Important Update: Ford EV Roadmap & Future of F-150 Lightning (EREV Next Gen Model) - ⛔️ ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS

[jsamp17]

80mph for 5 hours so a 400 mile trip.
1.25miles / kwh efficiency with a 200kwh battery has us at 250 miles. We need 150 miles ER.

150 additional miles at the same efficiency would need 120kwh. To land at exactly 0% at the end of our trip means we have 5 hours to generate it -> 120kwh/5 hours means a 24kw generator would be needed.

(The generator can use the whole time because the 80mph at 1.25mi/kwh implies a burn rate of 64kw --this is more than the 24kw so there instantly "room" for the ER charge).

Quick backwards check:
200kwh + 24kw * 5 hrs -> 320kwh
320kwh * 1.25 miles / kwh -> 400mi

Sponsored

 

[Kakaratto]

Hi everyone,

I have owned two Volts (2012 and 2017 MY) and I loved them both. My only issue was battery range. I wish Chevorlet would have given us 100 -150 miles of electric range (we only had 40 and 52). I then transitioned to the Bolt EUV and loved it. However, I then purchased a fishing boat and needed something bigger that I could tow with.

I do agree with Ford that towing range is an issue. I will be watching with interest when the new Lightning EREV comes out. I am not sure if you are reading this Ford (or Brian), but a 100-150 mile battery range on an EREV would be perfect for most people (including myself). Also, please keep DCFC for those of us who want to use it.

I love my Lightning period. However, for my next vehicle, I will be looking for a vehicle that can handle those few longer road trips that I take each year when I need to tow my boat. This is why I seriously considered the Ramcharger when it was announced.

 

[jsamp17]

Maybe more interesting with the announcement numbers...

700 miles
Assumptions: 70mph (10hrs), 1.7mi/kwh, 200kwh batt.

200kwh * 1.7 mi/kwh -> 340mi. Need ER 360mi.
360mi / 1.7 mi/kwh -> 212kwh
212kwh / 10 hrs -> 21.2kw gen

Still 20 something kw. The battery pack will be smaller than that...maybe the efficiency is a bit higher in ideal conditions...but then charging a battery might have about 10% loss...but maybe thats avoided by directly supplying inverters/motors most of the time.

 

[Lomilar]

Just for giggles for our engineers here:
I want to drive 80 mph for 5 hours straight in my new Lightning EREV. Nice conditions but getting 1.25 mi/kwh (these are what my physics prof used to call “nice” numbers). I have a 200 kwh battery (hahaha, like that will happen). I like diesel fuel to run my generator.
What power rating do I need for the engine running my Ford Lightning gen set?

Start at 100% SOC. End at 0%. Don’t worry, diesel breath will limp you to Tesla supercharger.

Show your work and assumptions for full credit.

Dawg I'm way ahead of you.

Overcoming rolling resistance and aero requires a combined ~1600N of force, 340N of rolling resistance and 1245N of air resistance, highly dependent on altitude, humidity, etc.

To figure out the energy required to counteract the force at 35.76 m/s, you need 1585N * 35.75m/s, or 56.6KW at the wheels, or 60KW with 5% losses and 400W of power overhead for other running systems.

60KW ~= 80HP. Efficiency tends to maximize around ~50% throttle, but given you can use that energy to recharge the battery, it doesn't really matter what power rating you have as long as you aren't going uphill and it's better than an MX-5 Miata.

Let me know if you want my spreadsheet.

P.S. I AM NOT SAYING the EREV Lightning has a Miata engine in it. I don't want to end up on Electrek!

 

[Tony Burgh]

Dawg I'm way ahead of you.

Overcoming rolling resistance and aero requires a combined ~1600N of force, 340N of rolling resistance and 1245N of air resistance, highly dependent on altitude, humidity, etc.

To figure out the energy required to counteract the force at 35.76 m/s, you need 1585N * 35.75m/s, or 56.6KW at the wheels, or 60KW with 5% losses and 400W of power overhead for other running systems.

60KW ~= 80HP. Efficiency tends to maximize around ~50% throttle, but given you can use that energy to recharge the battery, it doesn't really matter what power rating you have as long as you aren't going uphill and it's better than an MX-5 Miata.

Let me know if you want my spreadsheet.

P.S. I AM NOT SAYING the EREV Lightning has a Miata engine in it. I don't want to end up on Electrek!

Much more work than I planned to do. Hahaha. Looks good.
My back of envelope scribbles got me to 100 bhp for Gen set of 40% efficiency.
Like you say, it ain’t gonna be a Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine in the bed of the truck.

 

[Wendy]

Hey you guys are jumping to conclusions (and I'm only on page 29 so more jumping to read)
You don't have all the details about the 'generator', but I have some inside information from Not AI ... they will be installing one of these generators on each of the 4 tires:

Very quiet. Doesn't take up any room in the Frunk! The 'gas' that Brian is referring to is that they will be filling the tires with nitrogen which apparently will make the generator more efficient.

