RIDE THE LIGHTNING!

[Laconian]

Very nice. Is this the buy of the century? I can't believe how much "stuff" you're getting for that price. You're pretty good at spotting these weird big deals and moving on them.

[Morris Minor]

Congratulations! It looks great - glad the deal went through for you.

[SJ_GTI]

Congrats man, looks great! Hard to argue with the utility of that vehicle.

[AutobahnSHO]

Fun fun fun!

How big is the frunk?

How long does it take to charge at home?

[MrH]

Nice!!

Is the Blue Cruise standard or did you have to pay more for it? 

It was included in the $7500 option package that included the big battery, twin panel moonroof, tow tech package, home charger, etc,

Very nice. Is this the buy of the century? I can't believe how much "stuff" you're getting for that price. You're pretty good at spotting these weird big deals and moving on them.

I think I got the best deal out there. No one has beaten it yet in the Lightning forum.

Someone asked where to find these deals. You don't find them, you have to hunt for it! I'm always watching incentives going on for cars I'm interested in. Once it seems feasible, I email a ton of dealers and negotiate that way. Doing it in person is a waste of time. I usually already have a car too, so if it doesn't work out, no biggie. I don't post all my failed attempts and ideas. It's too embarrassing

Congratulations! It looks great - glad the deal went through for you.

Thanks! When are you joining the EV club?

Congrats man, looks great! Hard to argue with the utility of that vehicle.

Utility is the ultimate luxury!

Fun fun fun!

How big is the frunk?

How long does it take to charge at home?

The frunk is pretty huge. Basically like the trunk size of a normal sedan.

Right now, I'm still using my charger from my Bolt, hooked to a 240 volt outlet. It's 9.6 kW. There's some efficiency loss, so it puts 9 kW or so to the truck. The truck has a 131 kWh battery, so it's about 14 hours to go 0-100%. I only charge to 90% full for every day use though, and only get down to 50 or 60 percent, so 4-5 hours gets it topped back up.

They are sending an 80 amp charger though. Debating whether I get it installed. It'll be another $600-$700 to install with a new 100 amp circuit breaker. The big battery F-150s are kind of wild. They have dual AC inverters, so you can charge at 19.2 kW. That will charge the entire thing 0-100% in under 8 hours.

I'm probably fine without it, but it could be useful sometimes. Ford is removing the dual onboard chargers for 2024 and not including the massive 80 amp charger. Too much cost and not enough people using it.

[Laconian]

What are you seeing as far as Wh/mi?

[AutobahnSHO]

Lol Mav has a 1.1 kWh battery.

[Laconian]

What's the gauge and length of the wire going to your Bolt charger? You could snip the NEMA receptacle and wire it into the big charger directly?

[MrH]

What are you seeing as far as Wh/mi?

I'm right around 1.7 mi/kWh lately.  This is mostly heater blasting, 75 mph on the highway.  Efficiency drops off the cliff with this thing at highway speeds because it's so big.  The Bolt wasn't quite as speed sensitive.

I could definitely see 2.0-2.5 mi/kWh in city driving in decent weather I think.

End of the day, it's not all that important, as long as I have enough range for my daily needs.  The battery is literally twice the size of the Bolts, so I have to tell myself that when looking at mi/kWh.  I just multiple it times two to put in Bolt terms for my dumb monkey brain to understand

[Laconian]

580Wh/mi. You're still doing better than a Cybertruck!

That road trip video I shared had the truck burning 1.25mi/kWh

[shp4man]

I'm currently changing the #3 array battery cell in a Lightning truck. It's very involved.
The Lightning, fully charged, will literally take off like a fucking bat out of hell from a standing start. We're talking neck brace acceleration.

[MrH]

580Wh/mi. You're still doing better than a Cybertruck!

That road trip video I shared had the truck burning 1.25mi/kWh

That's really, really bad.

The worst I've seen for the Lightning is like 1.4 or 1.5 mi/kWh on the forums. Seems like they had something wrong with their truck too, and it was fixed under warranty.

Ford made some interesting design decisions with the Lightning that I can't really disagree with? So no heat pump in my car, that comes in 2024 model year. But it's maybe 10% efficiency, and just resistive heat is much simpler. I don't blame them for getting the truck out faster, then adding a heat pump later.

They also don't disconnect either motor ever? Rivian and the Korean E-GMP use a mechanical clutch to disconnect one motor for efficiency reasons. But then if you stomp the throttle, there's a slight lag for it to reconnect? Do you feel that in your car?

Ford just said screw it, not worth the complexity. Both motors are always connected. No delay if you stomp throttle. It does get a lot regen from one pedal driving because both motor can regen off throttle.

