F-150 Lightning Official EPA Range MPGe Revealed in Window Sticker (Base + Extended Range)!

[rodhx]

On an XLT trim its an extra 20k for approximately 70 more miles per charge. That will be a tough pill to swallow.

While the price gap is indeed stupid another way I look at it is as a 30% range increase rather than the oft-mentioned "only 70 more miles of range". 70 miles doesn't seem like much until you realize there is only 230 to start with.

Sponsored

 

[FordLightningMan]

While the price gap is indeed stupid another way I look at it is as a 30% range increase rather than the oft-mentioned "only 70 more miles of range". 70 miles doesn't seem like much until you realize there is only 230 to start with.

There is also a huge difference between 30% larger battery and 40% larger battery. The price justification for 30% at $20k more just wasn't there for me. At the newly disclosed 40% increase, the value is starting to make more sense. If this was 50%, then you'd be getting into no-brainer territory on the ER.

For a Pro, the SR is still a tremendous value. For the XLT, the SR just became a little less desirable.

 

[sotek2345]

While the price gap is indeed stupid another way I look at it is as a 30% range increase rather than the oft-mentioned "only 70 more miles of range". 70 miles doesn't seem like much until you realize there is only 230 to start with.

It is also a substantial bump in power and performance. The range is almost secondary. Think how much people pay for another ~140HP on ICE vehicles!

 

[FordLightningMan]

It is also a substantial bump in power and performance. The range is almost secondary. Think how much people pay for another ~140HP on ICE vehicles!

I already have one $70k+ vehicle at the house, the only way I was able to justify the Lightning purchase and having two vehicles is this one was much cheaper. I'll just have to accept you get what you pay for, no time for buyer's remorse! Plus I can go race in the Tesla still.

Now I gotta get back to F5ing til my truck has a production date.

 

[sotek2345]

Just for fun, my son and I were talking on the way home from school a few minutes ago. We discussed the cost difference between driving my Raptor and my wife's Mach-e (that I picked him up in).

Raptor - I get about 500 miles to a 36 gallon tank. The last time I filled up it was $5.15 a gallon. So 500 miles costs about $185.

Mach-e. In current weather (and warmer) the Mach-e gets about 3 miles per kWhr. and we pay ~$0.16 per kWhr. Adjusting for a little charging inefficiency, the Mach-e would cost about $30 to go the same distance. Around $45 in the winter with lower efficiency.

THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

With the given values for the Lighting in this thread, you are looking at ~$40-$45 in 50+ weather and up to maybe $60 in cold winter weather. Still a massive improvement.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

So what is expected real-world range? 150 miles per charge?

These numbers I assume are based on optimal conditions. So a little bit of payload, less than ideal outdoor air temp, plus you really should only use battery from 100 or 80% down to 20% right?

I can understand why you'd ask this, based on media misinformation out there about how EVs work, especially in the right-wing stuff that I also read/hear.

As a longtime EV driver (on my 4th Tesla), who also has Super Duties and a PowerBoost, and a conservative outlook, a dose of reality:

First, you can charge any EV to 100% when it is needed without impacting battery life. You should time it so that it does not "sit" at 100% for any period. EVs have the ability to set the estimated time of departure in the charging screen or your smartphone app, and the car will top out just when you are ready to use it.

Second, Ford apparently used a 1,000-pound payload for these tests, which would include the driver and passengers. This was their call, as manufacturers actually do the EPA ratings using EPA-specified protocols, and they are not done by the EPA itself as most people mistakenly think.

Third, there is absolutely no reason to avoid running the battery to near zero, except range anxiety pucker factor. Running to near zero has no effect on battery life, and in fact is recommended by Tesla to effect a regular "balancing" of the battery packs. If you don't do it occasionally, the battery management system (BMS) loses track of the full-to-empty capacity and will appear to lose range. Running the battery from full to empty "restores" the appearance of the full battery range (which was never really lost, just not tracked correctly).

Fourth, your comment on air temp is correct, and for us early adopters, a real eye-opener. But 50% range reduction is a bit much. I took delivery of a new Tesla P85D on the west coast in January 2015, and drove it across the U.S. to Maine on a Northern route that included Arches, Aspen, the Black Hills/Mt. Rushmore, and 17-below temps running across South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin. That car had a 256-mile rated range when new. The reality in super-cold temps was that charging took longer times, and range was down to a reliable 175 miles, so a 32% range reduction. This was real, and there was one incident of crawling over a mountain in Custer St. Park heading to a Supercharger in Rapid City, where I had to go 15 mph to keep remaining range with reach of the charger. We pulled in on zero, and 10 below zero. My wife wasn't happy, because I had passed a perfectly good Supercharger, saying the range was fine, incorrectly factoring in cold. That would not happen today because the built-in trip planners now account for elevation changes, ambient temperatures, and wind direction. I now find the Tesla trip planner a bit too conservative. But yes, cold is bad for range.

