Blue Oval Says Next Gen Ford F-150 Lightning Customers Will Be Long Distance Drivers

[ClevelandBeemer]

Anything but make it charge faster….

Sponsored

 

[JayF]

A lot of people here see the EREV as a downgraded BEV lightning, I see it as an upgraded powerboost, with potentially simpler architecture and larger EV range.

If they announced the addition of an EREV option *without* saying it replaces the existing Lightning... I think many people, including me, would see it this way. That's not what happened.

Instead, they cancelled one of the only good BEV truck options and thought that promising us an EREV on an "eventually" timeline would soothe the pain. It doesn't. It's a sign from Ford that they don't understand many of their existing Lightning customers.

 

[Aminorjourney]

If they announced the addition of an EREV option *without* saying it replaces the existing Lightning... I think many people, including me, would see it this way. That's not what happened.

Instead, they cancelled one of the only good BEV truck options and thought that promising us an EREV on an "eventually" timeline would soothe the pain. It doesn't. It's a sign from Ford that they don't understand many of their existing Lightning customers.

100% this.

Ford patented a range-extender that fit in the area usually reserved for a tool box on working F150s. That would have been great as an optional add-on, similar to what Martin et al are doing with the EVERDRIVE system.

Heck, it would have even been a revenue model. Allow Ford dealerships to rent you a drop-in, easily-attached range extender for when you want/need it. Give folks BEV for the rest of the time.

But no. We got whatever this is...

Also, as a side, what's the betting we'll see real-world range closer to 550 miles not 700?

 

[bryce]

If you drive/tow long distances enough that driving a BEV is an issue, then a solution already exists, it's called an ICE F150. What do you gain by getting an EREV? The additional initial cost of having two power trains, along with maintenance and complex problems will far exceed any saving you get using an inefficient EV mode that needs to haul around dead weight (engine/fuel/exhaust/cooling etc) for the few times you are not towing uphill both ways. EREV's are costly problematic training wheels for BEV's. Been out for over a decade now and the facts are out there if you do your research (I was foolish enough to buy into the marketing and learned my lesson). They will sell well to the uninformed but after people experience they are the worst of both worlds, they will go to BEV or back to ICE the next time around. Expensive lesson but for some people (including myself) we need to experience it for ourselves to learn.

I cannot agree more that an EREV/PHEV can be the worst of both worlds. I had a Porsche Cayenne e-Hybrid PHEV. All the expense of an ICE, and not enough EV range.

IMHO, all ICE vehicles should be Hybrid. Would improve fuel economy and simplify much of the vehicles systems using electric pumps instead of belt driven. BEV are the future however. I think that as battery technology and charging services improve that will become self evident. Except for those people whom still want to drive vehicles powered by coal.

 

[gletob]

I cannot agree more that an EREV/PHEV can be the worst of both worlds. I had a Porsche Cayenne e-Hybrid PHEV. All the expense of an ICE, and not enough EV range.

IMHO, all ICE vehicles should be Hybrid. Would improve fuel economy and simplify much of the vehicles systems using electric pumps instead of belt driven. BEV are the future however. I think that as battery technology and charging services improve that will become self evident. Except for those people whom still want to drive vehicles powered by coal.

Agree with you here except the coal part, if you wanted a vehicle powered by coal you'd just do full BEV and live somewhere with heavy % of coal generation. Lot less fussy than steam engines.

A lot of people here see the EREV as a downgraded BEV lightning, I see it as an upgraded powerboost, with potentially simpler architecture and larger EV range.

If the execution and price is right, why wouldn't I want it for the expanded capability over my BEV lighting? Most people care about value and utility, and care little about making an environmental statement.

From a simplicity point of view, I prefer BEV with removable secondary power source, much like Zach's EverDrive, but more refined. Sadly that would never be viable as a consumer production for the masses.

I agree with you in principle, but doubt that the value and utility of the EREV will ever be good for anyone other than frequent long distance towers, which while they are a market, they are far from a large market.

Admittedly I love my lightning, but a 70k BEV pickup that only manages mi/kwh in the low twos with a 130kwh battery isn't a massive market either, regardless of whether it would actually meet the needs of 90+% F150 owners which in my anecdotal experience it does/did/would. The problem is there's a lot of whales to buy a 50k f150 and put it out to the used market in a few years, there are not a lot a of whales doing the same with the Lightning. This whale is keeping his lightning till the wheels fall off and won't go back on anymore.

 

[DavidS]

The new Volvo EX 60 P12 has a 112kwh battery with 400 miles of range, 4500 lbs towing capacity , and a 19-20 minute 10-80 charge time. For those that need range and moderate towing capacity but not necessarily an open bed. You will need to find a 400kw charge station.

 

[gletob]

Does Ford have shares in Cath Bags or something?

