[knicehit]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not sure who the driver is in the video but giving either uninformed or glorious info on range.

 

[GDN]

@1:50 mark he notes a 400 mile driving radius - I assume he meant range. This is a very interesting tidbit. Do we know who the Ford rep is?

 

[FM_Jack]

The interviewers, I couldn't stop cringing.

 

[knicehit]

@1:50 mark he notes a 400 mile driving radius - I assume he meant range. This is a very interesting tidbit. Do we know who the Ford rep is?

Would love to know if it was just a local dealer rep that doesn't know the product well or a Ford rep spilling too much.

 

[jason1168tx]

Wow and a 9.6 volt generator.

 

[EFX4]

The interviewers, I couldn't stop cringing.

Very typical of your average local news station sadly. I rather they just let the experts talk the whole way through.

 

[taxmanhog]

I'll informed local sales dude

 

[fyrdude]

I have to assume it's an uninformed associate. Actually, don't even have to '"assume". It's quite obvious. .

Many have stated that the range is underestimated at 300 miles. But, simple math tells you about where it "should be".
131 kWh battery. Assume about 120 is usable. It's a truck, so it's not going to be the most efficient EV on the market in terms of mi/wh. The Hummer is at less than 2 miles per wh. Heavier, bulkier. Rivian has an EPA range of 314 based on a 135 kWh battery, 125 usable, which works out to about 2.5 mi/wh. That's generous. I think "real world" range will be less in "normal" driving circumstances. But, using that as a guide. The Rivian is smaller, somewhat more aerodynamic and should be more efficient than a bigger F-150. But, likely not by coincidence, if we use the same 2.5 mi/wh figure, based on 120 usable, it calculates out exactly to Ford's estimated range of 300 miles. My guess is, the EPA rating could be a little less when its released. But, I can certainly guarantee the EPA or real world range will NOT be 400 miles as was suggested by one youtube video a while back. It would have to get 3.3 miles per wh. Not going to happen. Tesla's, until recently, were rated at that figure. Real world range in a Tesla is closer to 2.8 miles per kwh, based on "normal" driving (from firsthand experience). There's just no logical or illogical way the Ford truck is going to out perform the Tesla on range.

 

[FM_Jack]

I have to assume it's an uninformed associate. Actually, don't even have to '"assume". It's quite obvious. .

Many have stated that the range is underestimated at 300 miles. But, simple math tells you about where it "should be".
131 kWh battery. Assume about 120 is usable. It's a truck, so it's not going to be the most efficient EV on the market in terms of mi/wh. The Hummer is at less than 2 miles per wh. Heavier, bulkier. Rivian has an EPA range of 314 based on a 135 kWh battery, 125 usable, which works out to about 2.5 mi/wh. That's generous. I think "real world" range will be less in "normal" driving circumstances. But, using that as a guide. The Rivian is smaller, somewhat more aerodynamic and should be more efficient than a bigger F-150. But, likely not by coincidence, if we use the same 2.5 mi/wh figure, based on 120 usable, it calculates out exactly to Ford's estimated range of 300 miles. My guess is, the EPA rating could be a little less when its released. But, I can certainly guarantee the EPA or real world range will NOT be 400 miles as was suggested by one youtube video a while back. It would have to get 3.3 miles per wh. Not going to happen. Tesla's, until recently, were rated at that figure. Real world range in a Tesla is closer to 2.8 miles per kwh, based on "normal" driving (from firsthand experience). There's just no logical or illogical way the Ford truck is going to out perform the Tesla on range.

One video recently, that I'm completely forgetting where I saw it (maybe it was the pro at the vineyard in Sonoma), posted 1.7 mi/kwh.

And to your point about the Tesla number, how sure you about that? My mach e, while driving reasonably gets 3.3-3.5 on mostly highway driving. Just popping around town it'll sometimes jump up to 4-5 range. I would expect Teslas, like the 3 and Y, to get similar. The carwow channel did drives comparing multiple vehicles and most of them were all getting 3.3 - 3.8 range and they were also mostly doing highway driving (where EVs are least efficient). The Mach E was one of them, as was that BMW one, new Kia/Hyundai - all driven to 0%.

So while the 472 mile range figure that Brownlee posted is a potential that was based off a GOM it was probably driven in non-highway conditions at reasonable speeds giving that higher mi/kwh I see in my Mach E. I myself am hoping and will try to see if I can get 3 mi/kwh and at 100% that gives 393 but realistically I'm hoping for 2.2 - 2.5.

I will say, I wonder if anyone will do a comparison of a Lightning with the Max Tow package vs Non-Max Tow package and see if that extra cooling makes any difference in range.

 

[taxmanhog]

I will say, I wonder if anyone will do a comparison of a Lightning with the Max Tow package vs Non-Max Tow package and see if that extra cooling makes any difference in range.

If there is anyone in New England with a Lightning Lariat-ER without Max Tow Package, I'd be willing to share my loaded trailer and travel route to the drag strip at Epping for a comparison test.

 

[fyrdude]

One video recently, that I'm completely forgetting where I saw it (maybe it was the pro at the vineyard in Sonoma), posted 1.7 mi/kwh.

And to your point about the Tesla number, how sure you about that? My mach e, while driving reasonably gets 3.3-3.5 on mostly highway driving. Just popping around town it'll sometimes jump up to 4-5 range. I would expect Teslas, like the 3 and Y, to get similar. The carwow channel did drives comparing multiple vehicles and most of them were all getting 3.3 - 3.8 range and they were also mostly doing highway driving (where EVs are least efficient). The Mach E was one of them, as was that BMW one, new Kia/Hyundai - all driven to 0%.