Fifth, one of the things you learn as an EV owner is to drive in the battery's sweet spot on road trips. We always start out the first leg from home at 100%, but thereafter typically run down to 10%, maybe less, then charge to 80%, or whatever the car's trip planner app advises is "time to depart". Sometimes this is only 60% state of charge. This is because the total trip time with charges is less when you DON'T fully charge as you go, instead charging more often, say every 150-200 miles, because the battery charges WAY faster below 80% full, and slows down dramatically above that SOC. Our typical charges are now 15-20 minutes, compared to the one-hour full charges we used to do for "insurance." That's a lesson learned as we've gained complete confidence in the Supercharger network. As it stands, this works fairly well when caravaning with our '21 KR PowerBoost, towing our, 9,100 pound boat/trailer, as the 5 mpg that rig gets at 65 mph equals a 150-mile range for the truck, so we time refueling the truck to coincide with Tesla Superchargers (It happens that our twice-yearly 1,500-mile two-vehicle trek is from South Florida to upstate NY, so mostly on I-95, where there are Superchargers in short intervals). Having an advanced-tech hybrid pickup with exceedingly short range is kind of funny when the EV beats its range by a wide margin.

Lastly, I'd point out that range anxiety is no longer a serious thing for EV drivers - usually not even a consideration or something we think about except on road trips, which are fairly rare for most vehicle owners. The great thing is that we have a fuel station in our garage or on the wall at our homes, so leave every day "full" or at target charge (I use 80%, and slow amp charging levels to baby the battery a bit, taking eight hours to charge instead of three, as we're not going anywhere at night). Plugging in is the same routine as charging your cell phone every night - something you do without thinking about. Modern EVs now have enough range for most daily uses, and the minor inconvenience of a 20-minute or half-hour charge every 150-200 miles is more than offset by the amazing driving experience, quiet, advanced tech and driver features.

 

[sotek2345]

I can understand why you'd ask this, based on media misinformation out there about how EVs work, especially in the right-wing stuff that I also read/hear.

As a longtime EV driver (on my 4th Tesla), who also has Super Duties and a PowerBoost, and a conservative outlook, a dose of reality:

First, you can charge any EV to 100% when it is needed without impacting battery life. You should time it so that it does not "sit" at 100% for any period. EVs have the ability to set the estimated time of departure in the charging screen or your smartphone app, and the car will top out just when you are ready to use it.

Second, Ford apparently used a 1,000-pound payload for these tests, which would include the driver and passengers. This was their call, as manufacturers actually do the EPA ratings using EPA-specified protocols, and they are not done by the EPA itself as most people mistakenly think.

Third, there is absolutely no reason to avoid running the battery to near zero, except range anxiety pucker factor. Running to near zero has no effect on battery life, and in fact is recommended by Tesla to effect a regular "balancing" of the battery packs. If you don't do it occasionally, the battery management system (BMS) loses track of the full-to-empty capacity and will appear to lose range. Running the battery from full to empty "restores" the appearance of the full battery range (which was never really lost, just not tracked correctly).

Fourth, your comment on air temp is correct, and for us early adopters, a real eye-opener. But 50% range reduction is a bit much. I took delivery of a new Tesla P85D on the west coast in January 2015, and drove it across the U.S. to Maine on a Northern route that included Arches, Aspen, the Black Hills/Mt. Rushmore, and 17-below temps running across South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin. That car had a 256-mile rated range when new. The reality in super-cold temps was that charging took longer times, and range was down to a reliable 175 miles, so a 32% range reduction. This was real, and there was one incident of crawling over a mountain in Custer St. Park heading to a Supercharger in Rapid City, where I had to go 15 mph to keep remaining range with reach of the charger. We pulled in on zero, and 10 below zero. My wife wasn't happy, because I had passed a perfectly good Supercharger, saying the range was fine, incorrectly factoring in cold. That would not happen today because the built-in trip planners now account for elevation changes, ambient temperatures, and wind direction. I now find the Tesla trip planner a bit too conservative. But yes, cold is bad for range.

