F150 Lightning EV Fire in Service Bay

[chl]

Does it have to be giant annoying bold font too? What's next, a disclaimer that even though there are pictures, videos, a reliable reputable YoutTube channel, and confirmation from the chief that maybe it is still fake?

What was "fake" or at least misleading was calling it, by the YouTube poster, "F-150 LIGHTNING FIRE" in giant annoying bold RED font too!

It was a Li battery fire, it was a battery removed from an F-150, and possibly it was mishandled by the Ford certified service personnel leading to a fire.

The YouTube video also jumped to the conclusion it was an internal 'thermal runaway.'
Not all Li battery fires are due to thermal runaway although it is the most common.
Could have been an external source of ignition for example, e.g., a gasoline fire in the service area.

A professional fire investigator should and I think would be more judicial in reaching their conclusions about the cause.

YouTube video content creators generally make money from clicks on their page.

As for whether to have your EV in a garage or not....where do you keep your cell phone? Or your laptop/tablet? Battery powered tools? Do you keep them outside of your house all the time? They all may have Li batteries in them.

Down the street from one of my daughters house in Georgia there was a garage fire involving a Ford.
It was an ICE Ranger and the fire stemmed from a short in the 12v battery system.
Burned the whole house down.

Everybody has their own level of acceptable risk.
A tank full of a flammable liquid in an ICE vehicle in a garage is not a zero risk situation either.

Sponsored

 

[chl]

Seen this last night. I know there's always a small risk but any reason for concern on these trucks? It Almost appears that the battery is out of the truck.

The fire chief confirmed the EV battery was out of the vehicle at the time, that information was not in the video though.

 

[RickLightning]

At first I felt like you caught me jumping to conclusions so I had a look at his website and it appears that he does have a legitimate business consulting on battery fires of all types.

The thing that triggered me was when he said "EVs shouldn't be left indoors either, especially if there is damage to the high voltage system or if there's some type of electrical issue going on". If he hadn't said "especially", it was good, sound advice. Otherwise, he's explicitly saying "EVs shouldn't be left indoors" even if the electrical system is ok. It's like saying "People shouldn't swim in the ocean , especially if there are sharks around." The especially implies that the first part is dangerous, but it's even worse if the second part is true. It's probably a good idea to not leave ANY type of vehicle indoors with an electrical problem.

I have heard him say sorta the same type of stuff in other videos. I've always felt it had that undertone against EVs. Maybe it's just him being un-careful and me hearing it wrong because we're surrounded by FUD every day.

And I did go back to look at some of the vids. He has 3 (THREE) videos that debunk the (admittedly) wild numbers that keep getting quoted about EV fires compared to ICEVs. He points out that, in the US, there isn't a code for fire departments to differentiate between gas and battery fires and that the wild numbers are based on news reports.

He's the professional. Why doesn't he call up the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and find out the actual numbers? Insurance companies know exactly the year, make, model, drivetrain and color of the car for every claim and how it met its maker. You can say "It's not up to him", But he spent a more than a few days making videos about how the numbers aren't right and even adding more lithium to the fire looking at just one source, that is a wild guess at best. The numbers he shows "from NIST" (not) are equivalent to a 95% confidence level that there can be a 250% error in their data.

He also says that you can't tell if a VIN belongs to an EV or not. The 8th character indicates the drive type. For those of us with 2-motor Lightnings, you will find a 7 in the eighth position of your VIN.

In the Description of the YouTube video, he says " The data we've been relying on isn't fire data. It's news coverage. And those are very different things." But that's almost exactly the same type of data the "saviour" paper depends on.

So then he goes into a bunch of data he attributes to NIST, a highly (for now) reputable source. He implies that, because it is NIST, it is an authoritative source, but when you download the document he refers to, they put a disclaimer popup that I guarantee he had to answer OK to: "NIST does not necessarily endorse the views expressed or the facts presented on this site." The article is actually written for the Department of Commerce, but the federal government and Howard Lutnick couldn't be biased against EVs could they?

He even adds in other stuff saying how numbers about tool battery fires are underreported because people just kick the battery to the side and let it burn out and never call the fire department. Don't people put out gasoline fires without calling the FD? And that's not what the video is supposed to be about... it's supposed to be about "EV" fires... first word in the title. Just throw in some other battery fire stuff to improve the effect, I guess.