So while the 472 mile range figure that Brownlee posted is a potential that was based off a GOM it was probably driven in non-highway conditions at reasonable speeds giving that higher mi/kwh I see in my Mach E. I myself am hoping and will try to see if I can get 3 mi/kwh and at 100% that gives 393 but realistically I'm hoping for 2.2 - 2.5.

I will say, I wonder if anyone will do a comparison of a Lightning with the Max Tow package vs Non-Max Tow package and see if that extra cooling makes any difference in range.

The Tesla "can" get 3.3 miles per kWh if driven very nicely. Most of the tests completed by magazines and such are done in a manufacturer friendly manner. They have to stay on their good side to continue to get vehicles for free to test. So, while they may be real tests, they are done in the most favorable manner possible. If you drive a Tesla, constant speed of 55 MPH with no elevation changes in 75 degree weather, you'll even outperform the EPA range. But, when I talk about normal driving, that means keeping up with the flow of traffic, elevation changes. Not always the best weather conditions, etc, etc. When I travel across the wide open California or Arizona deserts, I can assure you, I'm not travelling at 55 or 65 MPH. Speed limits are in the 70-75 MPH range. Get to Texas and they get up to 80 or 85 MPH. Consider that "most" drivers drive 5-15 MPH over the speed limit and I'm talking about Driving a Tesla at 75-80 MPH. I've had both, the Model 3 and Model S. Both of them averaged around 350-360 wh/mi. Using the low end figure, calculates out to about 2.85 miles per wh. If you push closer to the 80-85 mph range. You quickly get down closer to 2.5 miles per wh.

My current Model S is rated at 365 miles. If I go to Arizona in January, in the evening when it gets down into the 30's or 40's, I'm lucky if I get 200 miles in range at about 80-85 mph, which is keeping up the flow of traffic on the wide open desert freeways.

While Tesla has managed to increase the range ratings from around 300 to 400, despite still having the same 100 kWh battery, I've barely noticed any change in the more important wh/mi figure from my prior 300 mile rated car to my current 365 mile rated car. Can't speak to the new ones rated at over 400 miles. Point is, my 300 mile car used about 350-360 wh per mile. My current 360 mile rated car also uses about 350-360 wh per mile. Same size battery between the two cars, thus, roughly the same "real world" range.

 

[FM_Jack]

The Tesla "can" get 3.3 miles per kWh if driven very nicely. Most of the tests completed by magazines and such are done in a manufacturer friendly manner. They have to stay on their good side to continue to get vehicles for free to test. So, while they may be real tests, they are done in the most favorable manner possible. If you drive a Tesla, constant speed of 55 MPH with no elevation changes in 75 degree weather, you'll even outperform the EPA range. But, when I talk about normal driving, that means keeping up with the flow of traffic, elevation changes. Not always the best weather conditions, etc, etc. When I travel across the wide open California or Arizona deserts, I can assure you, I'm not travelling at 55 or 65 MPH. Speed limits are in the 70-75 MPH range. Get to Texas and they get up to 80 or 85 MPH. Consider that "most" drivers drive 5-15 MPH over the speed limit and I'm talking about Driving a Tesla at 75-80 MPH. I've had both, the Model 3 and Model S. Both of them averaged around 350-360 wh/mi. Using the low end figure, calculates out to about 2.85 miles per wh. If you push closer to the 80-85 mph range. You quickly get down closer to 2.5 miles per wh.

My current Model S is rated at 365 miles. If I go to Arizona in January, in the evening when it gets down into the 30's or 40's, I'm lucky if I get 200 miles in range at about 80-85 mph, which is keeping up the flow of traffic on the wide open desert freeways.

While Tesla has managed to increase the range ratings from around 300 to 400, despite still having the same 100 kWh battery, I've barely noticed any change in the more important wh/mi figure from my prior 300 mile rated car to my current 365 mile rated car. Can't speak to the new ones rated at over 400 miles. Point is, my 300 mile car used about 350-360 wh per mile. My current 360 mile rated car also uses about 350-360 wh per mile. Same size battery between the two cars, thus, roughly the same "real world" range.

So I was mostly speaking of driving reasonably. That's why I mentioned the carwow videos because whether they were trying to be favorable to the manufacturer or not they were keeping all 6 under the same conditions. Their main point of the video was to see what would happen when they get close to 0 and who would go the longest. Their mi/kWh numbers were generated in the "best" conditions of driving them, not external (they are in the UK and drove north).

My personal driving habit is heavy footed. I have a v8 manual coupe. I drive 15 or more over regularly. But when I drive the Mach E and I'm trying to conserve battery and get the best range it isn't impossible. That's all I'm saying. These numbers aren't "myths". It is easier for me to drive those speeds as well when I use ACC and just steer. I live in the northeast and in January I drove with 3 other people in the car to DC, I never went over 71 mph, used ACC the entire time and little to no heat (because I preconditioned and it was in the mid 40s that day and sunny) and I got 3.3-3.5 mi/kwh. That is mostly highway driving. (the overall trip measurement with 8k miles is 3.3)

My normal work commute is 45-ish miles and if I keep to about 70-74 mph at the max, I consistently get 3 and above on the mi/kWh. It isn't hard. We have hills and what not too. My house is near a lake and it is a 400+ ft elevation drop from my house (sucks when I go for a run). Ours is AWD btw. If I lived somewhere flat, the RWD would be awesome and get more range.

Also, not sure how you only get up to 85 in those situations. Just commuting I can bang 3 digits. V8 manual is fun and doesn't feel any different between 70 mph and...wherever. The Mach E throttles you, so eh. I'll also say, when I do get my truck, it is going to be my commuter and I won't be driving it conservatively because it is only 40 miles and I'll have the ER. But in the Mach E AWD SR with only 80% I have to be mindful on my commute. I started off one morning at 5 am and it was 10 degree weather.