Won’t charge up to 300+ miles

[Grumpy2]

I bought it with 300+miles.

The 300 mile range equates to about 2.4 miles/kWh. You can see how your doing reaching that 300 mile figure by watching your reading on the screen. This time of year I can only achieve 2.4 efficiency while driving around town.

If the GOM is troubling, watch your actual consumption (the miles/kWh) and multiply by 131.

Sponsored

 

[Firn]

This is incredibly helpful information and it actually does make sense the way you articulate it, thank you!!!

I can probably get used to using Ford’s displayed miles estimate as what is realistically able to still be driven before 0%.
1. Health of battery: are we confident the display will reflect 95%, when the health is deteriorated
2. Other than my Window Sticker, how does a driver know the total capacity of the EV gas tank (battery). I bought it with 300+miles. But I don’t easily see that “best case” capacity is 300, so it is difficult for me to just “trust” Ford sold me 300 miles vs smaller capacity version of battery.
Thank you for your insightful reply.

There's a sticker on the side of the battery with it's overall capacity. It should say around 141kwh iirc. The usable capacity will be lower than that, around 131kwh.

You can also use an OBD reader to see what the computer rates the battery at. If you charge to 100% it will tell you the available capacity. Of note, the current availabe capacity may be less than both of the other numbers due to a variety of factors.

In truth the best way forward is to get a sense of you typical efficiency. For me on a 70 degree day at 70 mph I can expect 1.9 to 2.0 miles per kwh of energy used. With a 131 kwh battery i could go about 260 miles. If i charge from 10% to 80% then I have 70% usable capacity, or a charger to charger range of about 180 miles (131KWH X 70% X 2MI/KWH=~180MI)

 

[Freemarket]

None of that changes my mind.
Lie to me, fine, let me see if I can hit the best case. I want to be in control of that not the other way around.

I believe Tesla’s way, just like the charge cable, will get adopted by the rest sooner or later.

 

[Firn]

None of that changes my mind.
Lie to me, fine, let me see if I can hit the best case. I want to be in control of that not the other way around.

I believe Tesla’s way, just like the charge cable, will get adopted by the rest sooner or later.

In control of what? Trying to achieve the number on the dash? Why would you change your driving to make that number?

Good God i hope we don't adopt a worthless display. Some of us would like that number to mean something. If I have a value that's supposed to tell me range, but its so absolutrly wrong I can't use it, and I have to do mental math to actually determine that number. Well then that is moronic. That's its very reason for existing, to provide information, and it fails at its one and only job.

 

[Grease Lightning]

Lie to me, fine, let me see if I can hit the best case. I want to be in control of that not the other way around.

I am curious what you mean?

My M3 constantly tells me incorrect range I have “in the tank”. The display will say the percentage and then a mileage. Then the efficiency screen shows a different mileage based on how I have driven it over the last 200 miles.

Even with those two metrics, it is just a guess based on unknown variables at the moment.

Sadly Ford is doing the same, but the GOM often is based on some wider “last driven” approach.

To me the only difference is in the navigation as my M3 is usually within a percent or two on my estimated arrival unless I am greatly driving.

 

[VTbuckeye]

The 300 mile range equates to about 2.4 miles/kWh. You can see how your doing reaching that 300 mile figure by watching your reading on the screen. This time of year I can only achieve 2.4 efficiency while driving around town.

If the GOM is troubling, watch your actual consumption (the miles/kWh) and multiply by 131.

He bought it with 131 kWh. How quickly one goes through 131kWh determines the range.

EVs don't add miles when charging, they add kWh. DCFC and add "150 miles", then drive 90mph and it turns out it wasn't really 150 miles....Did the dcfc lie?

Using the range when full as a marker of battery health/battery capacity can work as long as it is ONLY using a fixed efficiency factor for consumption. If the vehicle takes other factors into account the range when full can be a useful metric to know how far you can go in current conditions with your typical driving behavior. As most of us have figured out, look at your efficiency and do some math. That is how far you can go.

 

[Grease Lightning]

Maybe they could present a range of estimates like our old Chevy bolt (predicted in the middle with best/worst case also presented).

This seems problematic if you are planning a trip, without navigation, and just jump in and after a bit on the road your available range tanks.

While I hate seeing my 320 miles range show only 240 miles in the winter, I would much rather it tell me I can make it 240 miles in the current conditions rather than “ideal” conditions.

The latter just seems prone to leaving people stranded if they are in a very spaced out charging area.

Then we have to factor in the “tanks” ability to charge as 80% is not always 104 kWh when I unplug. So even those of us that use the m/kw x capacity approach, unless you are actively looking at the data, the SOCd could be off and could be off a bit. My worst to date is about 10 kWh from true 100% so I could be out 20-25 miles sooner than I really think ending a trip in a sucky way.