Another interesting thing: it's the same motor front and rear. Same power and torque. They are geared slightly different though, for harmonic reasons. They didn't want to hit a resonant frequency in the vehicle with both motors spinning the exact same speed.

The battery is 145 kWh! And then they cap it to 131 kWh usable. I charge to 90% daily. Ford basically just took everything great about the F-150, put in a gigantic battery, kept it simple, and didn't try to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of it. Probably the right call for their EV truck.

Peak charge rate isn't all that impressive, but the charge curve is. I'll probably actually try road tripping this in the spring/summer next year. It can do 150 kW from 10-80% pretty consistently it looks like. I'll try taking it to Indianapolis and Pittsburgh. A weekend trip to either would be just one or two DC fast charges and be fine.
I love this thing.

[MrH]

I'm currently changing the #3 array battery cell in a Lightning truck. It's very involved.
The Lightning, fully charged, will literally take off like a fucking bat out of hell from a standing start. We're talking neck brace acceleration.

It's the fastest car I've ever owned. A 7,000 lb truck that runs < 4 sec 0-60 and mid 12s in the 1/4 mile.

I might take it to an open drag strip in the summer and see how it does

[MrH]

What's the gauge and length of the wire going to your Bolt charger? You could snip the NEMA receptacle and wire it into the big charger directly?

No way. My NEMA receptacle is only on a 50 amp breaker. The big charger needs a 100 amp breaker. It's double the current of the NEMA and bolt charger setup.

I'll probably get it installed just for convenience. Charge the truck twice as fast, and then if the wife gets a PHEV in a couple of years, we could charge both at the same time.

[Eye of the Tiger]

2breakers 1charger

[Laconian]

No way. My NEMA receptacle is only on a 50 amp breaker. The big charger needs a 100 amp breaker. It's double the current of the NEMA and bolt charger setup.

I'll probably get it installed just for convenience. Charge the truck twice as fast, and then if the wife gets a PHEV in a couple of years, we could charge both at the same time.

I'm curious about the wire, not the breaker. Maybe it's beefy enough for a bigger breaker, though probably not.

[Morris Minor]

Thanks! When are you joining the EV club?

I'm conscious that I need to shit or get off the pot but spousal acceptance, specifically public charging anxiety, is a factor. So I'm thinking early 2025, when the NACS choices widen. I'm confident that public charging teething problems will recede. Also, for several reasons, we decided to bring forward & drastically amp up our travel spending plans, so the budgeted vehicle replacement has been pushed to the back burner.

[MrH]

Ok, I've talked about how great this thing is. But the range estimation is bad. I don't understand the logic.  I need someone at Ford to explain to me like I'm 5 on why this is so bad.

Charge to 90% every night as recommended. This morning, says I have 271 miles of range. That implies a 2.3 mi/kWh efficiency. I have never once gotten that. I drive 35 miles to work. I'm now down to 74% charge. Calculates out to 1.68 mi/kWh. That's pretty much exactly what my trip computer has been saying this whole time.

What does the range estimate on the car show now? 191 miles of range, 74% charge. Implies a 1.97 mi/kWh.  35 miles of driving showed a decrease of 80 miles of range.  And it's still like 30 miles higher than it should be.

It is waaaaay too slow to adjust the meter to your actual consumption rate, and seems to reset to be overly optimistic. Every charge resets back to 2.3 mi/kWh assumptions.

This shouldn't be so hard.  Take like the last 5 trips efficiency average, apply that forward looking.  The Bolt basically did something like that, and was slightly on the conservative side.  I never had to think about it much.  I feel like I'm constantly doing math to try and correct in my head for where this thing is at.

If they can't even get close, just let me input my efficiency and calculate off that.  I can do a better job predicting than the car can.

[giant_mtb]

Just go by the fuel/percentage gauge and trip meter like the good ol' days.

[MrH]

Just go by the fuel/percentage gauge and trip meter like the good ol' days.

It's a bit different with EVs than gas cars.  With a gas car, worst case, you stop slightly earlier at the million of gas stations available.  Way more critical in an EV.

I just hate having to calculate in my head while driving.

[CaminoRacer]

Ok, I've talked about how great this thing is. But the range estimation is bad. I don't understand the logic.  I need someone at Ford to explain to me like I'm 5 on why this is so bad.

Charge to 90% every night as recommended. This morning, says I have 271 miles of range. That implies a 2.3 mi/kWh efficiency. I have never once gotten that. I drive 35 miles to work. I'm now down to 74% charge. Calculates out to 1.68 mi/kWh. That's pretty much exactly what my trip computer has been saying this whole time.

