Efficiency

[derelict]

Your numbers definitely seem low. I average 1.8 and I have a 35" ATs, level lift and removed the front air dam, etc... at 80mph I get about 1.2-1.4... around town 2.0-2.2

Sponsored

 

[jackdeaoux]

Your numbers definitely seem low. I average 1.8 and I have a 35" ATs, level lift and removed the front air dam, etc... at 80mph I get about 1.2-1.4... around town 2.0-2.2

If I saw 1.8 I’d be very excited. Really I get better than 1.4. I’ll try the 12v disconnect and restart

 

[RickLightning]

Florida is certainly a different animal, but I will do 70-75 during long trips and see about 1.8 mi/kwh. If going up hill both ways I could see getting down to 1.2
Maybe try and reset some things? I don't know, I haven't had to trouble shoot this issue. I could maybe see resetting the trip, if that doesn't work pull the negative from the 12v battery for 20 minutes and see if that does anything. Sometimes the 'computer' needs a nice cold reboot.

If I saw 1.8 I’d be very excited. Really I get better than 1.4. I’ll try the 12v disconnect and restart

Disconnecting will do nothing. Trip odometer records actual efficiency. Resets change the estimated range, nothing more.

 

[pullinggs]

The OP is in Walnut Creek, so basically flat and not cold at all. I agree, something doesn't smell right. I'll support the previous suggestion to reset Trip 2 (or 1, whatever) and make a round trip of about 30 miles. If you're not seeing close to 2.0, something is not right.

 

[jackdeaoux]

The OP is in Walnut Creek, so basically flat and not cold at all. I agree, something doesn't smell right. I'll support the previous suggestion to reset Trip 2 (or 1, whatever) and make a round trip of about 30 miles. If you're not seeing close to 2.0, something is not right.

I will make that little trip tomorrow and see.

 

[trev5150]

I haven't seen this mentioned in other posts, so: Reset your GOM and drive normally for a week. It seems to me like you've got a lot of rowdy data clogging up your statistics (after you've made sure you're driving 75 and below, not hammering the environmental controls, making sure the tires are the correct cold pressure etc. of course).

 

[RickLightning]

While a reset to Trip 1 or Trip 2 will reset to zero, that is the exact same data that This Trip shows at the end of each Trip, before you power off.

 

[Fountain 38]

New 2024 lightning Flash. Only 2 months since I got it and am disappointed with the numbers I see as far as how efficient it is. I realize road conditions weather etc can effect. All OEM stock on my truck no mods. I am seeing an average of 1.4 kwm. My driving is in town and freeway n an empty truck. I would regularly see 3 and above on my Ionic 6. I understand very different vehicles. Reading posts here guys are saying 2, 2.1 average kwm. While not new to ev driving new to ev trucks. Any ideas on how to improve my truck’s efficiency?

I have to agree with most of the commentors. I drove to work this morning which is 75 miles and I know the trip in is more up hill than down and cruising at 70MPH I saw 2.0 Miles per KWH
1.4 would be driving 80 in the cold and heating around 68F.

 

[Rthol21]

Live in San Diego, had my Platinum for almost three years and 19k miles now. Total average is 2.1kW/mi. Freeway driving absolutely destroys your range. This is not an aerodynamic design by any means, we are driving an electric brick around. I find efficiency drops once you exceed 60, significantly more after 70, 75. Which is tough because you need to go at least 70 on the freeway for saftey. Other killers of efficiency I’ve seen are hills and weather below 55 degrees. You’ll figure out your vehicle with time, just remember you are driving a super heavy, flat nose truck…not a pointy car.

 

[tubby]

There has been a lot of actual mi/kWh data in this forum showing fairly large variations. We all know there are lots of factors, my biggest one is cold temps and then wind, but I still think some of it has to do with the battery pacs themselves and this actual data points to that. Most may disagree, but this actual data that forum members are posting could prove the fact that minor manufacturing variations or defects could lead to small efficiency differences. No manufacturing process is perfect.

Also, if a pack performs significantly worse, even though no errors are displaying, it may still indicate a defect warranting inspection under Ford’s 8-year/100,000-mile battery warranty.

So in summary and maybe just as a different way to put the known variations aside and maybe think "inside the box" is variations in cell balancing, wiring, or thermal management system integration could cause some packs to experience faster degradation or early-life stress and thus could perform worse than others, even in identical trucks.

 

[Legacy23]

Can you post some pictures of a few of your trips after you've completed therm?

Ideally 10 miles or more.

 

[ryun]

How long is the commute you're doing? I see efficiency around what you're seeing if I'm using the HVAC and drive less than 5 miles.

I'm curious too: There's a power gauge on the dash in blue surrounding the battery gauge. How high is it while you're driving around?

 

[RickLightning]

There has been a lot of actual mi/kWh data in this forum showing fairly large variations. We all know there are lots of factors, my biggest one is cold temps and then wind, but I still think some of it has to do with the battery pacs themselves and this actual data points to that. Most may disagree, but this actual data that forum members are posting could prove the fact that minor manufacturing variations or defects could lead to small efficiency differences. No manufacturing process is perfect.

Also, if a pack performs significantly worse, even though no errors are displaying, it may still indicate a defect warranting inspection under Ford’s 8-year/100,000-mile battery warranty.

So in summary and maybe just as a different way to put the known variations aside and maybe think "inside the box" is variations in cell balancing, wiring, or thermal management system integration could cause some packs to experience faster degradation or early-life stress and thus could perform worse than others, even in identical trucks.

I'm going to disagree with your summary. The reality is that the geography and climate have a huge difference in efficiency. I've been on the Mach-E forum for 4 years, this one for a little less, and people say in Florida post ridiculously efficient numbers, with their flat roads and warm temps. Texas, Arizona, and some in CA. Then you get the places where it's not flat, and there are seasons. My lifetime over 15,000 miles is around 1.8. Most of my mileage is highway (trips), and I get 1.8 on those. Have I seen over 2.0 on the highway? Yes, when I had a 20mph tailwind.

On the Mach-E, I rarely get over 3.0, usually around 2.9. People post 3.3 or more all the time. Not in Michigan...

 

[K6CCC]

Only time I have seen that low is off-road driving up to mountaintop radio sites. And doing that is much less. 10 miles of crappy mountain dirt road with about 4,000 foot elevation gain resulted in 0.5 mi / KWH yesterday with several hundred pounds of stuff in the bed, both seat heaters, steering wheel heat, and moderate cabin heat. On the other hand, coming back down the battery percentage went up by 1%

Lifetime (2,900 miles), I am at 2.3 mi / KWH including several mountaintop trips. My 26 mile drive home from work usually is a little over 3 mi / KWH.

 

[RickLightning]

Only time I have seen that low is off-road driving up to mountaintop radio sites. And doing that is much less. 10 miles of crappy mountain dirt road with about 4,000 foot elevation gain resulted in 0.5 mi / KWH yesterday with several hundred pounds of stuff in the bed, both seat heaters, steering wheel heat, and moderate cabin heat. On the other hand, coming back down the battery percentage went up by 1%

Lifetime (2,900 miles), I am at 2.3 mi / KWH including several mountaintop trips. My 26 mile drive home from work usually is a little over 3 mi / KWH.

That "little over 3 mi/kWh is driving your 2.3.

Sponsored