ZeusDriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2025
- Threads
- 9
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 206
- Location
- East Coast, USA
- Vehicles
- 2022 Lightning
I imagine that's not too far from what they will do. I doubt that they will use the engine in ecoboost configuration, because they can probably get better thermal efficiency by making it Atkinson cycle, and the engine can be simpler and lighter and cheaper and longer-lasting without the turbo and its controls.If i were Ford I'd just take the Ecoboost 3.5 truck and replace the 10 speed with whatever generator could use it's max power and let it power the current lightning drive train. Then stuff in as much battery as the chassis could carry and still have 1500 to 2000lb payload.
Tune the 3.5 for generator operation and let software give you what you need and when. Defeciencies in EPA range that happen due to battery size can be made up with fuel tank size.
Using the Lightning truck layout would probably work better to retain the two motors, the independent rear suspension, and the space for batteries (that not having a drive shaft allows). There may be enough room to put the engine above front electric motor, if the oil reservoir were mounted remotely.
I think they will limit the battery pack size to control cost. 150 mile EPA range at 2.2 m/kWh would be about 70 kWh pack, with the reduction in size from an SR lightning pack being about enough to offset the engine weight. The remaining 550 miles could come from a 25 gallon tank at 22 mpg. Making the pack smaller than 70 kWh would make it difficult to get the desired HP output from the motors.
Sponsored