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

[Regular150]

This is not correct. EPA rating is directly related to the EPA test cycles. There's just various test cycles and ways you can convey that.

The core issue is that when most people think of range, you immediate go to how many miles on the freeway going 70mph+... That is not what the EPA cycles are.

Here are three cycles for reference:

Who the heck goes 48 MPH on the Highway?

 

[IdeaOfTheDayCom]

The cool thing for me is that the base Lightning range (230) is more range than my Mach-E AWD (211).

That's amazing, considering how much larger an heavier the F-150 is.

Meanwhile, Ford has always said their range was based on a 1,000 pound load, so my day-to-day range will be even better, which is why I didn't bother ordering the Extended Range.

 

[IdeaOfTheDayCom]

I'm wondering if there will be safety ratings by the time they actually ship. I'm assuming we should expect 5 stars across the board.

Normally trucks don't get 5 stars across the board because taller vehicles have a greater tendency to flip, but with a couple of tons of battery at the bottom it'll be super hard to flip over.

 

[Trick]

The cool thing for me is that the base Lightning range (230) is more range than my Mach-E AWD (211).

That's amazing, considering how much larger an heavier the F-150 is.

Meanwhile, Ford has always said their range was based on a 1,000 pound load, so my day-to-day range will be even better, which is why I didn't bother ordering the Extended Range.

I have seen this 1000 lbs posted all over the place. Is it a fact? Why would they send there numbers to the EPA and add that to the test? To me it makes no sense,

 

[LightningShow]

I have seen this 1000 lbs posted all over the place. Is it a fact? Why would they send there numbers to the EPA and add that to the test? To me it makes no sense,

Ford has been saying that the target is 300 with 1000lb payload. The official EPA number doesn't include payload. That's why it kind of makes sense that it's 320.

 

[guerro]

And a Pro ER with 320 miles of EPA range!!!

This is the one I want but I don't think Ford is going to let me buy it.

 

[cts888]

Wow, this is great news if it turns out to be the official number. 320 is about the max I would've believed for the ER. If the efficiency numbers are to be believed it very well could exceed 300 in the 70mph range test.

What I don't understand is why the ER has a 320mi range but the SR is 230. It should be 240 if you assume the trucks are the same efficiency. Also, the SR should be even more efficient due to losing a few hundred pounds of battery weight. If the ER is really 320 then I bet we'll find out that Ford is sandbagging the SR range to make the ER look like a better deal.

Totally agree. To add to this, do you think Ford has even built any standard range packs yet? All I have seen and heard of is the extended range versions on all the dummy trucks. Maybe they haven't even done an official EPA test on it yet. I'm hoping my standard can get closer to 250

 

[RT21KRH]

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.

Do you plan to tow 9100 pounds with the Lightning? How far?

 

[IdeaOfTheDayCom]

I have seen this 1000 lbs posted all over the place. Is it a fact? Why would they send there numbers to the EPA and add that to the test? To me it makes no sense,

They've been saying it everywhere pretty much from the beginning because they said they want real world conditions for a work truck.

320 instead of the promised 300 would potentially account for the lack of 1000 pound load in testing, but the 230 in the standard range didn't budge, so I'm not sure what to make of that.

For me, 230 is still more than I get in a tiny Mach-E, so I'm pretty excited about the range. I charge on my driveway, so long range is not important to me.

 

[Ffxdude]

Who the heck goes 48 MPH on the Highway?

Me during rush hour…if I’m lucky. ?

 

[MickeyAO]

Who the heck goes 48 MPH on the Highway?

That's driving like a maniac on LA freeways

 

[ExCivilian]

No trim level has the charging port on the passenger side. They are all on the driver.

They did used to indicate Platinums would have charging accessible on both sides. Those pictures have been removed from any of the sources I looked up to confirm with this note in their place:

"The passenger-side port shown in photos of the Platinum trim used with this article was added for “design” purposes and won’t be present on the production trucks, a Ford spokeswoman told TheGreenCarGuy"

https://thegreencarguy.com/electric-f-150-lightning-bringing-evs-to-the-masses/

 

[dsukia]

The extended range version comes with 2 on board chargers but both use the same plug.
It allows faster charging by the 80A pro charger.
This was discussed in detail early by many outlets.

There is no dual plug, that would make no sense.

They did used to indicate Platinums would have charging accessible on both sides. Those pictures have been removed from any of the sources I looked up to confirm with this note in their place:

"The passenger-side port shown in photos of the Platinum trim used with this article was added for “design” purposes and won’t be present on the production trucks, a Ford spokeswoman told TheGreenCarGuy"

https://thegreencarguy.com/electric-f-150-lightning-bringing-evs-to-the-masses/

 

[Pioneer74]

They did used to indicate Platinums would have charging accessible on both sides. Those pictures have been removed from any of the sources I looked up to confirm with this note in their place:

"The passenger-side port shown in photos of the Platinum trim used with this article was added for “design” purposes and won’t be present on the production trucks, a Ford spokeswoman told TheGreenCarGuy"

https://thegreencarguy.com/electric-f-150-lightning-bringing-evs-to-the-masses/

I've seen the prototype bodies roll down the line. The passenger fender has never had the bracket reinforcements needed to mount the charging port. The fender only has a cutout to mount a trim piece to mimic the charging port door and that is what the article you quoted is referring to.

 

[shutterbug]

I would also not be surprised if Ford kept a little in reserve too just in case. On the MME the EPA range creeped up a bit after first year as the powertrain was retuned via OTA. Would not be surprised at a slight range increase MY 23 and MY24. These could also update MY22 after the fact.

The did increase usable battery capacity in 2022 models. They did not do that with 2021 models. At least not yet.

Sponsored