EREV is not as bad as you think.

[ZeusDriver]

The EREV concept is very very old, and worked fine in diesel/electric locomotives, submarines, etc.

The start of the modern era: Back around 2008, people were adding batteries to their Priuses, to make them into Plug-in Hybrids. Simple concept. Worked OK.

Back around that time, I designed and built a microcar PHEV of the series (i.e. EREV) type. Also back then, or just a little later, Fisker came out with their series hybrid, which performed pretty well, but the business did not. The Chevy Volt came out in 2011, and was quite reliable, needing a small fraction of the maintenance attention that the air-cooled VWs (decades earlier) required. (I worked on loads of them during my college days, and owned several. )

Eventually, Toyota would come out with the Prime PHEVs. Great cars. Super efficient when running on gas, but can also be run entirely on the battery for the commutes of 92-93% of the population. Plug in every night, and for many people, the engine would not start for weeks. (Most well-engineered PHEVs will automatically start the engine periodically to keep it limbered up.) The Primes, although fairly complex, are very reliable. (Stale gas? Never had that happen in my 7-8 years of Volt ownership. You quickly learn when to fill up and how much to put in. Brakes: never needed them. )

Jumping back to 2008, I built my EREV largely because it is a very simple form of hybridization, and because it allows the vehicle to operate on the battery alone when desired. My little car was designed to be a commuter, so with 40-mile electric range, it would solve the needs of 92% of all commuters. If you wanted to go across the state, then you'd start the engine whenever the battery got below 50%. (It would automatically cut off when the charge rate fell off, meaning the battery was nearly full. -- This "feature" was one of very few things that was automated.)

The battery pack could be small and light, as compared to the pack in a pure BEV. The engine and generator together weighted slightly less than the battery pack, meaning that I could have made the car a BEV with 80 mile range without the extender, but the cost would be higher, and 80 miles is not an impressive range... and this was long before public chargers.

The generator (the thing driven by the engine) and drive motor were identical. Starting the engine only required connecting the generator to the battery (via a contactor, a heavy remotely operated switch) and the generator would spin the engine to get it running. No starter motor required. (The Ram EREV does not have a starter motor either.)

I was considering marketing my little vehicle, and went so far as to make a second, modified engine with simulated Atkinson timing, higher compression, fuel injection, etc, to increase efficiency and reduce emissions. The generator and motor were both 91% efficient, not much lower than those of today.

Why do I mention all this? To say that the idea of an EREV is inherently simple. A guy without any serious funding can build one is his garage.

Ford and Ram will both be offering all sorts of luxury features and loads of things to break. Their engines will probably not be one of the things that breaks. The transmissions are far far simpler than those in a typical ICE vehicle. If you read through this forum, you will find many things that people complain about, despite Lightnings not having engines. There will be loads of different modes to tweak so that the vehicle fits your needs.

So fear not: 1. you already have your Lightning, (hang onto it 'til Ford comes to its senses) 2. if you want great range in a BEV, get a Sierra. 3. The Ford EREV truck and Ram might be worth taking a look at. 4. The new smaller platform is still on the way -- I hope.

This has been linked before, but it is worth looking at if you have not. The Ford will be very similar to the RAM.




Ford. The people who brought you the Flaming Pintos and the Rolling Explorers.

Sponsored

 

[Newton]

There is a reason that trains and ferries are Diesel-electric, gasoline engines are not the best for that application. I doubt that Ford will go with a diesel, and I think that the EREV is as likely as the T3. I think these are just sweet words to cover the fact that they are giving into the pressure from obvious sources.

Honestly, Ford does not seem to have a plan. The Lightning was supposed to be the every man's truck at 40K, but try finding a Pro when the vehicle launched. Then he complains that customers don't want to pay for an EV while he was offering trucks at $100,000 with $10,000 dealer added profit. Then he said that China is going to wipe us out with cheap EVs - and now he is destroying the battery plants that he would need to have in order to compete with China's cheap EVs. Oddly enough they just announced a new EV for Europe.