Fifth, one of the things you learn as an EV owner is to drive in the battery's sweet spot on road trips. We always start out the first leg from home at 100%, but thereafter typically run down to 10%, maybe less, then charge to 80%, or whatever the car's trip planner app advises is "time to depart". Sometimes this is only 60% state of charge. This is because the total trip time with charges is less when you DON'T fully charge as you go, instead charging more often, say every 150-200 miles, because the battery charges WAY faster below 80% full, and slows down dramatically above that SOC. Our typical charges are now 15-20 minutes, compared to the one-hour full charges we used to do for "insurance." That's a lesson learned as we've gained complete confidence in the Supercharger network. As it stands, this works fairly well when caravaning with our '21 KR PowerBoost, towing our, 9,100 pound boat/trailer, as the 5 mpg that rig gets at 65 mph equals a 150-mile range for the truck, so we time refueling the truck to coincide with Tesla Superchargers (It happens that our twice-yearly 1,500-mile two-vehicle trek is from South Florida to upstate NY, so mostly on I-95, where there are Superchargers in short intervals). Having an advanced-tech hybrid pickup with exceedingly short range is kind of funny when the EV beats its range by a wide margin.

Lastly, I'd point out that range anxiety is no longer a serious thing for EV drivers - usually not even a consideration or something we think about except on road trips, which are fairly rare for most vehicle owners. The great thing is that we have a fuel station in our garage or on the wall at our homes, so leave every day "full" or at target charge (I use 80%, and slow amp charging levels to baby the battery a bit, taking eight hours to charge instead of three, as we're not going anywhere at night). Plugging in is the same routine as charging your cell phone every night - something you do without thinking about. Modern EVs now have enough range for most daily uses, and the minor inconvenience of a 20-minute or half-hour charge every 150-200 miles is more than offset by the amazing driving experience, quiet, advanced tech and driver features.

Great Summary! The only thing I would add is that "don't let it sit at 100% for any time" doesn't mean seconds matter. A few hours is no big deal, especially with the reserve Ford keeps in the battery management system that means "100%" is really somewhere in the low 90% range.

0% also isn't really 0%, but closer to ~5%. This is to keep the battery safe, so no you can't really use it to keep driving at 0% stated charge.

 

[Amps]

What I want to know is based on a given battery size how many kWh are removed from the battery for every 100 miles.

I agree with you. But, I prefer Watt-hours removed from the battery per mile traveled. It's easy to extrapolate, but I wish this (and driver's side–or both sides–charging flaps) would become standard. ID.4 has neither.

 

[adoublee]

It is also a substantial bump in power and performance. The range is almost secondary. Think how much people pay for another ~140HP on ICE vehicles!

And way down the list of multiple advantages is that it has two onboard chargers. These onboard chargers seem pretty reliable in EV's on the road today. But 2 is 1, and 1 is none

 

[FordLightningMan]

The only thing I will say for the battery summary is your cold weather estimates are a bit off. My Tesla probably gets about half of its estimate range when we are at 0 degrees Fahrenheit-ish. I can only imagine adding towing to that equation.

Most people drive less than 100 miles a day, so even at half range, a SR meets most everyone's daily need. Though anyone that does live in a place where temperatures go near zero regularly needs to understand they are getting about half the range they signed up for. The XLT SR only having blown heat, which is less efficient than heated seats, makes me even more confident I'll be getting around 100 miles of range on the coldest winter days (starting at 80%-90%). We have months where weather never gets above freezing and a few days never into double digits, so this is not applicable to everyone.

 

[vandy1981]

This post made front page of some other sites: Autoblog, Teslarati, CarBuzz, Electrek
and TFL trucks.

I'm sure they'll send @gorwell some royalty checks for his/her efforts in breaking this news.

Edit: the Teslarati reader comments are kind of amusing: " Yeah sure Ford will dominate when Tesla can build about 5 times as many CT as Ford will Ford F150 Lightning and with Tesla having better engineering, better tech and better value so keep dreaming."

 

[Bannerman]

I can understand why you'd ask this, based on media misinformation out there about how EVs work, especially in the right-wing stuff that I also read/hear.

As a longtime EV driver (on my 4th Tesla), who also has Super Duties and a PowerBoost, and a conservative outlook, a dose of reality:

First, you can charge any EV to 100% when it is needed without impacting battery life. You should time it so that it does not "sit" at 100% for any period. EVs have the ability to set the estimated time of departure in the charging screen or your smartphone app, and the car will top out just when you are ready to use it.

Second, Ford apparently used a 1,000-pound payload for these tests, which would include the driver and passengers. This was their call, as manufacturers actually do the EPA ratings using EPA-specified protocols, and they are not done by the EPA itself as most people mistakenly think.

Third, there is absolutely no reason to avoid running the battery to near zero, except range anxiety pucker factor. Running to near zero has no effect on battery life, and in fact is recommended by Tesla to effect a regular "balancing" of the battery packs. If you don't do it occasionally, the battery management system (BMS) loses track of the full-to-empty capacity and will appear to lose range. Running the battery from full to empty "restores" the appearance of the full battery range (which was never really lost, just not tracked correctly).

