Slight Reduction In Acceleration. Has Anyone Else Experienced This Issue.

[ClevelandBeemer]

There is also the fact that the Ford numbers are on a prepped (high traction) surface. Traction control will and does pull power when you try to do a hard launch which will show up in the times and vary based on the amount of traction you have. Remember, even if it isn't cold enough to be impacting the battery or motors, cold tires have less traction! If you haven't yet turn it all the way off (press and hold) and then try a hard launch and see what happens. 4 wheel burn outs are fun!

100%. TC should always be off when doing benchmarking runs. That said Fords numbers can be replicated on a non-prepped surface.

I’m looking forward to the spring so I can get some runs at the track!

Sponsored

 

[PreservedSwine]

Full disclosure: when I first saw this thread, I thought everybody was nuts.

Then I received a phantom update, and it definitely accelerates differently post update.

 

[blb228]

Now for your run yesterday, was the road wet or covered in salt? Was SoC > 80%? Given the temperatures was 100% power available in the gauge cluster? Finally was TC off? Colder temps will certainly impact your times but just curious if there were other mitigating factors.

TC was ON for all tests thus far - I haven't practiced hard starts enough in this thing to do better than the existing TC on dead stop starts. Yes, 100% power was available - I had it plugged in prior to heading out. Road conditions and state of charge were the same (as close as possible in a test like this) [dry and cleanish] in both 'tests'.

I wouldn't be surprised if the update that has changed this for several does have something to do with traction control/power delivery changes from prior. (I've had my studdering/shuttering on acceleration change frequency's several different times from my ownership already-)

Feel free to pick apart the differences/potential differences from my experience. I realize the gear oil would be a little thicker and the air is more dense in the second set of tests...... I wouldn't think air temp would have THAT much of an influence on these motors..... but it sure did on my old Ford Taurus SHO's with the two different length intake runners!

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

TC was ON for all tests thus far - I haven't practiced hard starts enough in this thing to do better than the existing TC on dead stop starts. Yes, 100% power was available - I had it plugged in prior to heading out. Road conditions and state of charge were the same (as close as possible in a test like this) [dry and cleanish] in both 'tests'.

I wouldn't be surprised if the update that has changed this for several does have something to do with traction control/power delivery changes from prior. (I've had my studdering/shuttering on acceleration change frequency's several different times from my ownership already-)

Feel free to pick apart the differences/potential differences from my experience. I realize the gear oil would be a little thicker and the air is more dense in the second set of tests...... I wouldn't think air temp would have THAT much of an influence on these motors..... but it sure did on my old Ford Taurus SHO's with the two different length intake runners!

Again, this is great stuff. It would be nice seeing a result with no TC just to remove that variable, but otherwise your process seems reasonable.

This leaves you with two outcomes:
1. Due to the cold temperatures, traction issues are slowing you down by about 0.5s.

2. You’re also impacted my this mystery update that has reduced power output/deployment.

Hopefully it’s option 1, that said I’ve had wet launches that were better in very wet conditions (see the screenshot below)….. That said, TC was fully off so it’s possible the TC power cut is being a bit aggressive for you. Ultimately that’s going to come down to temperature and road surface. If not comfortable disabling TC you could always do a 30 to 60 roll to remove the traction variable.

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

At the end of the day 1/4 mile is not a very good way to measure this effect. Not only is there the fact that most people dont have 1/4 mile times of their truck, traction will always be an issue, there is also the fact that 1/4 mile runs are easy to predict and if Ford was really trying to sneak in a stealth power cut could detect dead stop, no throttle to full throttle easily and sneak back the power.

What really needs to be done is to measure HVB current like the Mach-e guys did. Using OBD data we could see if maximum current during NOT-quarter mile runs is potentially higher on early, non-updated 22s and 23s than compared to 24s and 25s. This is a direct measurement of HOW ford would cut power.

.

A quick stab at the throttle earlier had current in my truck spiking at over 1200 amps but it was hardly a good test

Was someone advocating for 1/4 mile times to troubleshoot?

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

1/4 mile or 0-60, same thing

Not even close but to each their own.

 

[Timeless Epoch]

You should be able to monitor the power going to the motors in CarScanner during a full throttle 30MPH jaunt. Should hit 433KW’s combined for the large batteries.

 

[TaxmanHog]

A quick stab at the throttle earlier had current in my truck spiking at over 1200 amps but it was hardly a good test

How are you and 10 other testers going to bench mark a STAB at the throttle, for crying out loud!!!!

WOT is the only way to go, everyone's STOMP will be the same, pussy footing the pedal will result in non repeatable measures

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

Obviously they are not the exact same thing, no crap. Nobody is asking for anyone persons personal favorite. For the purpose of testing to determine if there is reduced performance they are practically the same.
As I said, using HVB current is a more accurate method as it is directly comparing the parameter Ford would manipulate to reduce performance.

