Caravan Road Trip: Mach-E & Lightning from Northern AZ to LA

[SpaceEVDriver]

For reasons, we had to drive both the Mustang and the Lightning from northern AZ to Los Angeles the other day.

The Mustang is a 2022 California Route-1 AWD, Extended range (312 miles EPA, 91.7 kWh useable battery).
The Lightning is a 2023 Lariat Extended range (320 miles EPA, 131 kWh useable battery).

The Mustang has >50k miles on the odometer and the battery is ~4 years old.
The Lightning has >21k miles and is ~2 years old.

We told the vehicles to be charged to 100% by the time we left in the morning and they were ready to go.

The Mustang stayed behind the Lightning for most of the trip, but it wasn’t really drafting.

We stopped about halfway to take a restroom break and charge a bit.
We’d driven ~176 miles. Our stop was the new charging station in Yucca, AZ, across the highway from the Proving Grounds.

At that point, the Mustang was at 50% charge and the Lightning was at 52% charge.

The Mustang claimed 3.9 miles/kWh efficiency on a drive with ~70 mph average speed.
The Lightning claimed 2.5 miles/kWh efficiency on the same ~70 mph average speed.
(The slight differences in time and miles in the images below is because the Mustang driver shut off the car for a short time while running a very quick errand.)

If we believe the 3.9 miles/kWh efficiency for the Mustang:
176 miles / 3.9 miles/kWh = 45 kWh.
45 kWh / 50% = 90 kWh.

According to this, battery degradation is minimal.
1.7 kWh / 91.7 kWh = 1.8%
That is good enough for me. Especially given that the car has >50k miles on it and the battery is ~4 years old. Not much measurable degradation. The last time I checked the State of Health, it reported around 94%, but I have no insight into how that number is calculated, so I’m not very trusting of it. I’m not at all concerned about the state of health of our Mustang’s battery, even after 50k miles and 4 years.

If we believe the 2.5 miles/kWh and we believe the depth of discharge for the Lightning:
176 miles / 2.5 miles/kWh = 70.4 kWh
But.
70.4 / 48% = 146.7 kWh. Which is more than the nominal full capacity, including the “buffer.”

What’s going on here? My experience is that the state of charge percent is accurate. I believe the truck isn’t calculating efficiency correctly, which likely doesn’t surprise people who pay attention to the vehicle’s various metrics. In fact, it’s giving a lower efficiency than reality, which I’ve seen multiple times.

Assuming 48% of the 131 kWh was used, that’s 62.9 kWh to go 176 miles. That’s an efficiency of 2.8 miles/kWh.

I’m also happy with that.

Sponsored

 

[Jseis]

Did you have an elevation change or tailwind? I’d guess warmer weather played a part? Good kWh use!

Coastal WA, the ER Lariat averages 2.45 m/kwh and the ME SR about 3.5-3.6 M/kWh. Rural roads no freeway. Speeds AVG 45-56 mph.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Did you have an elevation change or tailwind? I’d guess warmer weather played a part? Good kWh use!

Coastal WA, the ER Lariat averages 2.45 m/kwh and the ME SR about 3.5-3.6 M/kWh. Rural roads no freeway. Speeds AVG 45-56 mph.

We did have an elevation change. And also an oncoming crosswind. I haven’t bothered to do the math to estimate which had a bigger impact, especially since I don’t know the average windspeed nor angle.

My ER Lariat averages about 2.5 miles/kWh around town at 7k feet elevation.
Our CA-Rt1 ER AWD averages about 4 miles/kWh around town at 7k feet elevation.

 

[FloridaMan655321]

Best color for the Mustang.

Was there a big difference when charging both as far as time and % goes? I know there is some, but just wondering if it’s really noticeable where if you had to take one or the other you would say “oh, for sure taking the Mustang, no way taking the Lightning” or is it more like “meh, there was a difference if I really gathered data, but I really wouldn’t have noticed it so I would take either”

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Best color for the Mustang.

Was there a big difference when charging both as far as time and % goes? I know there is some, but just wondering if it’s really noticeable where if you had to take one or the other you would say “oh, for sure taking the Mustang, no way taking the Lightning” or is it more like “meh, there was a difference if I really gathered data, but I really wouldn’t have noticed it so I would take either”

Oh, thanks for the reminder.

