Did Ford Change My Usable Battery Capacity to 135 kWh?

[MM in SouthTX]

Lately I have noticed that if I charge to 100%, it takes several miles of driving to drop to 99%. (Lariat ER with 16,000 miles and maybe 20 DCFC charges) So this morning I decided to record my drive to see what's up.

(As many of you know, the actual capacity of the batteries is 148 kWh. It has been suggested that Ford would increase the available capacity as the truck ages so that customers do not notice a decline in range, and so that the warranty would not be triggered by decreased capacity or range.)

First data point: I drove almost 8 miles at 2.1 mi/kWh before the "percent charged" dropped below 100%. Assuming that 100% is 131 kWh (which I will address later), I burned about 3.5 kWh to get the battery down to 99%. So did I start at 134.5 kWh?

Second data point: My full trip was 30.2 miles at 1.9 mi/kWh, or 15.9 kWh. This would be 12.1% of the battery. Instead of 100 - 12 = 88%, my dashboard showed 91%. Again, approximately 3% difference which is 3.9 kWh.

Is Ford now allowing me to charge to 135 (or so) kWh? If so, why did they leave 131 as the 100% charged number?

An alternative explanation is that my truck now thinks 126 kWh (or so) is actually 100%. I think this is less likely.

Anyone else notice this? Thoughts?

Edit: I know there is a lot of error built into my calculations. For instance, whether the 100% dropping to 99% occurs after a full percent is used, or only after 0.5 or 0.6 or 0.7% is used. Rounding errors add up. When I added in the data from my return trip, which is a larger sample, there was still 3% of energy unaccounted for.

 

[Maquis]

What you’re seeing is simply the inexactness of determining SoC by measuring voltage, coupled with truncating to whole numbers, and temperature changes.

Just my opinion.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

What you’re seeing is simply the inexactness of determining SoC by measuring voltage, coupled with truncating to whole numbers, and temperature changes.

Just my opinion.

This might be correct if it were not a new finding. I've been keeping track of my truck for over a year. Maybe I didn't notice before, but I don't think that's the case.

 

[RickLightning]

With an OBD reader and Car Scanner, you would know your answers.

@Maquis's reasons are the answers. One thing to note - as the battery warms, it has more energy. So, if you charge to 100% in cool weather, but then begin your drive in warmer weather, the truck actually has more energy to use and it takes longer to drop from 100%. The OBD reader would show you the kilowatts available, and you would see them go up for a tad.

 

[F150ROD]

Getting close to 40k miles and everything is still the same.

It would be nice if we got more range, 20 miles more would be nice.

I thought the Battery was 141

 

[MM in SouthTX]

Getting close to 40k miles and everything is still the same.

It would be nice if we got more range, 20 miles more would be nice.

I thought the Battery was 141

You may be right. I pulled that number off someone else's post. There is a post that shows a photo of the sticker on the battery. Could not find that one.

 

[wighty]

This might be correct if it were not a new finding. I've been keeping track of my truck for over a year. Maybe I didn't notice before, but I don't think that's the case.

A year ago we didn't have the actual battery percentage on the display, so unless you were using an OBDII dongle you maybe weren't noticing... at least that was the case with me. I don't remember when the truck was updated to display the numbers for state of charge.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

With an OBD reader and Car Scanner, you would know your answers.

@Maquis's reasons are the answers. One thing to note - as the battery warms, it has more energy. So, if you charge to 100% in cool weather, but then begin your drive in warmer weather, the truck actually has more energy to use and it takes longer to drop from 100%. The OBD reader would show you the kilowatts available, and you would see them go up for a tad.

Ambient temp dropped this morning. The truck charged in a 65 degree garage then drove in 50 degree weather.

Disagree that Maquis's reasons are the answer. Like I said, it is a new and consistent finding.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

A year ago we didn't have the actual battery percentage on the display, so unless you were using an OBDII dongle you maybe weren't noticing... at least that was the case with me. I don't remember when the truck was updated to display the numbers for state of charge.

It was always there if you use calm screen like I have done from the start.

 

[RickLightning]

Getting close to 40k miles and everything is still the same.

It would be nice if we got more range, 20 miles more would be nice.

I thought the Battery was 141

131.

148 is the full size.

 

[wighty]

It was always there if you use calm screen like I have done from the start.

Gotcha. Well most likely the answer is, assuming you were correct and you didn't just miss it happening last year, is that Ford may have changed the logic of the displayed SOC through an update sometime in the past year.

 

[Maquis]

It would be interesting to check your cell imbalance. A change here would definitely affect the SoC calculation.

 

[MichaelCA]

131.

148 is the full size.

131 usable, 143.4 is the full size. Unless something has changed.

 

[Randall Stephens]

Lately I have noticed that if I charge to 100%, it takes several miles of driving to drop to 99%. (Lariat ER with 16,000 miles and maybe 20 DCFC charges) So this morning I decided to record my drive to see what's up.

(As many of you know, the actual capacity of the batteries is 148 kWh. It has been suggested that Ford would increase the available capacity as the truck ages so that customers do not notice a decline in range, and so that the warranty would not be triggered by decreased capacity or range.)

First data point: I drove almost 8 miles at 2.1 mi/kWh before the "percent charged" dropped below 100%. Assuming that 100% is 131 kWh (which I will address later), I burned about 3.5 kWh to get the battery down to 99%. So did I start at 134.5 kWh?

Second data point: My full trip was 30.2 miles at 1.9 mi/kWh, or 15.9 kWh. This would be 12.1% of the battery. Instead of 100 - 12 = 88%, my dashboard showed 91%. Again, approximately 3% difference which is 3.9 kWh.

Is Ford now allowing me to charge to 135 (or so) kWh? If so, why did they leave 131 as the 100% charged number?

An alternative explanation is that my truck now thinks 126 kWh (or so) is actually 100%. I think this is less likely.

Anyone else notice this? Thoughts?

Edit: I know there is a lot of error built into my calculations. For instance, whether the 100% dropping to 99% occurs after a full percent is used, or only after 0.5 or 0.6 or 0.7% is used. Rounding errors add up. When I added in the data from my return trip, which is a larger sample, there was still 3% of energy unaccounted for.

Ford did this so that you can go to 110% on the reactor.

 

[Henry Ford]

Disagree that Maquis's reasons are the answer. Like I said, it is a new and consistent finding.

Look up Occam's razor. Your theory that Ford has increased available capacity of your battery based on two data points skips a few logical steps.

@Maquis reasoning is well thought out and simple. Not to mention his reputation here as a reliable source of good information. I'm going with his theory until he's proven wrong.

Sponsored