Additional Battery Capacity by Removing Spare Wheel/Tire

[intensifi]

I’m hearing MY ‘24 may have additional battery capacity to better compete with the new trucks.

thinking removing the spare is a logical spot.

Sponsored

 

[sotek2345]

I’m hearing MY ‘24 may have additional battery capacity to better compete with the new trucks.

thinking removing the spare is a logical spot.

Where are you hearing that? I would be very skeptical of any changes

 

[Monkey]

Only battery changes coming to current generation Lightning trucks is LFP for the SR. That may happen sometime in '24.

Without a huge advance in battery chemistry and energy density, there really is nowhere else to put more batteries. The spare tire space isn't all that big and I don't think most of us would give up the spare for what would probably be an extra 10 miles of range. We could lose the frunk to more batteries or they could make the chassis thicker to increase pack size (like what GM has done) but once again I don't think people would give up the frunk and the chassis change won't jive with the current F-150 body and other stuff. GM, etc are getting more miles with larger batteries because they built a thicker battery platform. You can expect this from Ford's upcoming T3 project. I expect the Lighting to stay the same for some time as it will continue to utilize the same body shared with the ICE 150.

 

[MickeyAO]

I’m hearing MY ‘24 may have additional battery capacity to better compete with the new trucks.

thinking removing the spare is a logical spot.

Removing the spare will increase range due to weight gains, but will not increase the battery enclosure.

You probably have no idea of all the testing and certification it takes to launch a new battery. Even if it is is the same form factor, a change in chemistry or energy density requires a significant amount of testing that takes close to a year or more, not days or weeks. So be wary when you hear that an OEM has suddenly decided to change things up and will launch a new design next week.

I will say that while I'm the testing house for several major OEMs, I do not do certification for Ford (but we do have ad hoc/specialty testing for them), so I have no idea of the state of their certification for any new batteries.

 

[detansinn]

Yeah, not happening. You can expect no major changes with this platform. The T3 is what Ford is working on for the next generation.

At the moment, the Lightning effectively has no competition in the full-size category. The Rivian is the only other option out there and it's not a full-size truck. Both trucks are remarkably similar in terms of range, efficiency, and even overall charging time.

You all saw how long it has taken for Ford to ramp up Lightning production. GM can barely get any Hummers out the door, let alone EV Cadillacs. It will be 2025 before an EV Silverado becomes a regular sight on the streets. You can expect an even longer wait for the RAM REV as Stellantis is currently producing zero EVs. At least, Ford was making Mach Es at scale when the Lightning was formally announced. Heck, even the Cybertrash won't hit any volume until 2024/2025.

As for LFP nonsense, I live where it gets cold and regularly drive to where it gets colder... Maine. Big no thank you to LFP batteries. The temperature hit that you get with those batteries isn't overcome with being able to regularly charge it 10 percentage points higher to 100%. The current trucks will easily and dramatically outperform the LFP trucks in the winter, even only charging to 90%.

 

[intensifi]

I would appreciate an answer to how much more battery capacity could be added if the volume the current spare occupies would be re-allocated to additional battery capacity.

For example, 4 cubic meters would equal 18 kWh of additional capacity. (Note these numbers are just examples).

It’s a simple question ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Tony Burgh]

Again, where did you hear it? An even simpler question.

 

[detansinn]

I would appreciate an answer to how much more battery capacity could be added if the volume the current spare occupies would be re-allocated to additional battery capacity.

For example, 4 cubic meters would equal 18 kWh of additional capacity. (Note these numbers are just examples).

It’s a simple question ladies and gentlemen.

The spare tire isn’t 4 cubic meters.
It’s hard to imagine that Ford would want to add weight aft of the rear axle.
The spare tire lives in the rear crumple zone of the truck.

With those considerations, if you are looking for a firm answer, that answer is zero.

 

[Maquis]

The only pragmatic way to house a bigger battery would be to increase the wheelbase and provide a 6-1/2 bed (which I would have bought, if it were available). But that ain’t happening on this generation. It’s all about T3 going forward.

