F150 Lightning Charge Curve Insights. Could Mach-E do the same?

[ElectrifyCLT]

About an hour into @OutofSpecKyle 's F150 Lightning review, he was able to get it onto an EA charger and it seems Ford's charge curve strategy has dramatically evolved since MachE's release. It was able to hold nearly 150Kwh into the battery pack nearly up to 70%. Even then, it holds over 100Kwh (120Kwh delivered) up to 80%. While I know the battery pack in ours are marginally smaller (99 vs. 135), it gives me hope that they could rethink the software limitations in our existing charge curves to be a bit more aggressive. The fans come on almost immediately when he plugs into a DCFC, and it seems to rip them far louder than I've ever heard on a DCFC session.



Great review, software improvements look great and hope we can get most of it, charge curve methodology included.

Sponsored

 

[Logal727]

About an hour into @OutofSpecKyle 's F150 Lightning review, he was able to get it onto an EA charger and it seems Ford's charge curve strategy has dramatically evolved since MachE's release. It was able to hold nearly 150Kwh into the battery pack nearly up to 70%. While I know the battery pack in ours are marginally smaller (99 vs. 135), it gives me hope that they could rethink the software limitations in our existing charge curves to be a bit more aggressive. The fans come on almost immediately when he plugs into a DCFC, and it seems to rip them far louder than I've ever heard on a DCFC session.



Great review, software improvements look great and hope we can get most of it, charge curve methodology included.

I’d expect quite a bit of Lightning stuff to come to MME. I just wouldn’t expect it anytime soon.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

While I know the battery pack in ours are marginally smaller (99 vs. 135),

I’m sure additional tweaks can be made to our charging curves, but 99 is not marginally smaller than a 135 kWh battery pack. It’s more than 25% smaller.

 

[ElectrifyCLT]

I’m sure additional tweaks can be made to our charging curves, but 99 is not marginally smaller than a 135 kWh battery pack. It’s more than 25% smaller.

This is a good point. But even then with this methodology the C-rate of Lighting appears to be greater than 1 for the majority of the curve up to 80%. Same cannot be said of ours, where we dip below it at ~30%.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

This is a good point. But even then with this methodology the C-rate of Lighting appears to be greater than 1 for the majority of the curve up to 80%. Same cannot be said of ours, where we dip below it at ~30%.

I concur. The difference is likely battery architecture and software, then size perhaps plays a role. A lot of the lessons learned in the MME launch were probably incorporated into the Lightning software. Let’s hope some if these improvements are capable of flowing back to us.

 

[Mathington]

There was a lot of mention from both @OutofSpecKyle and Tom in their videos that the battery back and motors are different than the Mach-E. I wonder if increased cooling performance with the new SK battery pack is part of the reason the Lightning can sustain those high charge rates.

I think the most telling comparison would be the Lightning Pro SR pack vs the Mach-E 4X. Both would have similar size battery packs , though different manufacturers, but the difference in charge rate would show the real improvements Ford has made. The Lariat that Kyle drove had the towing packing which adds a lot of extra cooling to the entire pack/motors, so that could certainly help it maintain a higher charge rate by keeping things cool.

If the SK batteries are that much better than LG, I would expect them to use them in future versions of the Mach-E GT.

Overall, I'm incredibly impressed with the Lightning after these initial reports. I can't wait until Tom and Kyle of them for a week and can really torture test them!

 

[Keeperofthe7keys]

We can only pray, I would love to see that kind of improvement though I fear it'll come on a future model year with a different battery pack and not be OTA'd for older cars.

 

[Electric Goat]

I can almost guarantee you that every major problem that plagues the MME and is discussed ad-nauseam on this forum will be fixed or a non-issue on the Lightning. As stated in the RTR Mach-E 1400 YouTube video featuring interviews from Ford engineers, the MME is a guinea pig compliance car. The Lightning is the exact opposite. It's Fords pride and joy and their bread and butter. I hope that Ford fixes the MME's shortcomings but it's already pretty clear where their priorities lie. I'm hopeful that the 2023 MME and MME GT will be amazing.