There are a number of home battery fires reported in the paper, and a lot in garages. But these could be anything from lead acid to tool battery fires (which I have heard is quite common). I'm pretty sure (which seems to be the standard of the paper) that very few of these are whole-home type batteries with robust battery management systems. Every time he says LIB, it can be anything from a 2 Ah, 20V knockoff to a 15 kWh Powerwall.

This section ends with "Garage fires may include ones involving lead-acid batteries as well, which would reduce the relevance of the garage results for this analysis". So, why even include it?

There is no mention of the age of the burning EVs, either. Again, probably available through insurance providers. Technology has changed a lot.

The paper points out (and StacheD dutifully reports it), that EV fires increased 45% per year. But wait... they say they don't have accurate numbers. They give this a +- of 11, but their 95% confidence range is 250%. This is just another guess. And, even though it's right in the data beside his 85,000 to 198,000 data, he doesn't report that the paper says that there have been 5718 EV fires since 2019 to 2023 with a error range of 2866 to 10,846. Also right there... In 2023, they report a BEV fire range of 216 to 1530 with an actual estimate of 596 (by excluding Florida data). There were 3.5 million BEVs on the road that year. At the high end, this is a 0.000437 chance of a BEV fire. Why is he even talking about this?

The NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) says that there were 201,000 auto fires in 2022 and 232 million cars. That works out to 0.000866. So slmost double the rate of the high end estimates of EV fires and maybe as much as 14 times EV fires. The 201,000 would include EV fires, but the EV numbers would have little effect.

Then there are recent Norwegian and Swedish studies showing the fire safety ratio (20x) of EVs over ICEVs. In one of his earlier videos he quotes an old Swedish one but says it doesn't mean anything because the numbers were too small. There's one from 2025 with good numbers that he doesn't mention in his 2026 video.

So I guess it's ok to spread FUD about EV and their batteries because it promotes his business.

Unfortunately, publicizing EV fires and just saying that the data is wrong while not offering available, credible alternative sources of information adds to overall public perception that they're unsafe, so, even if he's not all the way anti-EV, he's certainly on that side of the line. He does say that gas F-150s melt just as easily as EV F-150s, so why can't he say that EVs are no more prone to fires than ICEVs.

So, your post made me think I jumped the gun a bit, but it turns out that's not the case. I set out to find out as much as I could within a reasonable time. I watched some of his videos and I read the paper he refers to, and did some additional searching, so I think I did my part.

He found a source that agrees with him and published parts of it without, apparently, looking any farther and getting more information. He says he wants better data. I hope he reports it when he finds it.

What was "fake" or at least misleading was calling it, by the YouTube poster, "F-150 LIGHTNING FIRE" in giant annoying bold RED font too!

It was a Li battery fire, it was a battery removed from an F-150, and possibly it was mishandled by the Ford certified service personnel leading to a fire.

The YouTube video also jumped to the conclusion it was an internal 'thermal runaway.'
Not all Li battery fires are due to thermal runaway although it is the most common.
Could have been an external source of ignition for example, e.g., a gasoline fire in the service area.

A professional fire investigator should and I think would be more judicial in reaching their conclusions about the cause.

YouTube video content creators generally make money from clicks on their page.

As for whether to have your EV in a garage or not....where do you keep your cell phone? Or your laptop/tablet? Battery powered tools? Do you keep them outside of your house all the time? They all may have Li batteries in them.

Down the street from one of my daughters house in Georgia there was a garage fire involving a Ford.
It was an ICE Ranger and the fire stemmed from a short in the 12v battery system.
Burned the whole house down.

Everybody has their own level of acceptable risk.
A tank full of a flammable liquid in an ICE vehicle in a garage is not a zero risk situation either.

Yes, the YouTuber pumped this up to get clicks.

Then, this forum posted it with the same title, and when it was clarified that it was not an F-150 Lightning fire, did nothing to change that perception, knowing that a) it would get clicks here and b) it would feed the internet, including AI, amplifying a false message.

