Reports of 472 mile range (continued)

[F-150 Prius]

There's no way this is true. This YouTuber is a moron and this video is worthless. Quoting Twain, Such Wholesale Returns of Conjecture Out of Such a Trifling Investment of Fact.

472 miles on a 133 kWh battery would be 3.5 miles/kwh which is almost as much as the Mercedes EQS. The EQS has a drag coefficent of 0.20 whereas the F150L is probably closer to 0.82 (brick).

Well, clearly this guy is not a moron, or stupid, he repeatedly questions the veracity of the sources he's reporting. It's a matter of whether you want to hear about news only after it is recorded as facts days or weeks or months afterwards. I did introduce this as "newish enthusiast" not as "factually authenticated authority" …

Sponsored

 

[Griddlez]

The only real thing we can look to in the wild right now as far as EV trucks... is the Rivian R1T.

A snippet I heard today - per Edmunds the Rivian actually weighs more than the Lightning's claimed weight. Edmunds put it at 7150lbs vs the Lightning at 6500 (motor trend gave 6500 weight figure). They also, in this same video, got 319 miles out of the 135kWh battery of the R1T which is a little over their 314 EPA estimate.

These are some positives at least, for the Lightning.

 

[F-150 Prius]

The only real thing we can look to in the wild right now as far as EV trucks... is the Rivian R1T.

A snippet I heard today - per Edmunds the Rivian actually weighs more than the Lightning's claimed weight. Edmunds put it at 7150lbs vs the Lightning at 6500 (motor trend gave 6500 weight figure). They also, in this same video, got 319 miles out of the 135kWh battery of the R1T which is a little over their 314 EPA estimate.

These are some positives at least, for the Lightning.

the range is great, the efficiency is a worry but the inefficiency means it's less susceptible to losing range when adding cargo or towing loads (the F-150 has apparently the same characteristic where it can achieve its EPA rated range with a cargo load of 1500lbs … still just a speculation.)

 

[shocker]

EV owner here with some science. Extended battery contains the energy of 4 gallons of gas. Electric drivetrains are about 3X as efficient than a gas ones. So pretend your Lightning is a F-150 with a 12 gallon gas tank, could you make do with that?
Where the Lightning will really shine is stop and go and City driving. That's where the ICE engines and drivetrains guzzle fuel.

 

[adoublee]

EV owner here with some science. Extended battery contains the energy of 4 gallons of gas. Electric drivetrains are about 3X as efficient than a gas ones. So pretend your Lightning is a F-150 with a 12 gallon gas tank, could you make do with that?
Where the Lightning will really shine is stop and go and City driving. That's where the ICE engines and drivetrains guzzle fuel.

And also pretend there is a gas station in your garage? And pretend gas trucks don't require oil changes or have check engine lights?

 

[F-150 Prius]

EV owner here with some science. Extended battery contains the energy of 4 gallons of gas. Electric drivetrains are about 3X as efficient than a gas ones. So pretend your Lightning is a F-150 with a 12 gallon gas tank, could you make do with that?
Where the Lightning will really shine is stop and go and City driving. That's where the ICE engines and drivetrains guzzle fuel.

A gallon of gas is about 30-35kWh but that's not a useful metric for comparison.
The efficiency comparison of electric and combustion comparison pertains mostly to the heat losses of combustion. The drivetrain losses (in modern transmissions) is mostly in the wheel and tire inertia and rolling resistance.
The energy used to move a vehicle is a combination of rolling resistance and air drag.

 

[F-150 Prius]

I expect the Lightning to be quite efficient "around town" (below 45 mph in stop-n-go driving) but when the Lightning sustains 65+ mph or tows a heavy, enclosed trailer, range will be impractical for distance driving.
Even if the charge curve sustains 200kW (somehow?) the net trip time will be impractical.
EVs are "waiting" for energy density and charge times to equal (or better) the "burn stuff" machines.
There's no changing the kWh/mi needed to drive at 75mph or tow 10,000lbs, or the energy needed to heat or cool the cabin and the battery itself.

Round figures, we need a range of 250 miles real world, at about 1.5kWh/mi for simple math, so about 375kWh usable.

Charge time should be about 10 minutes, which would be 6 x 375kW or a charge rate of 2.21 megawatts (with literary license on the numbers.)

For gas-equivalent range and "filling" requires twice the battery capacity we're expecting to see in the Rivian "Mega Pack" (180kWh) or Hummer EV, or F-150 Lightning, and about 10 times faster charging with less degradation than current technology on the road.

I think it reasonable to expect density to more than double by 2030 and charging to be technically feasible at say 1MW, which still leaves the question of whether governments will build out the infrastructure or, like almost all public works, take twice as long as planned and cost twice as much as budgeted.

In other words, EVs will be mandatory for cities and light industrial, commercial, last mile delivery vans, shuttle vans and city buses, but interstate freeways will continue to be rolling rivers of burning diesel and gas.