 

[PJnc284]

 

[Aminorjourney]

I do not see many reviews on the #1 and only reason Ford discontinued the Lighting and that is that they lost way too much money on each one they sold. It just does not make sense for Ford or any other manufacturer to looks $20k per vehicle. A big battery in a heavy EV truck makes for a VERY expensive vehicle. Thats why the rest of the world only builds small EV for the most part.

But did we examine why?

Because, as an industry insider, I have many ideas.

1) Ford promised a low-cost version that excited pre-orders, then locked out the Pro trim extended range to regular customers (and put the price of the standard range up).

2) Ford pushed the high-end models, focusing on the high-end tech-savvy buyer, not the actual people who needed or would use a truck as a truck.

3) Ford allowed its dealer network to do whatever the heck they wanted when it came to after sales and service. And that burned bridges. Especially when it had an inadequate supply chain.

4) Ford didn't promote the Lightning well with fleet operators or independent customers. I haven't heard good things about how larger fleets were treated, and I know for a fact (from some consulting clients) that Ford wouldn't talk to smaller fleet operators unless they were going to make a big order.

5) Ford consistently over promised and underdelivered on tech, instead of just making a darned pickup that happened to be electric.

There's zero reason the Lightning needed to be what it was. Ford lost money because it kept pushing $100,000 sticker prices, not $30,000 sticker prices. I bet there are people here who would have traded a fancy screen and blue cruise for a 20% price reduction.

But the real smoking gun was that Ford - like so many other automakers - didn't try to sell it. It wasn't in a whole lot of promotional material. It wasn't sold for its strengths. And Ford didn't work to counter naysayers who tried to nitpick.

At $30k or $35k it's a stretch over a basic ICE crew cab F150, but it's at least possible to make the figures work.

At $80-100k? Not so much.

 

[Tony Burgh]

But did we examine why?

Because, as an industry insider, I have many ideas.

1) Ford promised a low-cost version that excited pre-orders, then locked out the Pro trim extended range to regular customers (and put the price of the standard range up).

2) Ford pushed the high-end models, focusing on the high-end tech-savvy buyer, not the actual people who needed or would use a truck as a truck.

3) Ford allowed its dealer network to do whatever the heck they wanted when it came to after sales and service. And that burned bridges. Especially when it had an inadequate supply chain.

4) Ford didn't promote the Lightning well with fleet operators or independent customers. I haven't heard good things about how larger fleets were treated, and I know for a fact (from some consulting clients) that Ford wouldn't talk to smaller fleet operators unless they were going to make a big order.

5) Ford consistently over promised and underdelivered on tech, instead of just making a darned pickup that happened to be electric.

There's zero reason the Lightning needed to be what it was. Ford lost money because it kept pushing $100,000 sticker prices, not $30,000 sticker prices. I bet there are people here who would have traded a fancy screen and blue cruise for a 20% price reduction.

But the real smoking gun was that Ford - like so many other automakers - didn't try to sell it. It wasn't in a whole lot of promotional material. It wasn't sold for its strengths. And Ford didn't work to counter naysayers who tried to nitpick.

At $30k or $35k it's a stretch over a basic ICE crew cab F150, but it's at least possible to make the figures work.

At $80-100k? Not so much.

The $40k pro would have converted a lot of tradespeople from ICE.
Hey, where’s the profit in that?

 

[jrex727]

My next EV will more than likely be the one that has the best self driving technology. I want my own personal Waymo.

 

[shutterbug]

That's what the owners of DeLorean, Saturn, Edsel, Oldsmobile, Geo, Pontiac, Studebaker .... said

Ford isn't shutting down, unlike those other brands.

 

[shutterbug]

The right move would be to extend warranties, specifically the EV components, from 8 years / 100,000 miles to something like 10 years, 150,000 miles to match that commitment to parts. But, that would set a precedent and the lawyers would never allow it.

I don't think you can extend HVB beyond 8/100K.

 

[RickLightning]

I don't think you can extend HVB beyond 8/100K.

Manufacturer can do whatever they want to.

 

[Pioneer74]

You know what the interesting thing about an EREV Lightning is? Since the drive train is pure electric, it wouldn't take much engineering to remove the gas generator and put in a larger battery if demand warrants it.

Just something to keep in mind.

 

[GDN]

I am not sure what to say other than Mr. Farley appears to be a very weak leader, who has been unable to improve vehicle quality, and who flips flops strategy and execution in response to the slightest shift in the direction of the wind.

Most obvious is how he choreographs his future failures now so he doesn’t have to take accountability later - instead he can point the finger. I have been listening to him for three years now, and he does a brilliant job of preparing everyone for upcoming failure [ “Chinese car companies are better”, “we are being forced to make non-gas cars”]

It was Ford’s decision years ago to stop making affordable cars (EVs were barely on the radar).

It was Ford’s decision to globalize supply chain, and in the case of aluminum, to be practically sole sourced.

It was Ford’s decision to announce a $40k Lightning and then sell only builds at $70k and up for a long time.

It's taken this decision for you to realize that. Ford hasn't done anything innovative in years. Lord help them if the ICE truck ever starts to stumble.

Sponsored