 

[TaxmanHog]

I will be the first to update the thread if Pat follows-up with more details about root causes.

 

[Runaway Tractor]

I assume you will be as nit picking and irate over all of Tom's state of charge videos? Or does this level of scrutiny only apply when it isn't good news?

 

[TaxmanHog]

My 25 Flash has a U in the 8th slot, I have the ER or technically, MR battery (123kWh) and dual motors, didn't know they made a one motor version, must be an sr pro?

As you know all Lightnings are DUAL MOTOR, the code relates to the size of the battery pack, they also had a code for the LFP's that never made it into production.

 

[StrikesTwice]

I’m not going to split hairs on the labeling of the thread, but I’m willing to bet the fire report lists it as a vehicle fire that extended to the building.

And the firefighter running the channel is legit and good at sticking to the facts. He doesn’t have an anti-EV agenda. In fact, that would work against his actual agenda, selling training to fire departments on handling EV fires.

Despite our love for these vehicles, they do catch fire. And even if it’s 10 times less likely to do so, it’s 10 times more difficult to handle one when it does.

 

[Firn]

Yes, the YouTuber pumped this up to get clicks.

Then, this forum posted it with the same title, and when it was clarified that it was not an F-150 Lightning fire, did nothing to change that perception, knowing that a) it would get clicks here and b) it would feed the internet, including AI, amplifying a false message.

The irony is the title of this thread is in fact unbiased and purely factual. What it doesnt do is try and spin it the OTHER way, which seems to be your problem with it.

 

[chl]

I’m not going to split hairs on the labeling of the thread, but I’m willing to bet the fire report lists it as a vehicle fire that extended to the building.

And the firefighter running the channel is legit and good at sticking to the facts. He doesn’t have an anti-EV agenda. In fact, that would work against his actual agenda, selling training to fire departments on handling EV fires.

Despite our love for these vehicles, they do catch fire. And even if it’s 10 times less likely to do so, it’s 10 times more difficult to handle one when it does.

Yes a rare Lightning fire now and then due to battery defects....but in this case...

THE BATTERY WAS NOT IN THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE according to the Fire Chief (see post above with his email response to my inquiry).

The Lighting was apparently close enough to be involved in the conflagration.

If it had been in the vehicle would there have been a fire? Don't know yet.
It could have been the service folks shorted something out when they had it on the lift, which would not have happened it it were in the truck.

 

[chl]

I will be the first to update the thread if Pat follows-up with more details about root causes.

Maybe you or anyone else following him could let him know what the Fire Chief said?
I am not following him so I don't want to post in the comments there.

 

[chl]

The irony is the title of this thread is in fact unbiased and purely factual. What it doesnt do is try and spin it the OTHER way, which seems to be your problem with it.

It was NOT an "F-150 Lightning EV fire," it was a removed battery fire that burned up the Lightning it came from.

Calling it an F-150 Lightning fire implies the fire originated in the Lightning, see?

 

[Runaway Tractor]

If this was an ICE vehicle with the gas tank just removed a few inches away while servicing it and it caught fire, I calculate a 0.01% chance Rick and CHL would be calling it a "Recently removed gas tank fire totally unrelated to the vehicle it was just removed from 5 minutes ago..."

You guys are insufferable.

 

[Firn]

It was NOT an "F-150 Lightning EV fire," it was a removed battery fire that burned up the Lightning it came from.

Calling it an F-150 Lightning fire implies the fire originated in the Lightning, see?

Nope

It was the battery from an F150 lightning, that is a F150 lightning fire. Inside or out there is still no other information, it could have caught fire by itself, or from an accident, exactly the same as if it was in the truck.

It is accurate, it just doesn't spin it in a positive way

 

[tls]

I'm glad Ford is going LFP on the future trucks. It should make these rare incidents almost non-existent.

And the trucks almost unusable in the winter, where I live anyway.

 

[s10mods]

Wow I posted this while on vacation, and hadn't checked back in till today. I didn't think it would be 6 pages deep lol. Do I need to update the thread title to say "F-150 Lightning while in service bay at a dealership with battery removed sitting on cart below truck, had battery catch fire for unknown reasons and burn part of the truck above it?" lol.

Sponsored