Performance mods for more power?

[trev5150]

I suggest you go read that again....

I suggest you find the part where you intrinsically supported exactly what I said in your feeble reply.

You did.

You really, really did.

Don't get back to me, I don't care enough after this.

Sponsored

 

[RickKeen]

As others have mentioned, dropping weight is probably the most straightforward way to improve the performance. Cut the roof off above the seatbelt attachment points for starters. Spare tire has to go, motor shields have to go. Ditch the rear bumper and hitch. Frunk liner, gone. Pedestrian safety speaker isn’t needed, it protects pedestrians, not you, so who really gives an eff? Air filter? Gone, unless you got one with high flow for performance. All the airbags, major weight savings potential, so gone as well. And those crumple zones? Well after 40 years of marriage, you kinda sorta wanna die, so we’ll drop those off with the torch.

/sarcasm

Frunk liner is actually something that could be a legit weight reduction.
Cabin air filter and cabin heat/AC/fan probably a bit involved but could be ditched if people really want to cut weight.

 

[I <3 My Lightning]

As others have mentioned, dropping weight is probably the most straightforward way to improve the performance. Cut the roof off above the seatbelt attachment points for starters. Spare tire has to go, motor shields have to go. Ditch the rear bumper and hitch. Frunk liner, gone. Pedestrian safety speaker isn’t needed, it protects pedestrians, not you, so who really gives an eff? Air filter? Gone, unless you got one with high flow for performance. All the airbags, major weight savings potential, so gone as well. And those crumple zones? Well after 40 years of marriage, you kinda sorta wanna die, so we’ll drop those off with the torch.

/sarcasm

/Sarcasm on.... No duh... Lol

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Can you expand on this? I understand heat but chemistry might as well be witchcraft.

The rate at which chemical reactions happen is limited, which means (safe) battery output is limited. This is true in an end-member sense, but an NMC or LFP battery can safely reach far higher discharge amperages than the other parts of the Lightning can handle.

For example, a 10C discharge rate is possible and safe with both the NMC and LFP battery chemistries. The voltage sags (the chemistry lags) pretty quickly with such a high discharge rate, but it’s possible to do it for a short time, such as during a drag race.

The Lightning ER battery has 143 kWh / ~400 volts ~= 357.5 Ah; A 10C discharge rate is 3575 Amps. The contactors in the high voltage junction box are probably not rated for more than 1000 or 1500 Amps (the ones on the 2022 Mach-E are rated for 500 A; I don’t know what the Lightning has).

Assuming the bus is capable of handling it, a 10C discharge rate would push 1430 kVA into the motors. But they’re only capable of 433 kVA (which is about 3C discharge rate, nowhere near 10C), perhaps a bit more.

The truck’s acceleration is not limited by its battery discharge rate.

In an ideal world with perfect traction and 100% efficient power transfer, the motors it has could push a vehicle with the Lightning's mass from 0 to 60 mph in ~1.9 seconds. Drag doesn’t matter much until around 40-ish mph, so the brick-shape isn’t a huge deal for short-duration accelerations to about 60 mph.

The truck's acceleration is not limited by its motors.

Neither the power plant nor the motor power/torque are the “problem." The truck is traction limited. If you reduce its mass without compensating with better traction, it will be even more traction limited.

Tire slip, inefficient power transfer, and other complications get in the way of the truck's acceleration. The soft suspension wastes some power. Launch control could be better. The OEM tires are crap for hard acceleration. Traction control could use a better response profile. If Ford took a lesson from Lucid's traction control response rate, they could shave quite a bit off the Lightning’s 0-60. Swapping in lighter, stickier tires and lighter wheels might help a bit, and reducing their radius could help a bit too, if they were sticky enough.

In my opinion, for what the vehicle is, 0-60 in 3.8-4.1 seconds is rather impressive.

 

[Henry Ford]

In my opinion, for what the vehicle is, 0-60 in 3.8-4.1 seconds is rather impressive.

Thanks for the explanation. This was my intuition with my limited knowledge.

 

[pullinggs]

In my opinion, for what the vehicle is, 0-60 in 3.8-4.1 seconds is rather impressive.

When I was younger I used to argue about things like 0-60 acceleration, back when getting there in 5 seconds was unusual for an off-the-lot ride.

These days, it feels more like, "Zero-to-dead in less than 4 seconds... that's probably fast enough for me." These are just AMAZINGLY quick vehicles.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

When I was younger I used to argue about things like 0-60 acceleration, back when getting there in 5 seconds was unusual for an off-the-lot ride.

These days, it feels more like, "Zero-to-dead in less than 4 seconds... that's probably fast enough for me." These are just AMAZINGLY quick vehicles.

Exactly.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I generally agree but would like more punch in the 50-80 range. It is already impressive but I have noticed that accelerstion at high speeds tapers off with battery SOC.

I had a ratted out Ford Escape pull some shenanigans the other day and the lighting barely walked him at 65mph, he did have the jump though.

...

Well maybe I don't actually need more power...

I usually give them a half-hearted 2-second accelerator flooring and then back off and let them win. I had a loud Mustang with a Coyote engine try to race my Mustang Mach-E on the I-10 in El Paso a couple years ago. I boosted past them, let them catch up, and then “lost” the race. Gave them a bit of ego boost and let me have a little chuckle while also staying safe. I’ve lost enough and won enough races not to care anymore.

The coal rollers, though... I’ll leave them choking on their own exhaust every time.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I generally agree but would like more punch in the 50-80 range. It is already impressive but I have noticed that accelerstion at high speeds tapers off with battery SOC.

The 50-80 mph range is where lower mass (and a better drag coefficient, but we can’t do much about that) is key to higher acceleration. If this were the speed range that was the biggest concern (i.e., you’d be fine with having to lower acceleration from 0 due to possibly losing traction), then dropping mass could make a major difference. This acceleration isn’t limited by traction but by inertia. My truck has a 2177 kg GVWR, 868 kg payload, so 1452 kg with me driving. Drop 290 kg (640 pounds) in mass and it’ll accelerate ~20% faster from 50mph (if we ignore wind resistance, but…)

Sponsored