The hold the oil industry has on commerce and the transport industry will not be loosened by 2030.

It's no coincidence governments around the world have chosen the worst possible technology for 100 years and counting. Vehicles are made out of oil, lubricated by oil, burn oil (refined) for fuel, roll on tires made out of oil on roads made out of oil (asphalt.)

 

[LightningShow]

People keep talking about whether this would be technically possible based on leaked specs. That whole line of argument misses the forest for the trees. If it could get significantly more than 300 EPA then THEY WOULD HAVE ADVERTISED IT. Or increased the price, or made the battery smaller. It's crazy to expect you're going to get something significantly different than they are advertising.

Also, yes, a vehicle with 300 EPA range can certainly get 350+ if you drive conservatively and the weather is ideal. In my Bolt the different between driving 75-80 vs 60-65 on the highway in >20% range. For a trip/commute with mostly highway driving, closer to 80mph gets me 3.5mi/kWh, closer to 60mph gets me 4.5mi/kWh. EPA rating is ~3.9mi/kWh.

EDIT: My highest hope is that the 300 EPA is with 1000lb payload (still not sure this is 100% confirmed), meaning real world range in ideal conditions *might* be 325-350, then with conservative driving technique you can get it up to 400. That's an absolute best case scenario IMO.

 

[LikeYouStoleIt]

The 300 mile number is supposed to be at end of life.

Lithium batteries will lose something like 30pct of their capacity over the 8 year design life of the battery.

So you would have to start with 425 miles of range if you are going to wind up w 300 miles after 8 years.

 

[Sdctcher]

The 300 mile number is supposed to be at end of life.

Lithium batteries will lose something like 30pct of their capacity over the 8 year design life of the battery.

So you would have to start with 425 miles of range if you are going to wind up w 300 miles after 8 years.

Source?

I have no info that this would be ‘end-of-life’ instead of onset.

This is Ford estimate with 1,000 lb. Payload, not final EPA which will test without any payload (incl. a driver). If Ford is correct EPA should be somewhat higher than 300.

 

[tbinmd]

The 300 mile number is supposed to be at end of life.

Lithium batteries will lose something like 30pct of their capacity over the 8 year design life of the battery.

So you would have to start with 425 miles of range if you are going to wind up w 300 miles after 8 years.

Sure thing, EPA numbers are based on what you'll get in 8 years, lol.

So what's your guess of miles per kWH?

 

[VTbuckeye]

Back in the beginning of ride-alongs there were reports of longer range 80 percent battery showing 320 miles (made up numbers to illustrate the point) on preproduction trucks. First, the software could have been calibrated to a different vehicle (lifted straight from a mme) or there were working on the calibration. Second, the battery could have been a 420 mile range battery (180kwh) and they are targeting 300, so they decided to put a 130kwh battery in the final product. Until the final product is in customer hands we really won't know how it performs.

 

[RonTCat]

Back in the beginning of ride-alongs there were reports of longer range 80 percent battery showing 320 miles (made up numbers to illustrate the point) on preproduction trucks. First, the software could have been calibrated to a different vehicle (lifted straight from a mme) or there were working on the calibration. Second, the battery could have been a 420 mile range battery (180kwh) and they are targeting 300, so they decided to put a 130kwh battery in the final product. Until the final product is in customer hands we really won't know how it performs.

Excellent guesses, but no. I'm sure all the driving for that vehicle was low speed, the vehicle was getting maybe 3.7mi/kWh at those speeds, and the range Guess-O-Meter went "hey, 130kWh x 3.7 = 481 mile range".

Y'all with Mach-E's know what I'm talkin about.

 

[VTbuckeye]

Excellent guesses, but no. I'm sure all the driving for that vehicle was low speed, the vehicle was getting maybe 3.7mi/kWh at those speeds, and the range Guess-O-Meter went "hey, 130kWh x 3.7 = 481 mile range".

Y'all with Mach-E's know what I'm talkin about.

That is the other option. I am familiar with EV efficiency at low speeds. On our Bolt in the summer we would average 4.9 to 5.3 miles per kWh. Low speeds (under 50mph), soft acceleration, no climate control required. Same drives in the winter in single digit or low teen temps, driving like an A-hole, no preheating, climate set to 68 (mostly to keep the windshield clear) and I could average 1.5 to 1.8 miles per kWh. I managed to wear the tires to the wear bars before finishing the repurchase. It was so easy to spin those tires in the damp cold.

 

[Blainestang]

Excellent guesses, but no.

No one knows. It certainly COULD have been a bad guess-o-meter calibration. It COULD have been because it's just driving around a parking lot. It COULD have been a different sized battery... or one with less buffer than the production version. It COULD have been a combination of 2 or 3 of these.

Unless someone is on the Lightning team at Ford, there's no way they can say definitively why the truck was showing really high numbers.

Sponsored