2021 F-150 Lightning With Extended Battery May Get ~460 Miles Range, Unloaded!

[Oneand0]

OP here - I agree with your comments. My guess is that around town and under 65MPH we're going to see real world range of 360-380 miles on the extended range battery. Honestly - perfect for my use case.

I just got my confirmation build date for my Bronco for July and it will go about that far on a 20.8 gallon tank for about $78. Let’s say the E F-150 has a 160kw battery, for that range of miles it would only cost me $16 dollars of electricity to go the same distance!

I really will have to decide if I will want to sell the Bronco only after a year of owning it, or sell my Model 3 Tesla for the Electric F-150.

Sponsored

 

[Griddlez]

I already had a reservation but knowing they sandbagged the numbers on purpose (like they did with the Mach-E) has me looking forward to it even more. Will keep an eye on real world testing but I'm sold.

 

[Blainestang]

Uh, yes they are available to you

Lightning Pro Extended Range is not available to retail customers. Only commercial customers, unfortunately.

https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/thr...ro-is-commercial-only-confirmed-by-ford.3879/

 

[Deleted member 2919]

I just got my confirmation build date for my Bronco for July and it will go about that far on a 20.8 gallon tank for about $78. Let’s say the E F-150 has a 160kw battery, for that range of miles it would only cost me $16 dollars of electricity to go the same distance!

I really will have to decide if I will want to sell the Bronco only after a year of owning it, or sell my Model 3 Tesla for the Electric F-150.

Sounds like you have some real tough decisions in front of you.

 

[Brian Head Yankee]

Lightning Pro Extended Range is not available to retail customers. Only commercial customers, unfortunately.

https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/thr...ro-is-commercial-only-confirmed-by-ford.3879/

Except that I was responding to your post that did not say Pro with extended battery as you clarified now. It's too early and Ford is too flakey to take any of the restrictions as gospel. Why wouldn't you buy an XLT, take the rebate and be near the Pro price?

 

[midmack]

Never trust a guy that cant iron his own shirt. I'll wait for the real world numbers to come out. I don't plan on buying until 2025 anyway. All the bugs should be worked out by then. They might even have CarPlay fixed by then.....

Can you enlighten me on the CarPlay issue? Is it with the Mach e? Fords? Or just CarPlay in general?

 

[Mike50]

Coast and Burn method started by cabbies in countries with fuel rationing and adopted by the hypermiling community.

With electric drivetrain efficiency, the relationship between speed and energy used is more predictable and not muddied by the peculiarities of dynamic compression, brake specific horsepower and gearing. I remember the first week driving to work after Hurricane Katrina made gas prices more than double; highway traffic that was normally going ten over was going ten under and it lasted a week, which was probably how long it took everyone to realize that they weren't getting any better mileage.

Can you explain "coast and burn? I've never heard that. I was a believer in everything you said until your statement that people going ten under weren't saving mileage versus going ten over. That is simply not true. I've owned 2 hybrid cars, none currently, (one ordered!) and currently drive an f150 and an expedition. I drive 25,000 miles per year weighted to rural. I'm retired so I'm not as much in a hurry as before. I have experimented heavily and regularly with driving habits vs mileage. There is a dramatic difference in mileage between driving 64 vs 74.

 

[Blainestang]

Except that I was responding to your post that did not say Pro with extended battery as you clarified now.

You weren't responding to me at all. It was someone else.

Also, they said "the Pro models, one of which isn't available to retail". And you said "Yes, THEY are available."

He was correct that ONE of the Pro models is not available.

Why wouldn't you buy an XLT, take the rebate and be near the Pro price?

Because I'd get the tax credit either way and that means it's still ~$13,000 more for the XLT than the Pro... for very little equipment difference.

The XLT is usually only ~$3,000 more than the XL in gas models.

But because Ford priced the Lightning Pro so aggressively, the Pro to XLT is now a massive ~$13,000 difference and it's not even remotely close to worth $13,000 to me. Vinyl to cloth seats, painted bumpers, light bar, 360 camera, interior work surface... nowhere near $13k worth, to me.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pedaldude]

Can you explain "coast and burn?...There is a dramatic difference in mileage between driving 64 vs 74.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving#Pulse_and_glide

The first time I heard about it was around twenty years ago. It was on an NPR segment where they were talking to cab drivers in a country where fuel rationing endangered their livelihood, the popular vehicle was a manual transmission sedan and they soon discovered that accelerating and then coasting in neutral was a way to stretch out their fuel allotment. It takes advantage of the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption map that is a product of engine load and RPM. It is independent of other variables, however, speed and gearing determine where on that map the engine is operating. That's why more speeds can help the engine run in its most efficient state.

