Would you give up your Frunk for more range?

[Scorpio3d]

I was watching the video by @Cbowe and it got me to thinking about having the Frunk versus an ICE vehicle that has an engine.
Just curious if people would be willing to give up the Frunk for an extra battery pack that would give you more range?

Sponsored

 

[TaxmanHog]

I really enjoy the utility of the Frunk, I'd pass on the optional battery pack in there.

 

[rdr854]

NEVER!!!!

 

[Grumpy2]

I think we will be giving up on the HUGE frunk for more range and better aero, which I think is the logical approach. The blunt front is always impacting range during every mile we drive; but the HUGE frunk is rarely entirely full. I don't want to give up on a large frunk, but it doesn't have to be as big as it is if I can get a significant increase in range, say 15% with the same battery??

 

[HOTAS]

No thanks, I’ll keep my frunk.
ER Range is fine and the frunk is what makes this truck more versatile than a SUV, and the best truck on the road !

 

[broncoaz]

No. One of the reasons I chose the Lighting over the Cybertruck or Silverado was the larger accessible frunk. The Rivian wasn’t even a consideration because of the high lift over frunk. I agree the frunk will be sacrificed for aero considerations in the redesign.

 

[Mach Turtle]

As a very rough guess, I think it might be possible to get about 5-10% more range if the square traditional hood/frunk were replaced with something sloping down from the windshield to about the top of the bumper, and the headlights and fenders were adjusted to fit. This estimate is not based on any calculations or CFD, just a really rough guess.

The front end would look (dare I say?) a bit Tesla-like, perhaps as if a Lightning and a Tesla fell deeply in love and something unnatural took its course... also, modifications to the back end, in particular an aero cap, would probably make more difference while eating up space over the bed.

We'd lose about 50% of the frunk volume and perhaps 75% of our dignity.

For a few people, it would probably be worth it. Not for me, I think. I'm planning to charge my SR a little more often, probably add a couple more solar panels to the house (this truck does get hungry), enjoy that big frunk, and see what T^3 and others become in the next few years.

A reference for the loss of dignity problem is in another thread here with a typically concerning image (credit to @Danface, well done!) being:

An aerodynamics reference with some analysis (which has probably been linked on this forum before) is here.

 

[carys98]

Absolutely not!

 

[Grease Lightning]

He’ll to the no!!

My frunk is always full of my camping gear and my charger, so I can get off work and explore the world if that is my desires.

The range is fine. I would support a slightly hire charging curve to make sure we can do 15-85% in 25-30 minutes everyday.

 

[Rocket808]

Nope.

 

[Jseis]

No. And then there’s the added weight And high weight which messes with handling dynamics.

 

[Jseis]

My homies thinking a frunk is better than the cave.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I'd rather they redesign the battery to be an 800V battery during charging with the same kWh so DCFC is slightly faster whenever possible. But I think my partner would have no hesitation to give up the frunk for 100 miles more range.

 

[Grumpy2]

I seems there is significant room in area between the dash and rear of the frunk to replace any frunk volume lost with improvements to the aero. Put that 12v battery somewhere else...

 

[B177y]

I'll be the dissenter and say "it depends".

If the range increase was substantial, say another 100 miles, I'd give up the frunk. Whether it was possible from aerodymic redesign or more battery, I'd consider giving it up, but the charging time at DCFC couldn't be any longer than it is now.

Give up the frunk, add 100 miles, same DCFC charge time as current ER battery, and a 6' or 8' bed? Sounds even more reasonable.

Sponsored