🙌 First F150 Lightning delivery to retail customer (me)!

[sotek2345]

I expected some warning when I set it for 100% last night for our trip to Mackinac Island today. Nadda. I will share the charging stats later, but I plugged into a NEMA 14-50 connector I used for my Tesla last night with 158mi, and it is still charging. The app says 0715 before it's to 100%.

That makes sense given the difference in battery pack sizes, but I was taken aback by the time difference. My wife and I will need to wrap our heads around the "same range, different capacity."

Given the battery chemistry, I hope Ford adds some more guidance on charging and capacity. If the battery is left at 100% charge and the depth of discharge is constantly near nil, it will destroy the system's longevity.

To be fair, we don't know (that I have seen) how big of a buffer Ford built in. Maybe it is a large buffer and 100/0 matters less on the Lightning.

Sponsored

 

[oneguynick]

To be fair, we don't know (that I have seen) how big of a buffer Ford built in. Maybe it is a large buffer and 100/0 matters less on the Lightning.

Very true, and if that is the case, I hope they make it part of the UI. Anyone who currently has lithium-ion batteries at this point is trained to have that mindset.

 

[greenne]

To be fair, we don't know (that I have seen) how big of a buffer Ford built in. Maybe it is a large buffer and 100/0 matters less on the Lightning.

My hope is that Ford did throw a sizable buffer in there and in future OTA updates feel comfortable shrinking that buffer for more range. Once Nick and other early adopters drive the truck a bit and there is minimal to no battery damage under normal use cases, maybe Ford will open up the buffer some more like they did on the Mach E.

I wouldn't mind having a little extra for road trip usage...

 

[RidetheLightning]

You left out the 20 hours of recharge time when you attempt to drive 100 mph for 10 hours in a Lightning. It would be more efficient but not nearly as exciting to drive 50 MPH for 20 hours with 3 hours of recharge time

It will be interesting for those of us who like to geek out about this kind of thing to see what the optimal driving speed is relative to charging speed is to get somewhere in the least amount of time if you have to charge on a road trip. It's early, but if I'm doing the math right based on this .535 kWh/mi efficiency on the highway for the Platinum, you're using 37.45 kWh at 70mph, assuming the highway efficiency is calculated somewhere around 70mph or thereabouts. Since we can get up to 150 kWH via DC fast charging and it will almost never be as low as 37 kWH, it seems to make sense to just drive at whatever legal speed we want to get there the fastest, right? I'm new to DC fast charging on road trips and it's early here, so my math could be way off.

https://insideevs.com/news/574208/ford-f150-lightning-epa-range/

 

[GDN]

1.) We have had BMW, Audi, and most recently, the premium audio on our Tesla Model 3. The F150 is good, but more aggressive on the bass than I like. From an audiophile, perspective, it's not apples-to-apples to compare, but here I go.

The Tesla is playing FLAC from a USB drive versus streaming via BT on my phone in the lightning. Another thing I would say is there is some rattle in the cab when playing loudly. I was merely testing, though, not an audio level I would use for any amount of time. The surround sound component seems much better than stereo only setting.

2.) I hate massage anyways, so it's lost on me. Our first friends to ride in it seemed to like it, though. To each their own. The seats are overall very comfortable regardless of the massage setting or not.

3.) We did, and they are fantastic. We use the Netflix, Hulu, etc. feature extensively in our Tesla. Being prior military 15 minutes early is on time, so I find myself in a parking lot with time to burn. The fully reclining seats + video services would be excellent. I hope that gets added.

Thanks for sharing this. I'm also leaving a Model 3 and the sound system has spoiled me. For a factory no name system Tesla has really knocked this out of the park. For such a big name as B&O I have a feeling this is going to be a big step backwards.

 

[vandy1981]

Where a

It's early, but if I'm doing the math right based on this .535 kWh/mi efficiency on the highway

Where are you getting .535 kWh/mi efficiency? 131 kWh usable/300 miles is .437 kWh/mi

 

[RidetheLightning]

Where are you getting .535 kWh/mi efficiency? 131 kWh usable/300 miles is .437 kWh/mi

From the link I posted in the comment. I think I see where they got that, they are including charging losses in the calculation.

 

[sotek2345]

It will be interesting for those of us who like to geek out about this kind of thing to see what the optimal driving speed is relative to charging speed is to get somewhere in the least amount of time if you have to charge on a road trip. It's early, but if I'm doing the math right based on this .535 kWh/mi efficiency on the highway for the Platinum, you're using 37.45 kWh at 70mph, assuming the highway efficiency is calculated somewhere around 70mph or thereabouts. Since we can get up to 150 kWH via DC fast charging and it will almost never be as low as 37 kWH, it seems to make sense to just drive at whatever legal speed we want to get there the fastest, right? I'm new to DC fast charging on road trips and it's early here, so my math could be way off.

https://insideevs.com/news/574208/ford-f150-lightning-epa-range/

Location of chargers makes a big difference too. Just use abetterrouteplanner set to shortest time and go with it.