I mean you literally brought it up, but ok…..

Also HVB current is no more accurate than a 0-60 run. You’re at WOT for about 4 seconds getting meaningful data. Also HVB current is susceptible to TC pulling power to manage traction. So unless it’s is known what the HVB current should be at a given speed then I’d argue it’s just as difficult a metric unless it’s a drastic difference.

Either way both methods can obviously come to the same conclusion.

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

Woof...whatever, moving on.


HVB current is capped, it is the metric Ford limits in order to determine max performance.

Point being that 0-60 or 1/4 mile time will be suspect able to a bunch of factors. HVB current will have a set maximum. We dont have to determine a variable metric over time, we just have to record a single instance maximum value. We also can record that value over a wide variety of conditions (start speed, throttle opening rate, even traction to an extent, won't change the results).

Again, the maximum allowed current will be the thing Ford limits to restrict performance if they are doing so.

So no, it is actually far more accurate than 0-60 or 1/4 mile time, you only have to record the peak maximum and it is directly measuring the very thing we are trying to determine.

Woof indeed.

Of course the HVB current has a predefined max, that’s why we don’t have 2,000hp trucks.

However you still need to hit conditions where the truck will ask for the max, then you need to know what the max should actually be. To make this more interesting, the max will vary between the SR, ER, and newer 123kWh battery.

So I’m genuinely curious, are there published maximum for each pack?

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

If you cant hit the max you cant get 0-60 or 1/4 mile times either. Except in those you have to hit the max the WHOLE time, simply measuring current you only have to hit it at some point.

Literally was out tonight in cold snow with wet roads. There was no way to get a run time in but I was able to see maximum current at some point.

Totally agree. However the 0-60 times are published by Ford, so there is an actual benchmark. Is maximum current limit published for each pack?

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

Ford uses a rollout as you said, anyone doing this will be using a phone app or at best a race box. Plus as each truck has different weights, in some places SIGNIFICANTLY different weights, the published times and the times a person's specific truck could achieve can be highly variable.

As for max current all we need is to see peak values that are higher or lower than other trucks.

Indeed, there are many variables. Yet on dry and clean asphalt in temps above 50F should be within a tenth or two with a single occupant in the truck. Again, ford has published the times for each truck model accounting for the different weights and wheel and tire options. Furthermore Car and Driver, MoterTrend, and others have published their data.

Conversely using community HVB peak current targets can be useful if there are actually published targets to hit. So tell me, what should 2024 SR and ER owner see for peak current? Is 433kW good? How about 455kW? Perhaps 473kW?

 

[Realtruck]

I don’t think a butt-o-meter is accurate enough to detect small fluctuations in power. But if your sphincty senses were on to something, anything that affects traction will affect acceleration. Cold tires, worn tires, dew, rain, oily road, etc…

Haha the butt-o-meter and sphincty senses got me

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

.. those are not currents...

I just explained how it can work. I get you don't want to accept that, and are trying to push your narative about using published numbers, but I said what I did for a reason.

BTW, I have not seen individual 0-60 numbers for each trim, battery, and wheel combination as you said. Could you provide the link for that.

Indeed kW is power…. It’s been a long day. Again, the point still stands. How many amps should owners of each pack expect to see?

To answer your question, Ford.com has published all the 0-60 times over various model years. Right now it appears to only have the 2025 Lariat ER posted at 3.8 seconds and the Platinum at 4.0 seconds. However previous Ford publications circulated to dealership networks are easily searchable and show both the SR and ER packs at links like this: https://www.fordoffeasterville.com/blogs/4896/ford-lightning-0-60-times-and-acceleration

As mentioned plenty of auto outlets have also tested these trucks coming up with the following:
Pro/XLT SR = 4.2s
Flash 123kWh = 4.0s
Platinum = 4.0s
Flash/Lariat ER = 3.8s

 

[chriserx]

Indeed kW is power…. It’s been a long day. Again, the point still stands. How many amps should owners of each pack expect to see?

To answer your question, Ford.com has published all the 0-60 times over various model years. Right now it appears to only have the 2025 Lariat ER posted at 3.8 seconds and the Platinum at 4.0 seconds. However previous Ford publications circulated to dealership networks are easily searchable and show both the SR and ER packs at links like this: https://www.fordoffeasterville.com/blogs/4896/ford-lightning-0-60-times-and-acceleration

As mentioned plenty of auto outlets have also tested these trucks coming up with the following:
Pro/XLT SR = 4.2s
Flash 123kWh = 4.0s
Platinum = 4.0s
Flash/Lariat ER = 3.8s

Maybe I missed something, but if you're talking about amp draw, divide the kW stat (after multiplying by 1000) by pack voltage to get amps? Or was this rhetorical?

Sponsored