Charging speeds were nearly identical, which is what I expect and have experienced in separate road trips. Ford's strategy is capacity-based so a 90 kWh battery will charge in about the same time as a 130 kWh battery in their strategy.

Mustang:

Lightning:

 

[Quantum]

That is quite the elevation change - downhill indeed!

 

[Scorpio3d]

For reasons, we had to drive both the Mustang and the Lightning from northern AZ to Los Angeles the other day.

The Mustang is a 2022 California Route-1 AWD, Extended range (312 miles EPA, 91.7 kWh useable battery).
The Lightning is a 2023 Lariat Extended range (320 miles EPA, 131 kWh useable battery).

The Mustang has >50k miles on the odometer and the battery is ~4 years old.
The Lightning has >21k miles and is ~2 years old.

We told the vehicles to be charged to 100% by the time we left in the morning and they were ready to go.

The Mustang stayed behind the Lightning for most of the trip, but it wasn’t really drafting.

We stopped about halfway to take a restroom break and charge a bit.
We’d driven ~176 miles. Our stop was the new charging station in Yucca, AZ, across the highway from the Proving Grounds.

At that point, the Mustang was at 50% charge and the Lightning was at 52% charge.

The Mustang claimed 3.9 miles/kWh efficiency on a drive with ~70 mph average speed.
The Lightning claimed 2.5 miles/kWh efficiency on the same ~70 mph average speed.
(The slight differences in time and miles in the images below is because the Mustang driver shut off the car for a short time while running a very quick errand.)

If we believe the 3.9 miles/kWh efficiency for the Mustang:
176 miles / 3.9 miles/kWh = 45 kWh.
45 kWh / 50% = 90 kWh.

According to this, battery degradation is minimal.
1.7 kWh / 91.7 kWh = 1.8%
That is good enough for me. Especially given that the car has >50k miles on it and the battery is ~4 years old. Not much measurable degradation. The last time I checked the State of Health, it reported around 94%, but I have no insight into how that number is calculated, so I’m not very trusting of it. I’m not at all concerned about the state of health of our Mustang’s battery, even after 50k miles and 4 years.

If we believe the 2.5 miles/kWh and we believe the depth of discharge for the Lightning:
176 miles / 2.5 miles/kWh = 70.4 kWh
But.
70.4 / 48% = 146.7 kWh. Which is more than the nominal full capacity, including the “buffer.”

What’s going on here? My experience is that the state of charge percent is accurate. I believe the truck isn’t calculating efficiency correctly, which likely doesn’t surprise people who pay attention to the vehicle’s various metrics. In fact, it’s giving a lower efficiency than reality, which I’ve seen multiple times.

Assuming 48% of the 131 kWh was used, that’s 62.9 kWh to go 176 miles. That’s an efficiency of 2.8 miles/kWh.

I’m also happy with that.

Love that grabber blue!

 

[Scorpio3d]

For reasons, we had to drive both the Mustang and the Lightning from northern AZ to Los Angeles the other day.

The Mustang is a 2022 California Route-1 AWD, Extended range (312 miles EPA, 91.7 kWh useable battery).
The Lightning is a 2023 Lariat Extended range (320 miles EPA, 131 kWh useable battery).

The Mustang has >50k miles on the odometer and the battery is ~4 years old.
The Lightning has >21k miles and is ~2 years old.

We told the vehicles to be charged to 100% by the time we left in the morning and they were ready to go.

The Mustang stayed behind the Lightning for most of the trip, but it wasn’t really drafting.

We stopped about halfway to take a restroom break and charge a bit.
We’d driven ~176 miles. Our stop was the new charging station in Yucca, AZ, across the highway from the Proving Grounds.

At that point, the Mustang was at 50% charge and the Lightning was at 52% charge.

The Mustang claimed 3.9 miles/kWh efficiency on a drive with ~70 mph average speed.
The Lightning claimed 2.5 miles/kWh efficiency on the same ~70 mph average speed.
(The slight differences in time and miles in the images below is because the Mustang driver shut off the car for a short time while running a very quick errand.)

If we believe the 3.9 miles/kWh efficiency for the Mustang:
176 miles / 3.9 miles/kWh = 45 kWh.
45 kWh / 50% = 90 kWh.