 

[vandy1981]

From the link I posted in the comment. I think I see where they got that, they are including charging losses in the calculation.

Yes, you should get better highway efficiency than what is promised in MPGe for that reason. We'll know the truth very soon, though.

 

[p52Ranch]

It will be interesting for those of us who like to geek out about this kind of thing to see what the optimal driving speed is relative to charging speed is to get somewhere in the least amount of time if you have to charge on a road trip. It's early, but if I'm doing the math right based on this .535 kWh/mi efficiency on the highway for the Platinum, you're using 37.45 kWh at 70mph, assuming the highway efficiency is calculated somewhere around 70mph or thereabouts. Since we can get up to 150 kWH via DC fast charging and it will almost never be as low as 37 kWH, it seems to make sense to just drive at whatever legal speed we want to get there the fastest, right? I'm new to DC fast charging on road trips and it's early here, so my math could be way off.

https://insideevs.com/news/574208/ford-f150-lightning-epa-range/

A 70 MPH highway average will yield worse range than the EPA estimates.

The three EPA city cycle tests (City, Air Conditioning and Cold Temperatures) each average 21 MPH. The two Highway cycle tests each average 48 MPH.

 

[yed19]

I expected some warning when I set it for 100% last night for our trip to Mackinac Island today. Nadda. I will share the charging stats later, but I plugged into a NEMA 14-50 connector I used for my Tesla last night with 158mi, and it is still charging. The app says 0715 before it's to 100%.

That makes sense given the difference in battery pack sizes, but I was taken aback by the time difference. My wife and I will need to wrap our heads around the "same range, different capacity."

Given the battery chemistry, I hope Ford adds some more guidance on charging and capacity. If the battery is left at 100% charge and the depth of discharge is constantly near nil, it will destroy the system's longevity.

Speaking if charging… Are they sending you one? How did they say that process works for out of SunRun states?

 

[RidetheLightning]

A 70 MPH highway average will yield worse range than the EPA estimates.

All good points, but I think the main point/question of my original comment was to challenge the idea that driving slow will get you there faster on EA’s charging network. It seems that at almost every state of charge and legal driving speed you’ll get there faster by driving faster and charging more frequently, depending on your time off the route to get to the charger and plug in. I don’t want to get sidetracked from OP’s post too much and 1st owner questions too if at all possible.

 

[oneguynick]

Speaking if charging… Are they sending you one? How did they say that process works for out of SunRun states?

Eventually, the dealership said they would call me when it was available.

 

[wiffleballpractice]

It will be interesting for those of us who like to geek out about this kind of thing to see what the optimal driving speed is relative to charging speed is to get somewhere in the least amount of time if you have to charge on a road trip. It's early, but if I'm doing the math right based on this .535 kWh/mi efficiency on the highway for the Platinum, you're using 37.45 kWh at 70mph, assuming the highway efficiency is calculated somewhere around 70mph or thereabouts. Since we can get up to 150 kWH via DC fast charging and it will almost never be as low as 37 kWH, it seems to make sense to just drive at whatever legal speed we want to get there the fastest, right? I'm new to DC fast charging on road trips and it's early here, so my math could be way off.

https://insideevs.com/news/574208/ford-f150-lightning-epa-range/

"using 37.45 kWh at 70mph" You either mean KW or the number of kWh that will be used in an hour driving at 70mph.

"Since we can get up to 150 kWH via DC fast charging" You mean kW again.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say in the math here. The math is actually a reasonably complex optimization problem if there are lots of DC fast chargers, but the fact that there are few of them means your assertion is correct in most cases. For example, if your trip is 450 miles and there is one DC fast charger between 200-300 miles, you should probably stop at that charger regardless of the marginal difference in achieved efficiency. The only time I can conceive of this mattering is if you drove fast enough to require a charge that would otherwise not be required, especially if that required charge is not at a fast charger.

 

[vandy1981]

A 70 MPH highway average will yield worse range than the EPA estimates.

The three EPA city cycle tests (City, Air Conditioning and Cold Temperatures) each average 21 MPH. The two Highway cycle tests each average 48 MPH.

Not necessarily, the manufacturer can alter the data they supply the EPA in order to achieve marketing aims. I tried to summarize this here, but many trims of the Mach-E exceed EPA highway range and there's no reason to think that the F150 won't be the same.

​

Automakers can manipulate the rating system to achieve their marketing aims. They provide coastdown data (which encompasses aero effect, rolling resistance, etc) to the EPA and they use that data in their simulations. The automaker gets to choose the conditions in which the coastdown data is collected. They can also choose to use a two cycle test or a five cycle test. If they choose the two cycle test they have to subtract 30% from the final efficiency values and the five cycle test can be advantageous if they have better coastdown values.​

Sponsored