Or do they think that only men drive long distances?

I'm joking, obviously, but I fail to see how *any human* can be safe on the road without taking regular breaks every few hours. And that break time is perfect for a recharging stop.

When I drive from Oregon to SoCal (which I do a fair bit) I usually cover 600-700 miles in a day. That's more than enough for safety. Ok, if you're towing, you may end up doing less (the last time I towed cross country from Oregon to Colorado I did about 500 miles a day I think) but seriously.

WHAT... IS... THE... OBSESSION... WITH... DISTANCE?

Eh I could see how it would be obnoxious towing, getting into my 30s I need to stretch more than ten years ago and the lightning without a trailer is the perfect timing for me personally to stretch/pee/etc.

Cut the efficiency in half with my box trailer I would be bored of charging by the second stop, by the time I made it 2/3 of the way say from PVD to RVA I would probably cry, specifically on the Baltimore Washington Pkwy where your will to continue a road trip goes to die.

In another 10 years I'll be ready for long distance BEV towing between battery improvements and degredation of my body.

 

[bryce]

Need more DCFC at roadside rest stops. That way when we stop to pee every two hours we can also top off the battery.

 

[DemandingJay]

Reposting what I said in a different thread, this appears more fitting here:

The whole concept of EREV is comical. Between maintaining what is effectively now two vehicles under one roof, to filling up an an EV with gas or Charging an ICE vehicle with electricity.

It's the worst of both worlds. Can't believe this is the direction they e decided to go.

 

[LightningDan]

If you have the ER, road tripping is not an issue at all. Its almost perfect, and Ive got some good charge rates, no complaints on time.
If you tow a 9000 lbs trailer, yeah get a Powerboost or something built to tow. This is was always the majority of owners who use power tools, tow lifts and job equipment, everyday driver, big ass truck for family. This was never meant to be a long distance tow rig.

 

[K6CCC]

Need more DCFC at roadside rest stops. That way when we stop to pee every two hours we can also top off the battery.

That would be nice. There is certainly a market to have high rate DCFC chargers at rest areas. Note that the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has been installing 50 KW DCFC chargers at a lot of the state's rest areas. Granted that they are only 50 KW, but they are free. The lower speed makes it unlikely that most people would sit there for an hour or more to charge, but rather charge while making a rest stop (I've done exactly that).

 

[PJnc284]

If you have the ER, road tripping is not an issue at all. Its almost perfect, and Ive got some good charge rates, no complaints on time.
If you tow a 9000 lbs trailer, yeah get a Powerboost or something built to tow. This is was always the majority of owners who use power tools, tow lifts and job equipment, everyday driver, big ass truck for family. This was never meant to be a long distance tow rig.

If I were towing that any distance on a regular basis, I'd be going 3/4 ton diesel.

 

[COrocket]

It’ll be interesting if Ford can actually build an affordable version of this truck. If you look at the Ram REV with a 92kWh battery, V6 engine, and a 130 kw generator, I’d assume Ford is going to put out similar specs to compete.

I don’t see how Ford can add a gas engine + generator + ICE accessories to essentially a SR Lighting electric drive train, build it on a heavier duty chassis to accommodate the extra weight, and expect to be able to sell it for a price that’s competitive with a pure EV or pure ICE truck. If this thing comes out as another $80k+ truck I don’t foresee it selling any better than the Lightning.

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

I really wish they would drop EREV and address range a different way.

1. Offer a larger pack option, say 160kWh usable while keeping the truck weight below 7,000lbs. This serves your 1/2 ton customers that tow often or longer distances.

2. Move to a higher voltage architecture that can charge at 300kw to 400kw on all pack sizes.

This way there’s a larger pack to help get towing distances between charges closer to 200 miles. Also regardless if on 160kWh+ pack or the 131kWh pack, 10 to 80% charges could be less than 20 minutes.

The existing 131kWh pack charging performance isn’t horrific, but it’s also the WORST in its class, and by a good margin. I know that many in this forum say embrace trips taking more time due to longer breaks, but on longer trips (>800 miles) long charging stops start to add up, especially when towing.

 

[Rayden]

That would be nice. There is certainly a market to have high rate DCFC chargers at rest areas. Note that the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has been installing 50 KW DCFC chargers at a lot of the state's rest areas. Granted that they are only 50 KW, but they are free. The lower speed makes it unlikely that most people would sit there for an hour or more to charge, but rather charge while making a rest stop (I've done exactly that).

If you stopped for less than an hour, how much would that add to the battery? At 50 KW, would it even be worth it? Genuinely curious, not sarcastic. I noticed this past weekend while on a trip down to Jupiter, FL, the Turnpike has Service Plazas every 45 miles with DCFC at all of them. A mix of Tesla and something else. I don't see why all rest stops wouldn't do this eventually.

Sponsored