What's your Miles/kWh average so far?

[Zprime29]

I hit a new daily high today. Started the day with 85% and got home with 71%. That's 55 miles round trip giving me an approx 3.0 mi/kWh. Had a dip in temp to mid 80's today so I didn't have to blast the A/C on the way home

This truck just keeps getting better for me. Now if I could just get better at parking it...

Sponsored

 

[RST]

Snapped this photo just prior to plugging into my mobile charger. This trip started at 85% charge level, as all of my charges do. This means that 67% of my Pro's battery capacity, was used to cover 195.3 miles.

Actually my electric meter registered 69 kWh to return batteries to 85% state of charge....so this trip averaged 2.83 mi/kWh, not the 3.2 figure illustrated.

 

[Viet658]

Snapped this photo just prior to plugging into my mobile charger. This trip started at 85% charge level, as all of my charges do. This means that 67% of my Pro's battery capacity, was used to cover 195.3 miles.

Actually my electric meter registered 69 kWh to return batteries to 85% state of charge....so this trip averaged 2.83 mi/kWh, not the 3.2 figure illustrated.

I think the efficiency numbers in the vehicle do not include charging losses. At least that’s the way Tesla does it so I assume Ford would do it the same way.

 

[RST]

I think the efficiency numbers in the vehicle do not include charging losses. At least that’s the way Tesla does it so I assume Ford would do it the same way.

Agreed. To be honest, the FordPass App reported 63.5 kW added to batteries. I'll pay for the 69 sucked from the power line, which amounts to $8.50 ($.1232 per kWh), or a bit under $.045 per mile.

It's simply amazing how economically these trucks operate. It cost at least twice as much to run the motorcycle pictured, but I use ethanol free gas only, at about $4.65 per gallon.

 

[dajohn3]

I’ve only had my truck a short time and have averaged about 2.1 miles/kWh over the last 200 miles. Was wondering what others are getting and over how many miles does that number represent.

It is important to note that driving long distance at the posted speed limit will only yield you from 1.2 to 1.4 KWH depending on the terrain. In some cases in Texas you will run out of power before reaching a charging station. Ford putting a 98 KWH battery as a standard in a Lightning XLT is like saying, " you might want to haul a 7000 lb load somewhere but it can't be too far from a charging station or you won't make it". Pulling anything to my ranch with the lightning isn't possible because my ranch is 525 miles away from my main home and the charging stations are spread too far apart. Adding cost into the picture means that to go to my ranch with the lightning I will pay $152.80 to charge it 4 times at 90 percent (43 minutes each time) and then charging it at my ranch with 15 gallons of gasoline with my generator to make it to a charging station to return back home. This cycle of charging would be much simplier if Ford would simply put the correct size battery in all Ford Lightning's as a standard battery i.e. 124.6 KWH so pulling a load would be possible in Texas. Putting more charging stations will not change the fact that the distance you can travel will cost you 2.5 times more than driving an eco boost ford f150. Now all EPA miles are done at 50 to 55 mph and you lose many miles per charge by going the posted speed limit of 80 mph on I10. Because Ford says that it is only an estimate on distance they think that we as consumers will just accept their constant lying about their EV' Trucks being able to pull a 7700 lb load with no problems. At 80 mph a ford lightning is only going to get from 52 to 60 percent of the stated distance so an acceptable speed would be 70 mph but that is only going to yield you around 63 to 68 percent to stated distance and all of these miles are while their is only a driver and no load in the vehicle. Adding a load drops your efficiency down to 34 to 44 percent depending on your speed and the weight you are pulling. I like my Ford lightning for the comfort and the look of the vehicle but I use trucks to haul things and I have to go back and use my Chevy 3500 with a 454 that gets only 8 miles per gallon to haul things at my ranch because the Lightning can't go the distance needed. This is a damn shame that Ford has put out a truck that should be labelled as a SUV because you can't get where you need to go while pulling a load. Ford should refund all Lightning XLT owners with a larger battery at no cost to the truck owner for misleading advertisement. Once you buy the vehicle there is no turning back unless you want to take a big hit by trading the vehicle in so if you think that people like me should just trade up to an extended range (which is basically the standard range any truck owner should accept) it isn't going to happen. Because of all of these forums where truck owners have said that they can go almost 200 miles on a standard range (98KW), while driving 70 mph, have been misleading potential buyers into thinking that they can haul things and make it to a charging station with no problems. At 70 mph I am lucky if I get 160 miles on a 100 percent charge while empty. The most you could be looking at is 180 miles so everyone who owns a lightning should take it on the road driving 70 mph until their truck is almost out of power to get real results that can be and should be shared. I estimate that I get around 9 miles per gallon when compared to an Ecoboost F150 while driving long distance. That is a big difference from the fake MPH that is on a lightning window sticker right. Ford undersized the battery by 26 KWH for their XLT's and no information is presented to the buyer that would get them to buy the extended range over what is in the XLT's being presented to them at the time of purchase. Also, $20,000 more for an additional 53 miles of actual miles more that you can travel is a bit much when the standard battery should have been sized larger to actually achieve the 240 miles stated that the vehicle could travel. EPA miles should be done at 70 mph because most states have that speed as a standard for driving on their freeways and the standard Ford Lightning should have a battery sized to go the distance at that speed on the display instead of 240 or 320 fuzzy math miles so the average driver can easily gauge how and when to charge before leaving on their trip.