Staying in the red zone gets nearly twice as much HP per pound of fuel versus the black zone. Since driving in the city isn't compatible with a constant throttle opening in the zones of best economy, in the engine above, you can maximize your distance by staying between 1500 and 3500 rpm and over half throttle. When you run out of road, you cut the throttle and coast. Through proper management of kinetic energy and throttle opening, better fuel efficiency can be gained.

As far as the difference in mileage between 54-64mph, it all depends on the variables. There is a significant difference in aerodynamic drag (significant in the statistical sense) but it isn't close to being what I would call dramatic. Any dramatic difference between the two speeds will more likely be due to being on the wrong end of the BSFC map above due to gearing. In an SUV with a poor coefficient of drag and large frontal area, speed plays a larger part but even then, it's a very small percentage compared with the energy lost to heat in the engine. Which is why a more direct relationship between speed and range will be seen in an EV and even more so in the Lightning, compared to an EV with a small frontal area and low drag coefficient. For an internal combustion engine, the speed and instantaneous fuel burn plot is always trending higher but with peaks and troughs. The context of my example should have been more detailed, it was traffic in the Northeast, of which most would have been mixed driving with around half on the highway, mostly sedans and a low speed limit of 55mph, so while there would have been some fuel savings traveling under 50mph versus over 60mph, it would have been small enough over a full week of commuting that nobody would have noticed.

 

[TahoeBlue]

Hmmm. 300 mile if you have a 1000 lb pay load. 460 miles if you remove 1000 lbs. Are we all missing a huge error in the math? Would a 2000 lb payload lose another 160 miles resulting in only 140 mule range ? Would a full payload result in a dead battery after pulling out of the driveway? . Seriously, a 33% difference in mileage with only a 1000 lb difference in payload makes no sense. Perhaps the 300 miles is sandbagging but the conclusion in the video that no payload improves range by 160 miles seems like math gone wrong.

 

[Theo1000]

EV range like all range is an average. 460 miles will be possible in good conditions. But if Ford says 300 miles is average then 140 miles is also possible. You say no, hah! come on down to Kansas the land of 50 mph straight line winds and -10f blizzards. You go into that carelessly you will get 140 mile. But if you get 76f, blue skies and a 20 mph tail wind, what do you know, 460 mile range. When Ford said 300 mile that's immediately what I thought. I bet I can get this thing over 400 miles. Ford and even GM are very very conservative on ranges. I once got my 33 mile volt to go 58 miles EV only on rural roads in ideal conditions.

 

[TahoeBlue]

In three months, our extended range Mach e has “achieved” an effective range of over 400 miles, downhill for 80 miles from our 7,000 ft summit to the the Sacramento valley. For the return trip the rate was closer to a 180 mile range. At no time did the projected range in the car ever indicate a possibility of more than 300 mile on a full charge. My point, I think the 460 mile full tank projection is a single data point from a pre-production truck that should not be extrapolated into false hope. This, from a hopeful pessimist :

 

[astricklin]

I am extremely sceptical of this video. I don't think Ford would have come out with 300 miles of the normal driving range was well over 400. Yes, the current quotes are 'expected range' but I am guessing that the EPA numbers will be pretty close, but just slightly over, maybe 310-320. I expect this official number to also be slightly conservative and for some people to be able to best it with daily driving. However seeing how many people in the Dallas area drive, I expect a certain percentage of people to never get anywhere close to the quoted range (they also never get close to quoted mpg but would never admit it).
I hope when the actual EPA range is announced that Ford will share more projected range examples based on their testing. Something like '1000 lbs in the bed expect between x and x miles. Towing a large trailer expect x-x range.'
It seems that currently they are very apprehensive to say anything like this and I understand because there are so many variables involved. Towing a flatbed trailer with 5000lbs of steel or brick is certainly going to affect the range different than towing a 5000lbs camper trailer that is a 15 foot tall 20 foot long box.

 

[GIDDYUP]

How many people take their truck on a 300 or 400 mile trip and don’t load it up with gear?

 

[midmack]

Hmmm. 300 mile if you have a 1000 lb pay load. 460 miles if you remove 1000 lbs. Are we all missing a huge error in the math? Would a 2000 lb payload lose another 160 miles resulting in only 140 mule range ? Would a full payload result in a dead battery after pulling out of the driveway? . Seriously, a 33% difference in mileage with only a 1000 lb difference in payload makes no sense. Perhaps the 300 miles is sandbagging but the conclusion in the video that no payload improves range by 160 miles seems like math gone wrong.

The math he was doing was not really related to the weight. He was at 80% charged the the computer said he was like 370 miles till empty. He then extrapolated that at full charge it could go the 450.
The 1000 pounds was noted just to prove that it wasn’t a pure hoax that the computer was giving such a large number.

Sponsored