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

[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

Sponsored

 

[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?

 

[Firn]

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

So we don't have a source of official numbers delineated by trim, wheels, battery size, etc.

BTW, the link provided isnt a Ford memo to dealers, its a Dealer advertising page. That cannot be confirmed as a Ford official number as you dont know what the source of the information is. The other thing is it does not delineate by trim (weight).

Which means 0-60 or 1/4 mile times means we are using community derived numbers...

And what are we expecting as a result here. If someone says they put a 0-60 app on their phone and then records lower numbers, the reduced performance claim is validated? How many tenths slower for a loaded Lariat is considered reduced performance? If my ER pro shows a 0-60 of 4.1 on the Torque app is that reduced performance? What is reduced performance for a Lariat ER, 4.2? 4.3? 4.5?

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

So we don't have a source of official numbers delineated by trim, wheels, battery size, etc.

BTW, the link provided isnt a Ford memo to dealers, its a Dealer advertising page. That cannot be confirmed as a Ford official number as you dont know what the source of the information is. The other thing is it does not delineate by trim (weight).

Which means 0-60 or 1/4 mile times means we are using community derived numbers...

And what are we expecting as a result here. If someone says they put a 0-60 app on their phone and then records lower numbers, the reduced performance claim is validated? How many tenths slower for a loaded Lariat is considered reduced performance? If my ER pro shows a 0-60 of 4.1 on the Torque app is that reduced performance? What is reduced performance for a Lariat ER, 4.2? 4.3? 4.5?

Are you for real? You mean the memo about the truck that was distributed to hundreds of dealers didn’t come from Ford?

Again we do have official data from Ford on various trims, you just don’t seem to want to look for it and that’s fine.

The difference here is the community (media) backs up Fords claims vs your “current” metric which you’ve yet to point out a community source.

But hey, you do you.

 

[Firn]

Are you for real? You mean the memo about the truck that was distributed to hundreds of dealers didn’t come from Ford?

Again we do have official data from Ford on various trims, you just don’t seem to want to look for it and that’s fine.

The difference here is the community (media) backs up Fords claims vs your “current” metric which you’ve yet to point out a community source.

But hey, you do you.

Not sure if you cant read or are purposely being obtuse.

No, you dont seem to want to provide it. And I expect its because you cant. It was your claim that those numbers are available, YOU provide it.

Do you think people dont notice when you try and make confrontational statements to drive the discussion a different direction so that you dont have to answer the question. Again, what is considered proof that performance has been reduced? You say we have numbers, so when someone posts their personal numbers that are slower, that proves performance has been reduced, right?

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

Not sure if you cant read or are purposely being obtuse.

No, you dont seem to want to provide it. And I expect its because you cant. It was your claim that those numbers are available, YOU provide it.

Do you think people dont notice when you try and make confrontational statements to drive the discussion a different direction so that you dont have to answer the question. Again, what is considered proof that performance has been reduced? You say we have numbers, so when someone posts their personal numbers that are slower, that proves performance has been reduced, right?

All of this arguing and posturing is becoming boring. The difference between our positions is I’ve provided hard numbers as an actual benchmark, while you’re suggesting there’s a better alternative while not actually citing the benchmark.

Speaking of being obtuse, I think you know the nuance of 0-60 runs and we’ve throughly discussed it. At this stage you’ve offered nothing but an argument. If you have an alternative, what is the benchmark and where is the data coming from?

Unless you have data to offer, then I’m done with this conversation.

 

[TaxmanHog]

After the release of the Lightning several members did drag strip testing, I need to take a look at those threads and the time slips, curious to see the historic values, and I'd pay attention to the eighth mile time/MPH as well as the quarter mile values, then these folks could do a repeat pass, suggesting they set up conditions be as close to previously run.

 

[Firn]

All of this arguing and posturing is becoming boring. The difference between our positions is I’ve provided hard numbers as an actual benchmark, while you’re suggesting there’s a better alternative while not actually citing the benchmark.

Speaking of being obtuse I think you know the nuance of 0-60 runs and we’ve throughly discussed it. At this stage you’ve offered nothing but an argument. If you have an alternative, what is the benchmark and where is the data coming from?

