300/320 miles of range vs 450+

[Blainestang]

Fair...I thought it topped out at 150, my mistake.
However I will also argue that the 155 peak of the ER isn't far enough over to matter.

Kyle at Out of Spec said the ER went up to ~173kW or something when he charged it, so I'd definitely use the 350kW charger, too, if it's open and I'm under the SOC necessary to hit >150kW.

That point... the SOC at which it drops below 150kW for the rest of the charge, will be a nice number to know for ER owners. If it's 30%, for instance, then it makes sense to only plug into the 350kW charger if you're below that, otherwise, leave it for someone else who might need it (Ioniq, EV6, Taycan, etc.).

Sponsored

 

[FordLightningMan]

If you say you achieved late in development efficiency to increase range from 300 to 320 miles, it is good press and shows you optimized the vehicle.

If you are over 100 miles off of the range that reasonably can be achieved, that would mean your engineers don't have any clue what they are doing or the marketing people are a bunch of dolts. It just didn't make any reasonable business sense for the range to be that far off from the originally published figures.

 

[astricklin]

If you say you achieved late in development efficiency to increase range from 300 to 320 miles, it is good press and shows you optimized the vehicle.

If you are over 100 miles off of the range that reasonably can be achieved, that would mean your engineers don't have any clue what they are doing or the marketing people are a bunch of dolts. It just didn't make any reasonable business sense for the range to be that far off from the originally published figures.

No. There is a specific test that is run to calculate mpge and miles/kwh and then the range is extrapolated based on the battery kwh capacity. For those test conditions, they averaged 320 miles. Your real world driving will vary. If you live in a temperate climate where it's 75 year round and you drive mostly 40-50 mph then it's very likely you will well exceed the range. Just like an ice vehicle. For example, I have a Prius and the EPA rating is 50 combined with a stated range of 475 miles (I usually get about 400 when the light is blinking at me). I typically average about 45-50 mpg. However, if I am driving a long highway trip going 75+mph, it will drop to 35-40. Conversely, if I am driving slowly in stop and go traffic and on city streets, I can easily get 60mpg(almost 50% better). Then there are people who "hypermile" and manage to get 70+mpg.
So, are Toyota engineers and marketers a bunch of idiots? No. There is a specific test regimen mandated by the EPA that is run in order to calculate the EPA estimated mpg/range. This testing is an attempt to simulate real world situations "on average" and your specific driving conditions may not match this as closely as others.
So, if the mach-e is anything to go by, most people will get close to or exceed slightly the EPA range on the lightning. Seeing how a lot of people where I live drive their trucks, many will get well under. Then I am sure there will be plenty of people who have been driving EVs for a while and have learned to drive more efficiently and are able to get well over.

 

[VTbuckeye]

If they were off by that much (efficiency x battery size) they would make the battery smaller.

 

[sotek2345]

Kyle at Out of Spec said the ER went up to ~173kW or something when he charged it, so I'd definitely use the 350kW charger, too, if it's open and I'm under the SOC necessary to hit >150kW.

That point... the SOC at which it drops below 150kW for the rest of the charge, will be a nice number to know for ER owners. If it's 30%, for instance, then it makes sense to only plug into the 350kW charger if you're below that, otherwise, leave it for someone else who might need it (Ioniq, EV6, Taycan, etc.).

Also, the 150kW chargers don't always deliver the full 150 because they are current (amp) limited at lower pack voltages - especially at lower states of charge. The Mach-e and Lightning definitely charge faster on the 350kW chargers.

 

[beatle]

Kyle at Out of Spec said the ER went up to ~173kW or something when he charged it, so I'd definitely use the 350kW charger, too, if it's open and I'm under the SOC necessary to hit >150kW.

That point... the SOC at which it drops below 150kW for the rest of the charge, will be a nice number to know for ER owners. If it's 30%, for instance, then it makes sense to only plug into the 350kW charger if you're below that, otherwise, leave it for someone else who might need it (Ioniq, EV6, Taycan, etc.).