 

[SnBGC]

This is a good point. But even then with this methodology the C-rate of Lighting appears to be greater than 1 for the majority of the curve up to 80%. Same cannot be said of ours, where we dip below it at ~30%.

The larger the battery, the better suited it is for faster charging. It's all about thermal management. You can dump a pot of boiling water into the bathtub and the occupant might get scalded. Dump a pot of boiling water into a swimming pool and not much danger.

 

[Tngo23]

I concur. The difference is likely battery architecture and software, then size perhaps plays a role. A lot of the lessons learned in the MME launch were probably incorporated into the Lightning software. Let’s hope some if these improvements are capable of flowing back to us.

If you watch Redline (Sofyan) review of the Lightning, the Batteries used in the F150 is from a different manufacturer thus the acceleration were amazing with consistent pulls from 0-60 @4.1 sec.....And keeps on going without it throttling the power.....

I sincerely hope Ford somehow address the 5 second limiter on the MME's but I just don't see it since the batteries were designed a bit differently and OTA can't fix that?

Thoughts

 

[SnBGC]

If you watch Redline (Sofyan) review of the Lightning, the Batteries used in the F150 is from a different manufacturer thus the acceleration were amazing with consistent pulls from 0-60 @4.1 sec.....And keeps on going without it throttling the power.....

I sincerely hope Ford somehow address the 5 second limiter on the MME's but I just don't see it since the batteries were designed a bit differently and OTA can't fix that?

Thoughts

That vehicle is expected to do work so it must have a continuous power delivery curve.

Like you mentioned, the Mach-E is just a passenger vehicle. The GT version is not really a GT by definition. IMO, the MME GT is more like the Police Interceptor Utility than a GT350 Mustang.

 

[ebeponyan]

This is a good point. But even then with this methodology the C-rate of Lighting appears to be greater than 1 for the majority of the curve up to 80%. Same cannot be said of ours, where we dip below it at ~30%.

This is the old charging curve, no? The new one is considerably less dramatic on both ends.

 

[Tngo23]

That vehicle is expected to do work so it must have a continuous power delivery curve.

Like you mentioned, the Mach-E is just a passenger vehicle. The GT version is not really a GT by definition. IMO, the MME GT is more like the Police Interceptor Utility than a GT350 Mustang.

Although a work truck should have continnous power to carry payload, etc....
It doesn't mean it needs sports car speed like 0-60 fast time.....With that said, the GTPE if given that moniker and price, it should have GOBS of power which is decent (IMO)

Since it was Ford's first full EV, I think they weren't sure about the battery reliability thus the Limiter is there to prevent the What if's-------> if something does happen.....Ford is or was doing it to prevent any hiccups in case this new battery heat up too fast.....

 

[ElectrifyCLT]

This is the old charging curve, no? The new one is considerably less dramatic on both ends.

My understanding is the updated charge curve only changes behavior north of 80%. I don't think anyone here (or Ford advertises) improvements to the bottom part of the curve.

I updated my car via FDRS to get the charging improvements before a couple road trips and I haven't noticed anything different under 80%

 

[ElectrifyCLT]

The larger the battery, the better suited it is for faster charging. It's all about thermal management. You can dump a pot of boiling water into the bathtub and the occupant might get scalded. Dump a pot of boiling water into a swimming pool and not much danger.

I get it, and its a good analogy, but there are 400V packs that are more aggressive and the same size or smaller, and the current software doesn't rip the fans in the MachE much at all during DCFC. It's definitely pulling air through the radiators but not aggressively so.

I'm not expecting miracles, but my takeaway from Kyle's review was that they are being far more aggressive with cooling things down from the moment the car is plugged in. Whether or not our cooling loops have some room to spare is the question in my mind, I guess.

If so, maybe there's software that could speed things up earlier on. I guess it's just as easy of an answer to identify a hardware limitation in MachE cooling loops or battery packs that mean this is the best possible.

Sponsored