What does the range estimate on the car show now? 191 miles of range, 74% charge. Implies a 1.97 mi/kWh.  35 miles of driving showed a decrease of 80 miles of range.  And it's still like 30 miles higher than it should be.

It is waaaaay too slow to adjust the meter to your actual consumption rate, and seems to reset to be overly optimistic. Every charge resets back to 2.3 mi/kWh assumptions.

This shouldn't be so hard.  Take like the last 5 trips efficiency average, apply that forward looking.  The Bolt basically did something like that, and was slightly on the conservative side.  I never had to think about it much.  I feel like I'm constantly doing math to try and correct in my head for where this thing is at.

If they can't even get close, just let me input my efficiency and calculate off that.  I can do a better job predicting than the car can.

Yeah the Bolt guess-o-meter isn't too bad. I'd rather be able to beat the GOM than constantly underperform it.

[MrH]

Apparently it used to be dead nuts accurate.  Then people complained that they would charge to 100% and it wouldn't show the EPA range, so they changed it to do that in February last year and now it's worthless.     

[r0tor]

It's bad because Ford is trying to cover up cheating on the EPA range

[Morris Minor]

It's bad because Ford is trying to cover up cheating on the EPA range

I don't think that's right. 

MrH got me googling how the EPA comes up with its EV range estimates. I found a great CNBC video, which I've put in the EVs thread since it's a bigger issue than just one vehicle model.
https://www.carspin.club/index.php/topic,34841.3300.html

[r0tor]

I don't think that's right.

MrH got me googling how the EPA comes up with its EV range estimates. I found a great CNBC video, which I've put in the EVs thread since it's a bigger issue than just one vehicle model.
https://www.carspin.club/index.php/topic,34841.3300.html

It's not a secret that the Lightening gets 25-30% less range than advertised.  Lawyers are just scampering at this point to show customers it's not that they lied, but the owners driving habits that reduce range.

To add insult to injury it's real world charging time is also not great
https://fordauthority.com/2024/01/ford-f-150-lightning-performs-poorly-in-fast-charging-test/

[CaminoRacer]

How did they cheat on the EPA range? Did they not follow the procedures correctly?

Or, is it more likely that the EPA guidelines are bad and need to be updated to better match real-world driving?
Tesla has similar well-known issues of EPA rating vs. real-world. The standards need to be better to get a better comparison between OEMs

[AutobahnSHO]

I haven't read enough but I believe all the EPA stuff is based on calculations, and not actual road tests?..

[r0tor]

How did they cheat on the EPA range? Did they not follow the procedures correctly?

Or, is it more likely that the EPA guidelines are bad and need to be updated to better match real-world driving?
Tesla has similar well-known issues of EPA rating vs. real-world. The standards need to be better to get a better comparison between OEMs

C&D has several articles on this.  Cumulative cliff notes from what I remember is the EPA allows for OEMs to either directly test or calculate the range themselves. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between real world accuracy and which method is used.

Range in an EV is a super critical selling point and the vehicles are literally just rolling computers.  EV range is also super sensitive to aero losses, frictional losses, HVAC, and driving conditions.  It's pretty clear many OEMs are gaming the system somewhere in there. Weather it's dieselgate like chest code or just carefully optimized vehicles to reduce friction isn't clear.  Hell, it could be as easy as some code that allows more of the battery capacity to be used than in production cars.

About 3/4 of EVs C&D tested resulted in worse range, while on average ICE vehicles beat their mpg estimates.  EU ranges are even more wacky.

[MrH]

I don't think that's right.

MrH got me googling how the EPA comes up with its EV range estimates. I found a great CNBC video, which I've put in the EVs thread since it's a bigger issue than just one vehicle model.
https://www.carspin.club/index.php/topic,34841.3300.html

EPA is a highway & city mix.  The Lightning sees a bigger drop off with highway driving than most EVs because it's so big.  Not that big of a deal, just want the computer to calculate in a logical way.

The Bolt also had a way to show min/max range, which was really helpful.  And a little bar that showed if you were trending towards the min or the max based on how you were driving.  They did a lot of little tiny things like that in the Bolt that were really handy.

How did they cheat on the EPA range? Did they not follow the procedures correctly?

Or, is it more likely that the EPA guidelines are bad and need to be updated to better match real-world driving?
Tesla has similar well-known issues of EPA rating vs. real-world. The standards need to be better to get a better comparison between OEMs

Tesla has internal documents about how to scam and ignore customer complaints about range.

[Laconian]

Government allowing industry to self attest is a plague. Bad incentives abound.