Farley in 2022

"I want to make this very clear: Some companies seem to be pursuing a strategy of trying to match model-wise volume with eight or nine top hats— that's not a winning plan in our view," Farley said on a Wednesday evening earnings call in an apparent dig at GM's EV strategy. "We will focus on key volume nameplates but really look to leverage scale and efficiency to reach and eventually exceed our 8% EBIT [margin] target for EVs."

Farley in November 2025

"First of all, the UEV was designed for two priorities: the lowest possible cost platform with multiple top hats in one facility and designed to really compete in the heart of what we believe is the new EV market in North America, which is affordable commuter vehicles," Ford CEO Jim Farley said during the automaker's Q3 earnings call with investors. "We expect adoption will increase over time and the market continue to evolve and maybe the regulations evolve. We think this product's literally at the center of the future of the EV market in the U.S."

Farley in December 2025

“We’re following customers to where the market is, not where people thought it was going to be, but to where it is today,” he said.

This means prioritizing hybrid and semi-gas-powered EREVs over pure-play EVs. These categories are what customers are still interested in, Farley said.

You can wonder what data they discovered in one month to figure out that what customers really want is gasoline, or you could perhaps look at how vulnerable Ford is to the Canadian tariff war and then contemplate which industry has even more than usual power in this country at the moment.

 

[potato]

You can wonder what data they discovered in one month to figure out that what customers really want is gasoline, or you could perhaps look at how vulnerable Ford is to the Canadian tariff war and then contemplate which industry has even more than usual power in this country at the moment.

Is the later quote missing some context, like maybe it's in a discussion about full size trucks specifically? The first one is about their UEV platform. I thought they hadn't announced any changes to that, and in fact had reiterated that would be their main focus going forward with EVs. The UEV platform could include cars and small trucks.

EREVs are "OK", sure, but they are a stopgap. Range isn't the problem; it's charging. In hindsight, imagine if they'd put just a fraction of that 20 billion they just wrote off towards building out charging networks.

I do find it odd they went straight from no EREV option to EREV is the only option. You'd think they would have tested the waters first with some mix. But as you say, they don't seem to have much long term plan.

 

[Firn]

Locomotives are not EREVs. A locomotive does not run on battery and extend its range via generator.

Diesel submarines are, to some extent. Hey also require a team of people to maintain it.

Range isn't the problem; it's charging.

No. No matter how fast the charging is I'm not stopping every hour to charge when pulling a trailer. It could take one minute, literally one minute, to charge and it wouldn't make up for the 5-20 minutes lost getting off the highway and back on.

Cut the charging time in half and the lightning (unloaded) would be a fine road trip truck. But that isnt towing. Right now my truck would need 17 charges to go 1000 miles when towing my small travel trailer, that sucks even if the stops are 5 minutes long.

 

[Tony Burgh]

Locomotives are not EREVs. A locomotive does not run on battery and extend its range via generator.

Diesel submarines are, to some extent. Hey also require a team of people to maintain it.



No. No matter how fast the charging is I'm not stopping every hour to charge when pulling a trailer. It could take one minute, literally one minute, to charge and it wouldn't make up for the 5-20 minutes lost getting off the highway and back on.

Cut the charging time in half and the lightning (unloaded) would be a fine road trip truck. But that isnt towing. Right now my truck would need 17 charges to go 1000 miles when towing my small travel trailer, that sucks even if the stops are 5 minutes long.

And BEV’s are not tow motors.

 

[hturnerfamily]

outside of profit considerations, I think it's fine to have as many powertrain and vehicle-type options - the more the merrier

I think some of us have our dander up simply because we have too much of a personal 'angst' about these changes, even though we already HAVE our LIGHTNINGS... the pure EV version. Why does FORD coming out with a new version cause so much concern?

