quite a bit more HP than the Standard.

The Standard Battery has 426hp.
The Extended Battery has 563hp.

 

[F-150 Prius]

Lightning's competition is more the ICE F-150's.

Cybertruck is a geek product, it may well sell a lot to that demographic, but the F150 and HummerEV are the real thing. Rivian a bit of niche product and they made it weird with the pointless headlights.

Driving the other day in fishing buddies F350 maxed out, lifted (I can barely get up into it) pickup. He'd consider an EV Hummer but not the F150.

The unknown is from GM and RAM. The Hummer is one thing, but GM will also have an electric pickup for the Silverado and Sierra … and probably for the SUVs on those platforms/brands. Ford really isn't competing with Tesla or Rivian or the next startup to send its executives into criminal prosecution for securities fraud, Ford is competing with GM and RAM, not to mention Toyota could finally wake up.
p.s. personally, I think your friend is right – I'd consider the Hummer EV and I'd be interested in a Super Duty electric pickup but we're years away from those vehicles. The Rivian is a smaller, Range Rover sized competitor and I think it will do well, the Hummer appeals to the ostentatious demographic and will do well. The F-150 Lightning makes more sense to me because it's a pickup, not an EV, not a lifestyle, not a statement – though it is all of those things – but in its essence, it's just the most cost-efficient daily driver pickup (assuming you actually need half of its range of features like the 9.6kW power.)

 

[F-150 Prius]

Furthermore... physics tells me if Ford wants the Lightning to meet EPA combined rating in a variety of real world conditions(loaded, at hwy speeds, etc) like the MME does...it will need substantially more range under ideal low speed conditions.

If I can get close to 300mi at 65-70mph I'd be so very happy. Almost every EV except for the MME the highway range drops like a rock compared to EPA. (Porsche Taycan is the other exception.)

https://insideevs.com/news/497559/epa-highway-rating-value/
https://insideevs.com/reviews/520484/mustang-mach-e-range-test/

That 70 mph comparison with the EPA numbers is what the EPA should publish: not a dumbed down "combined number, but a couple of scenarios including towing at a constant 55 mph with 80% of max GCWR.
Also, the Tesla Model S, especially the new 2021 model presumably exceeds its EPA by good margin.
Personally, having a Model 3 that can't quite get 300 miles under ideal conditions, with its real world range under 250 miles driving at the average speed of traffic, it's not useful as a touring vehicle, because it needs 30+ minutes to recharge. Worse, it may as well start at 80% or 90% of max charge because you have to stop when there's a Supercharger, not when you hit 5% and just wait for the next gas station in 20 miles … Superchargers are 100 miles apart. So with one 30-45 minute charge, my Model 3 can cover about 230 + about 200 miles or about 430 miles in one day, which is usually plenty of driving. But when you factor in cold weather, or high heat, headwinds or gaining altitude, or freeways with 80 mph speed limits and "everyone" is doing 90 mph, range can be 30% to 50% less, or you sit in the slow lane at 70 mph and that's no fun if you're trying to cover real distance – total trip mph starts to cost you hours. I did a 2000 mile trip that required 9 hours of charging … increasing a 30 hour drive to 40 hours … which is why I now have an F-150 Hybrid … the right tool for the job.
One of the off-road youtube channels with a Jeep 4Xe was losing 50 to 80% of electric range while off-road climbing a rough trail …
That's the thing about internal combustion – it wastes so much energy as heat loss, that the additional energy loss of traction, terrain, speed or weather isn't such a high percentage of total system energy.

Sponsored