 

[IdeaOfTheDayCom]

I’m hearing MY ‘24 may have additional battery capacity to better compete with the new trucks.

thinking removing the spare is a logical spot.

Just keep in mind that bigger batteries and even higher density batteries are not the only way for manufacturers to increase range.

Aerodynamics, weight and the efficiency of the motors plays a huge role, and believe it or not, software is just as critical because it determines how much power to use at any given time and when to pull power back, so Ford's second generation will likely see changes to all of these points too.

1st Generation models (which will likely include the '24), may get minor tweaks here and there, and of course software tweaks are pretty universal to all generations, but I saw an interview with Jim Farley where he said that the problem they're having now is that there are a lot of 3rd party modules in the 1st generation that they have zero control of when it comes to software updates. He made it clear that they will design and build all of their critical components for their 2nd gen vehicles so they can optimize everything in-house, like Tesla does.

 

[Ekiehn]

The real question should be do we really need more range?
For daily driving the answer is no...
For road trips it might be nice but I have discovered after several that it may not be needed . The key to road trips is changing how we drive... stoping for a sit down lunch while charging instead of eating while driving and stopping for a bathroom break, solves most time problems. Driving to 2Kwh per mile range gives the typical range you typically need to be able to make your destination in a timely manner with charger options. It takes a little planning now but as soon as we have more charger options then even the planning won't need to happen.
My first road trip was over 1200 miles in total in winter, learned a lot, now going to be doing the same trip again in summer and am excited to see if what I have learned will make this trip even better. I already know the charging network on my path has been upgraded and expanded...

So that is why I belive the question should be, do we really need more range...

Now a faster charging curve would be nice

 

[Amps]

Now a faster charging curve would be nice

I wonder if anyone noticed any difference in the DCFC charging curve with the new update?

 

[On the Road with Ralph]

The real question should be do we really need more range?
For daily driving the answer is no...
For road trips it might be nice but I have discovered after several that it may not be needed . The key to road trips is changing how we drive... stoping for a sit down lunch while charging instead of eating while driving and stopping for a bathroom break, solves most time problems. Driving to 2Kwh per mile range gives the typical range you typically need to be able to make your destination in a timely manner with charger options.

I could not agree more. I’ve taken six trips of more than 500 miles (and two of 1500+ miles) and found that I have a new and entirely pleasant rhythm in my travels. Boiled down, driving my SR Pro might be costing me about 10 minutes per 100 miles, much of which can be attributed to conversations at charging stops with people I would have otherwise never met. I think this is a trivial price to pay for all the secure cargo capacity of the Lightning and its terrific road manners. It is a joy to drive.

To the originator of this thread, let me just say using the spare tire area for battery capacity is an insanely stupid idea. It would have to be separated from the main battery pack, and it would reside in a crumple zone. A first year engineering student would know that you should NEVER put a battery at that location.

 

[astricklin]

The real question should be do we really need more range?
For daily driving the answer is no...
For road trips it might be nice but I have discovered after several that it may not be needed . The key to road trips is changing how we drive... stoping for a sit down lunch while charging instead of eating while driving and stopping for a bathroom break, solves most time problems. Driving to 2Kwh per mile range gives the typical range you typically need to be able to make your destination in a timely manner with charger options. It takes a little planning now but as soon as we have more charger options then even the planning won't need to happen.
My first road trip was over 1200 miles in total in winter, learned a lot, now going to be doing the same trip again in summer and am excited to see if what I have learned will make this trip even better. I already know the charging network on my path has been upgraded and expanded...

So that is why I belive the question should be, do we really need more range...

Now a faster charging curve would be nice

The only real problem that more range will solve is when towing a large trailer. But that's a very small use case and I would say that if you're doing this often then you shouldn't be buying an EV at this time.

 

[Maquis]

I wonder if anyone noticed any difference in the DCFC charging curve with the new update?

No. The last DCFC update was related to charging equipment compatibility.

Sponsored