 

[Zprime29]

It is important to note that driving long distance at the posted speed limit will only yield you from 1.2 to 1.4 KWH depending on the terrain...

Consider paragraphs, I think you meant mpk here (miles per kWh), and lastly your claim is only accurate in extreme conditions.

I've made numerous treks in winter and summer, with elevation climbs of over a mile, and I typically get 1.8 when driving the posted limit. I've seen as low as 1.6 with a strong head wind and going uphill. While on the flip side I once got 2.1 going 75mph with a tail wind and flat to slight elevation drop. Same thing happens to ICE, my wife encountered a strong head wind and had to stop to fill up out Pilot when she got to town when she normally has 1/4 tank left. An analog gauge hides a lot of efficiency loss that we get to see.

I started looking at hybrids to replace the Pilot, a lot of complaints about people not getting the EPA rating for MPG. It's basically a universal complaint (with a few notable exceptions).

 

[dajohn3]

Your claims of getting such a high return on mpk for long distance driving are amazing and I don't really look at the perceived mpk, I look at the actual distance I have traveled. Granted there could be something wrong with my truck but I put it in the shop 2 times since January 2024 when I bought it. I just got it back and the mechanic says that they have readjusted all of the electronics so we will see if there is a change in how many miles I can travel, at what speed, and how much Electrify America is putting into my battery bank. If I were getting the results that you have gotten, I wouldn't be complaining but sadly, I am not. I have looked at the reduction in miles to speed chart and found that I have never hit the milleage that it has on it. If you have a 131 extended range battery in yours than maybe there is a difference in the quality of the 98KW battery that is the real problem with my truck not getting the distance per KWH that you do. In any case, Ford has undersized its standard battery, in my opinion, because I can't pull a 7000 pound load 127 miles at 65 mph to make it to the next charging station. Think of this, if you charge the vehicle to 100 percent each time and can't travel 127 miles to the next charging station, how long do you think you will need to wait to get someone over to charge your vehicle if you fall short of making it to the charging station? I have waited 6 hours on I10 in the summer for a tow truck to bring me to a motel 6 where I could wait for the mechanic to fix my Ford Explorer before buying this Truck. It is not fun to sit around for 6 hours in the Texas heat. I still believe that Ford should have a 124.6 KW standard size battery for all their Lightngs to ensure that, at 70 mph, you can make it to a charging station. We, as consumers, have been getting the short end of the stick for so long that we just accept whatever we get. We don't address any of the key issues with the manufacturer but I have put in a few complaints to Ford, along with suggestions, to try to get a product in the future that will do what the vehicle was built to do. A truck is used for hauling things with and should be able to at least make it to a charging station while driving at 65 mph.

 

[Zprime29]

I don't have any experience towing with it yet, all my miles are unhitched. Someone like @hturnerfamily would be a better source for towing and efficiency on a SR battery. He's done a LOT of miles towing in his.

 

[OG_Ragnar]

I bought my Lightning to be a local commuter vehicle, to help with home projects and make some regional trips to state parks and various sporting events. I have nothing to tow, but I have teenagers and the large back seat is great for them!

After ~1,500 miles, the Lightning excels at local commuting. I routinely see 2-3+ mi/kWh on my daily drive of 20 mi round trip that is mostly rural/city roads. When I take it on the highway at 70 mph, I get more like 1.4-1.9 mi/kWh. This translates to a highway range of closer to 220 mi for the ER, which has been manageable for me.

i was expecting a performance drop on the highway (aerodynamics are not the Lightning’s friend), as well as a performance drop in Wisconsin winter, so I opted for the extended range XLT. The performance drop has been greater than my initial expectation, but it hasn’t been a hinderance for me so far.

I only have about a few weeks of real world driving in Wisconsin Spring, so maybe my experience will change over time with driver adjustment in different weather conditions. I still don’t expect to fast change much, just charge at home for $0.10/kWh, so my running costs should remain low, even with some highway driving.

 

[JRT]

Ya so the reality is that normal people buying this truck and expecting advertised range is a big problem. I started my EV experience with a SR Mach-E for 30k miles and knew SR was not a good idea.

I see the same posters here post amazing m/kwh and do calculations from dashboard info like %battery used on very short trips. I've done quick 10 mile trips and saw no %drop.

I'm just don't trust the dash data, it is too rosey and built for consumer satisfaction in my opinion. I did a 110 mile trip to my mom's house last weekend, it ends with a 8 mile steep drive up winding mountain road. My return trip 3 days later, going down the m/kwh was 13! Here is the kicker, it stayed very high and slowly went down to 2.1 at home, however if I cut my trip short 20 miles, it was saying 2.5 m/kwh. Those last 20 miles were flat and under 55mph.

I do love this truck for my use case, but I caution people to know the reality first.

Sponsored