Unless you have data to offer, then I’m done with this conversation.

Funny you think there is only one person in an argument. You wanted to have this argument, dont be upset because that is what happened.

 

[davehu]

Lately, I've noticed a small reduction in my ability to accelerate. I don't have any warnings or other issues.

I tried to demonstrate my Lightning's ability to accelerate to a friend today and it didn't have that impressive take off as it normally does.

Has anyone else experienced this. If I didn't know better, I would say the acceleration curve has been modified.
What all can effect the acceleration?

I know the A/C running and other things being powered could possibly cause this effect. Could the vehicle been running something in the background that zapped it's acceleration?

Looking for help.

Thanks

I think you've done it so many times that your brain is not impressed anymore! my buddies are still going @#^#$%# that's fast.

 

[blb228]

....stab, to full throttle and then relatively quickly back off. Agreed, WOT is the only meaningful way to do this.

I did also say it was not a good test.

. I agree it's not a good test, but it was a test I had previous data on and could replicate.

Did slightly better testing a short while ago.
. at low speed going full throttle peaked just under 1300amps.
. as speed increases maximum current tapers off. Full throttle at around 60mph gave around 1200 amps, and up around 80 mph full throttle was closer to 1100.

I think this is better information - and honestly more in line with how I feel my truck is behaving differently than before (I noticed the 'downgraded feeling' not from doing 0-60 times). I don't know a lot about "EV power delivery" in a technical way - however I have very keen senses, to a fault sometimes. I'm not convinced WOT would be the actual verifier in this, but it might be - Is it possible to cut power intermittently or have 'pulsing power' to essentially improve efficiency to these motors???

Could the sensation many like me are feeling be due to a potential "remapping" of Sport Mode in our trucks? –I feel like my sport mode has less regen braking than it did prior. Again, I have no actual data to back this up unfortunately. Just my trusty habits on where I let off the gas coasting into my neighborhood, and how I didn't used to have to hit the brakes before the turn, but I do now, as of several weeks ago.

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

Have you done any troubleshooting of the issue like 12v disconnect? It is interesting the behavior changed. I wonder if it’s running the “normal” map instead of the “sport” hence the difference you’re feeling, especially on regen.

 

[blb228]

Have you done any troubleshooting of the issue like 12v disconnect? It is interesting the behavior changed. I wonder if it’s running the “normal” map instead of the “sport” hence the difference you’re feeling, especially on regen.

Yes, I have done the 12v 'reset'...... And sync reset every few weeks when it acts up-

It's not running the Normal map, as there is still a difference between Normal and Sport, Sport just doesn't feel as "aggressive" as before.

Maybe related? –Sometimes as of recent (1 in 4 times) whenever I first start the truck and drive, the only modes available are "Normal" - see attached. This persists generally between 60-90 seconds or so. Even after selecting Sport after all this, the truck often will 'fall out' of Sport Mode and I go back in an re-select, usually it persists this second time. Anyone else seeing this?

 

[RLXXI]

Yes, I have done the 12v 'reset'...... And sync reset every few weeks when it acts up-

It's not running the Normal map, as there is still a difference between Normal and Sport, Sport just doesn't feel as "aggressive" as before.

Maybe related? –Sometimes as of recent (1 in 4 times) whenever I first start the truck and drive, the only modes available are "Normal" - see attached. This persists generally between 60-90 seconds or so. Even after selecting Sport after all this, the truck often will 'fall out' of Sport Mode and I go back in an re-select, usually it persists this second time. Anyone else seeing this?

Make any changes via forscan?

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

Yes, I have done the 12v 'reset'...... And sync reset every few weeks when it acts up-

It's not running the Normal map, as there is still a difference between Normal and Sport, Sport just doesn't feel as "aggressive" as before.

Maybe related? –Sometimes as of recent (1 in 4 times) whenever I first start the truck and drive, the only modes available are "Normal" - see attached. This persists generally between 60-90 seconds or so. Even after selecting Sport after all this, the truck often will 'fall out' of Sport Mode and I go back in an re-select, usually it persists this second time. Anyone else seeing this?

Yikes….. Something seems very borked. I wonder if it’s worth taking to the dealer for a complete reset?

Sponsored