Yes, agreed - it might seem more obvious to continue building the current EV version and simply add an EREV version along side, but... this does not mean that somehow our current trucks are 'dinosaurs' or something... it matters not to me. FORD may be on to something.

- an EREV gives you the option to drive in EV-Only mode, and never stop to add gas, if you wish

- an EREV gives you the option to add gas, rather than DC Fast Charging, if you'd rather

I see the allure for not only those yet to enter the EV world, but also for those within the EV world who would like this 'dual' option... it seems that many of us have been drawn to the idea of throwing a generator into the bed to extend range, yet somehow we bristle at the idea of FORD doing the same.

Can FORD and others create this beast and keep it within reach, financially? Let's hope.

 

[Rayden]

Locomotives are not EREVs. A locomotive does not run on battery and extend its range via generator.

Diesel submarines are, to some extent. Hey also require a team of people to maintain it.



No. No matter how fast the charging is I'm not stopping every hour to charge when pulling a trailer. It could take one minute, literally one minute, to charge and it wouldn't make up for the 5-20 minutes lost getting off the highway and back on.

Cut the charging time in half and the lightning (unloaded) would be a fine road trip truck. But that isnt towing. Right now my truck would need 17 charges to go 1000 miles when towing my small travel trailer, that sucks even if the stops are 5 minutes long.

Ummm..am I mathing wrong? You have an ER and would have to charge every 59 miles?

 

[chriserx]

Ummm..am I mathing wrong? You have an ER and would have to charge every 59 miles?

Sounds about right if they are towing a camper at 75-80 mph.

 

[PJnc284]

I need to hook up the boat and go see just how bad the efficiency is at 75-80 (since mother nature sucks and I can't go fishing). Got .8mi/kWh at 60mph, the one time I tried it. Not that I'd ever have a desire to go 80 but bet I could watch the SOC move like the needle on the old Dodge Dakota I had in high school.

 

[evowner]

I drove 110 miles down to pick up my trailer a 6 x 12 enclosed. I drove all the way back and still had 40 miles to spare. I probably drove 65 most of the way.

 

[rufustlong]

I was having a conversation with Grok about this weeks news and thought this response was entertaining

My last question: Ford mentioned that they aren’t able to turn a profit on the existing Lightning, so it doesn't seem like something with a gas generator would be much cheaper.

Response: Yeah, exactly, adding a gas engine, generator, exhaust, cooling, and fuel tank actually makes the truck more expensive to build than the pure EV one was. Ford’s problem wasn’t that the Lightning cost too much to make in absolute terms; it was that they were losing about thirty to forty thousand dollars on every single one they sold because of battery prices, low volume, and all the rebates eating into margin. A range-extended version will probably have a sticker even higher (think eighty-five to one hundred ten thousand before incentives), but Ford figures: - They can use a much smaller battery pack (maybe forty to sixty kWh instead of ninety-eight to one hundred thirty-one kWh), which saves a ton of money even after adding the gas stuff. - People are way more willing to pay a premium when they get seven hundred-plus miles of range and no range anxiety on tow days. - They’ll sell a lot more units at that price point than they ever did with the pure EV, so the volume finally gets the plant profitable. So yeah, it’ll cost more up front, but Ford thinks the total cost per truck will finally be in the black. Crazy how the cheapest way to make a profitable electric F-150 apparently involves… a gas engine.

 

[Firn]

Ummm..am I mathing wrong? You have an ER and would have to charge every 59 miles?

0.95 mi/kwh, 70% of 131kwh (10%-80%=91kwh) is a between stops range of 87 miles. At 70mph, yeah, just over an hour.

 

[nwdiver93]

People make EREV very bad.

Study Shows That Plug-In Hybrid Owners Aren't Plugging In

 

[Oafy44]

I’m not saying and EREV won’t be a solid stop gap to start converting customers but if a lightning EV can’t be profitable for Ford , how would manufacturing an EREV be cheaper to build ?

 

[hturnerfamily]

selling more solves all problems... many, many more...

Sponsored