Kyle showed 172kw initially when at 51%, then 160kw after 4 minutes @ 55%. A few minutes later @ 62% it had dropped to 142kw. Being able to see a true curve from a low SoC will be most telling though as peaks can be artificially high at the start of a session. I'm sure we'll see people document curves on both the 150kw and 350kw chargers.

In the meantime, here is a breakdown of charging times going from 10-50% on an ER truck at various average kw:

172kw = 18.27 minutes
160kw = 19.65 minutes
150kw = 20.96 minutes

That's not a big difference. It will be a much greater difference for someone who can get 200kw or higher. Given these rates, If you need to charge beyond 60% you should really not start on a 350kw charger, especially if it's a busy location since the latter portion of your charge will not benefit at all from the higher power charger. For that long of a charge you're likely going to be away at a meal anyway and you're not going to miss the ~2 minute difference.

 

[FordLightningMan]

No. There is a specific test that is run to calculate mpge and miles/kwh and then the range is extrapolated based on the battery kwh capacity. For those test conditions, they averaged 320 miles. Your real world driving will vary. If you live in a temperate climate where it's 75 year round and you drive mostly 40-50 mph then it's very likely you will well exceed the range. Just like an ice vehicle. For example, I have a Prius and the EPA rating is 50 combined with a stated range of 475 miles (I usually get about 400 when the light is blinking at me). I typically average about 45-50 mpg. However, if I am driving a long highway trip going 75+mph, it will drop to 35-40. Conversely, if I am driving slowly in stop and go traffic and on city streets, I can easily get 60mpg(almost 50% better). Then there are people who "hypermile" and manage to get 70+mpg.
So, are Toyota engineers and marketers a bunch of idiots? No. There is a specific test regimen mandated by the EPA that is run in order to calculate the EPA estimated mpg/range. This testing is an attempt to simulate real world situations "on average" and your specific driving conditions may not match this as closely as others.
So, if the mach-e is anything to go by, most people will get close to or exceed slightly the EPA range on the lightning. Seeing how a lot of people where I live drive their trucks, many will get well under. Then I am sure there will be plenty of people who have been driving EVs for a while and have learned to drive more efficiently and are able to get well over.

I think we are talking about two different things. Auto makers know they need to publish a range and eMPG, they understand the methodologies they need to do this. Early estimates being markedly off from something you need to publish does in fact make your company look idiotic. Ford never said they had 450 miles of range and the Mach-E get close to its stated range, so they aren't idiotic.

Real world testing in extreme situations, such as towing at 110mph uphill on a highway when it's -10 degrees out don't mean anything. Driving downhill at 25mph with a tailwind doesn't mean anything. There is a meaningful test, Ford was within 20 miles for this test versus their initially published estimates, I say kudos. If Ford last minute said "wait, we have 450 miles in range," yes they would've been dolts. People expecting 450 miles at any point were straight up delusional.

 

[astricklin]

I think we are talking about two different things. Auto makers know they need to publish a range and eMPG, they understand the methodologies they need to do this. Early estimates being markedly off from something you need to publish does in fact make your company look idiotic. Ford never said they had 450 miles of range and the Mach-E get close to its stated range, so they aren't idiotic.

Real world testing in extreme situations, such as towing at 110mph uphill on a highway when it's -10 degrees out don't mean anything. Driving downhill at 25mph with a tailwind doesn't mean anything. There is a meaningful test, Ford was within 20 miles for this test versus their initially published estimates, I say kudos. If Ford last minute said "wait, we have 450 miles in range," yes they would've been dolts. People expecting 450 miles at any point were straight up delusional.

My misunderstanding, yes I agree.

Hopefully the GOM calculations will get better and better. Ford seems to be pulling in a lot of data from different places to try and make it as accurate as possible.

Sponsored