 

[Freemarket]

I am curious what you mean?

My M3 constantly tells me incorrect range I have “in the tank”. The display will say the percentage and then a mileage. Then the efficiency screen shows a different mileage based on how I have driven it over the last 200 miles.

Even with those two metrics, it is just a guess based on unknown variables at the moment.

Sadly Ford is doing the same, but the GOM often is based on some wider “last driven” approach.

To me the only difference is in the navigation as my M3 is usually within a percent or two on my estimated arrival unless I am greatly driving.

It’s simpler in my mind if the mfg gives me best case based on epa ratings. Yes, we have the energy app on Tesla to give us some useful data, but the nav is likely the best way to go for sure as far as range to a destination.

I don’t want a mfg to give me an est. range at purchase and then see that number slide by 20-30% over the next 100 or 1,000 miles.

If I have a 300 mile range vehicle and after a month it shows 250 at 100%, is that the way to go for the majority?

My wife drives fast. Her E-tron with 1,000 and est. range of 240 miles showed 140 at 80% after the first month. How do I get in that car and approach the day ahead driving, expecting that number to be close to 200.

My point is that, I want to control how consumption occurs based on best case. As you watch range deplete more quickly than miles being driving, it teaches you what is wasteful while driving and how to better extend range. Going up hills, cruise control, they all play an impact. 85 mph vs 75, huge difference.

I’d rather see my best case range, simple as that.

I just drove my Model S Plaid 7 miles from my office to home. Was at 302 when I left and 287 when I arrived home. I don’t care that it’s a huge drop, I drove how I wanted to get home. My inefficiency was my own, I own that. I don’t need the mfg best case range to now turn that top number into a lower number because what, I need an accurate number based on “how I drive”?

How is it easy the way Ford is doing it for a buyer to know what the heck they could possibly get in range if the one before them has a lead foot?

The navigation with Tesla is so good too that I’m confident in what it tells me +/- 1-2%, usually on the negative, but that’s liveable and something I can plan for.

The “based on your recent consumption” is too large of a % decrease to me. I honestly hate seeing such low numbers especially on a brand new car.

 

[N87]

Driving at 2.6 mi/kWh would give you 335 mi of range.
Here's a helpful resource, created by one of our forum members.
https://lightningcalcs.pages.dev/

 

[Maquis]

My Volvo EX90 appears to do exactly as you suggest above - as highlighted in red.

How do you like your EX90? I still have a reservation that I need to either convert or cancel.

 

[rdr854]

How do you like your EX90? I still have a reservation that I need to either convert or cancel.

I traded my favorite car (2018 Volvo V90 R Design) for a Mulberry Red EX90 Plus. The car is very comfortable, easy to drive and is averaging 2.8 miles per kWh - better than the EPA rating. It does take some getting used to because it is different from both the Lightning and the SPA Volvos.

 

[Maquis]

I traded my favorite car (2018 Volvo V90 R Design) for a Mulberry Red EX90 Plus. The car is very comfortable, easy to drive and is averaging 2.8 miles per kWh - better than the EPA rating. It does take some getting used to because it is different from both the Lightning and the SPA Volvos.

We currently have an XC90 PHEV. I can’t get used to pushing the shifter forward to go in reverse, and back to go forward. WTH were they thinking?

 

[TaxmanHog]

This is incredibly helpful information and it actually does make sense the way you articulate it, thank you!!!

I can probably get used to using Ford’s displayed miles estimate as what is realistically able to still be driven before 0%.
1. Health of battery: are we confident the display will reflect 95%, when the health is deteriorated
2. Other than my Window Sticker, how does a driver know the total capacity of the EV gas tank (battery). I bought it with 300+miles. But I don’t easily see that “best case” capacity is 300, so it is difficult for me to just “trust” Ford sold me 300 miles vs smaller capacity version of battery.
Thank you for your insightful reply.

ALL Platinum trim trucks come with a 131 kWh ER (Extended Range) battery pack.
All Platinum's are spec'd for a 300 mile range under lab conditions.

You'll read about other ER trims being able to go 320 miles because they sport more efficient wheels and carry less weight in premium features.

 

[TaxmanHog]

TRUCK ...... it's a dang TRUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rdr854]

We currently have an XC90 PHEV. I can’t get used to pushing the shifter forward to go in reverse, and back to go forward. WTH were they thinking?

Wait until you have the EX90. I kept putting it in drive while trying to have the wipers take one swipe. Having driven Volvos on and off for 45 years (my parents had a 77 240 DL through military sales in Germany and I bought my first new 240 in 1990), I don’t understand why Volvo would make that fundamental change to their customers’ muscle memory for such an important safety feature. It just does not make sense. But, the EX90 is a very nice and comfortable car and in someways better than the XC90 PHEV (which I had as a service loaner for a week).

Sponsored