Fourth, your comment on air temp is correct, and for us early adopters, a real eye-opener. But 50% range reduction is a bit much. I took delivery of a new Tesla P85D on the west coast in January 2015, and drove it across the U.S. to Maine on a Northern route that included Arches, Aspen, the Black Hills/Mt. Rushmore, and 17-below temps running across South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin. That car had a 256-mile rated range when new. The reality in super-cold temps was that charging took longer times, and range was down to a reliable 175 miles, so a 32% range reduction. This was real, and there was one incident of crawling over a mountain in Custer St. Park heading to a Supercharger in Rapid City, where I had to go 15 mph to keep remaining range with reach of the charger. We pulled in on zero, and 10 below zero. My wife wasn't happy, because I had passed a perfectly good Supercharger, saying the range was fine, incorrectly factoring in cold. That would not happen today because the built-in trip planners now account for elevation changes, ambient temperatures, and wind direction. I now find the Tesla trip planner a bit too conservative. But yes, cold is bad for range.

Fifth, one of the things you learn as an EV owner is to drive in the battery's sweet spot on road trips. We always start out the first leg from home at 100%, but thereafter typically run down to 10%, maybe less, then charge to 80%, or whatever the car's trip planner app advises is "time to depart". Sometimes this is only 60% state of charge. This is because the total trip time with charges is less when you DON'T fully charge as you go, instead charging more often, say every 150-200 miles, because the battery charges WAY faster below 80% full, and slows down dramatically above that SOC. Our typical charges are now 15-20 minutes, compared to the one-hour full charges we used to do for "insurance." That's a lesson learned as we've gained complete confidence in the Supercharger network. As it stands, this works fairly well when caravaning with our '21 KR PowerBoost, towing our, 9,100 pound boat/trailer, as the 5 mpg that rig gets at 65 mph equals a 150-mile range for the truck, so we time refueling the truck to coincide with Tesla Superchargers (It happens that our twice-yearly 1,500-mile two-vehicle trek is from South Florida to upstate NY, so mostly on I-95, where there are Superchargers in short intervals). Having an advanced-tech hybrid pickup with exceedingly short range is kind of funny when the EV beats its range by a wide margin.

Lastly, I'd point out that range anxiety is no longer a serious thing for EV drivers - usually not even a consideration or something we think about except on road trips, which are fairly rare for most vehicle owners. The great thing is that we have a fuel station in our garage or on the wall at our homes, so leave every day "full" or at target charge (I use 80%, and slow amp charging levels to baby the battery a bit, taking eight hours to charge instead of three, as we're not going anywhere at night). Plugging in is the same routine as charging your cell phone every night - something you do without thinking about. Modern EVs now have enough range for most daily uses, and the minor inconvenience of a 20-minute or half-hour charge every 150-200 miles is more than offset by the amazing driving experience, quiet, advanced tech and driver features.

Nice write up. I didn't know Ford did their range estimates with 1000 pounds of payload, thats nice to hear.

I don't have an EV and am not in the market as they simply wont work for our lifestyle right now, but I do like following the ever evolving tech so I enjoyed your viewpoint on it.

 

[greenne]

This post made front page of some other sites: Autoblog, Teslarati, CarBuzz, Electrek
and TFL trucks.

I'm sure they'll send @gorwell some royalty checks for his/her efforts in breaking this news.

Edit: the Teslarati reader comments are kind of amusing: " Yeah sure Ford will dominate when Tesla can build about 5 times as many CT as Ford will Ford F150 Lightning and with Tesla having better engineering, better tech and better value so keep dreaming."

TomMolog is on this site and commented on the F150 Lightning FB page so I'd be very surprised if it didn't show up on Inside Evs soon. (Shameless plug for the Inside Evs podcast on Fridays at 930a)

 

[VTbuckeye]

I agree with you. But, I prefer Watt-hours removed from the battery per mile traveled. It's easy to extrapolate, but I wish this (and driver's side–or both sides–charging flaps) would become standard. ID.4 has neither.

Watt hours, kWh... It's just a decimal point. Yes on charge flaps both sides. One side for DC charging is ok, but level 2 on either side, or both at the same time would be great for garage /public charging situations. It is always better to not wrap the cord around the car. It is a long enough vehicle that backing in to put the cord on the correct side may not allow it to reach (the truck is 19 feet long and 7ft wide and charge cords are no more than 25 long).

 

[Regular150]

If these window stickers we affixed by Ford Employees, robot or human, these are the verified EPA numbers. If EPA certification wasn't final the stickers would say in bold letters, "This Vehicle is Not For Sale" on it. They would still be sent through shipping and to dealers. They would sit until the official EPA certs became official. Great post transferred to lightning!

Sponsored