According to this, battery degradation is minimal.
1.7 kWh / 91.7 kWh = 1.8%
That is good enough for me. Especially given that the car has >50k miles on it and the battery is ~4 years old. Not much measurable degradation. The last time I checked the State of Health, it reported around 94%, but I have no insight into how that number is calculated, so I’m not very trusting of it. I’m not at all concerned about the state of health of our Mustang’s battery, even after 50k miles and 4 years.

If we believe the 2.5 miles/kWh and we believe the depth of discharge for the Lightning:
176 miles / 2.5 miles/kWh = 70.4 kWh
But.
70.4 / 48% = 146.7 kWh. Which is more than the nominal full capacity, including the “buffer.”

What’s going on here? My experience is that the state of charge percent is accurate. I believe the truck isn’t calculating efficiency correctly, which likely doesn’t surprise people who pay attention to the vehicle’s various metrics. In fact, it’s giving a lower efficiency than reality, which I’ve seen multiple times.

Assuming 48% of the 131 kWh was used, that’s 62.9 kWh to go 176 miles. That’s an efficiency of 2.8 miles/kWh.

I’m also happy with that.

I know it would not be exactly be the same , but I wonder how much of a difference if the Mach-e was in front??

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I know it would not be exactly be the same , but I wonder how much of a difference if the Mach-e was in front??

I’ve driven the Mustang the same route (with different stops because the Yucca stop is new).
In general, I get between 3.5 and 3.9 miles/kWh in the Mustang for the first leg of the trip, mostly depending on season. Then a bit lower for the second leg. And finally 3.7-3.9 for the third leg up over the Cajon pass and into the valley.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I know it would not be exactly be the same , but I wonder how much of a difference if the Mach-e was in front??

My partner doesn’t set the cruise control to the closest-following setting, so drafting was pretty unimportant.

 

[Scorpio3d]

I’ve driven the Mustang the same route (with different stops because the Yucca stop is new).
In general, I get between 3.5 and 3.9 miles/kWh in the Mustang for the first leg of the trip, mostly depending on season. Then a bit lower for the second leg. And finally 3.7-3.9 for the third leg up over the Cajon pass and into the valley.

I just meant I wonder what the efficiency difference for the lightning (actually both vehicles )would be if it was following? I know you said you weren’t drafting necessarily, but I’m sure y’all were not too far behind each other?
LOL-I guess we were posting at the same time, but you beat me to it

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I just meant I wonder what the efficiency difference for the lightning (actually both vehicles )would be if it was following? I know you said you weren’t drafting necessarily, but I’m sure y’all were not too far behind each other?

She mostly kept the same speed, and probably 3 bars distance on the adaptive cruise control. However, whenever I sped up to pass, she just maintained her speed and would catch up with me when I slowed back down.

It’s generally worse for air resistance/drag to be in the turbulent space a few car lengths behind a vehicle instead of in the “slip stream” that’s very close behind the lead vehicle.

I really don’t think there was much interaction between the two vehicles for most of the drive.

 

[jeep2liberty]

Does the Lightning have a bed / tonneau cover? (Always an interesting topic if they help efficiency or not).

 

[RickLightning]

Does the Lightning have a bed / tonneau cover? (Always an interesting topic if they help efficiency or not).

They don't.

 

[RickLightning]

You cannot compute battery degradation in that manner. 3.9 could be 3.949% or 3.851%. 50% SOC could be 50.49 or 49.51%.

176/3.949=44.57. 44.57/50.49=88.3٪. 44.57/49.51=90%.
176/3.851=45.70. 45.7/50.49=90.5%. 45.7/49.51=92.3٪.
So, we have a range of 88.3% to 92.3%, a difference of 4 points, and don't know if the battery is at 77 degrees.

Using CarScanner, at 77 degree battery temp, at 100% charge (if you went low, then charged to 100% and let it cell balance), it is somewhat accurate. SOH is most accurate at 100% SOC and 77 degrees.

My Mach-E SOH has gone up, not down, on recent trips... Same with Lightning, which is now at 100% again.

The truck uses about 40% more energy, sometimes more, but the % of battery used, as you found, is close to the Mach-E.

With the faster Lightning charging curve, they both charge in similar times, with the Lightning pulling in 40% more kW.

Sponsored