Lightning E-Rev 690 to 700 mile range

[25StarWhiteLightning]

The "gas" brain is interesting.

need to jump in and take a 200 or 300 mile trip

Very typical use case. /s

You're never going to not make it somewhere and get stranded

Gas cars have never run out of fuel. /s

And then reality starts setting in...

It's true, on really long trips (even medium-long when towing) you're not going to save much, if any gas compared with an ICE truck.

Sponsored

 

[carys98]

I think this is to general of a statement. I believe "and I am sure others do as well" that the current ER version of the Lightning is perfect for the majority of truck owners. Most of my friends drive full size half tons and none of them tow with it more than a couple of times a year. The majority of their driving is to and from work, running kids to and from sports practices/games, the occasional road trip, and home deport runs. The lightning can accomplish most/all of that just as well as their current trucks. And in a much cheaper way.

I’m actually happy that I have a standard range. I just recently finished the longest road trip I’ve ever taken in my 64 years and it was a great experience. The only thing that isn‘t ideal is the <200 kW charge rate. If there was Lightning with a 100 kWh, 800V system that could double the charge curve of the current one it would be perfect. Plus the $10k I saved when I bought it is nice too.

 

[rembrant]

We were all like you at one point Jon. We thought that it would be perfect to have an extended range vehicle that would get 150 miles for daily use then have gasoline for our infrequent road trips. The difference is all of us bought our BEV’s and by owning them we realized that we don’t need nor do we want the gasoline portion of what we thought we needed to have.
Instead of more range via gasoline generators or larger battery packs, I’ve realized that most important is charging speeds. I don’t want a bigger battery, I don’t want more range, I want to charge in 15 minutes or less, I want more convenient drive thru chargers, I want roadside rest stops right off of the highway to have charging at them for my road trips. I don’t care if towing on the highway I have to stop every 140 miles, I just want the stop to be right off the highway and give me another 140 miles towing or 250 miles not towing in less than 15 minutes.
This is the key to BEV’s faster charging. This concept doesn’t make sense to you because it appears that you have never owned an EV to understand the experience and what is truly needed.
I’m not saying you are wrong for wanting what you want or thinking that it’s needed. But owning one of these trucks will make 96% of the people realize they don’t want the gas range extender and only the 4% will be thinking like you wanting it.
Like I said in a post I made earlier in this thread, Ford messed up by not adding the EREV to this lineup as an option and keeping the BEV by its side. Offering both side by side would have surely doubled the sales volume between the two. I think you will find when the EREV does come out it will be more expensive just like the BEV was vs the regular gas trucks and you will find when using the gasoline generator it’s going to get similar costs per mile to the gasoline trucks while costing more upfront to purchase.
I don’t think the EREV is going to sell all that much better than the BEV Lightning did.

Jon A is entitled to his position as I am mine.

I think the case for a FORD EREV is not very strong or compelling for most people.
Imho it's a quickly conceived compromise borne from tariffs, fires and politics. All tied together. A hurried option that sounds good from a distance but any critical thinking applied and it starts to lose it's shine.

The implication of weak sales and no one wanting a BEV is misleading. It reeks of data taken out of context or massaged to support a certain naritive (ie sales, cost to make).

It's opinion dressed as fact. A surface view implied to be all encompasing.

There is way more to this story. It ignores how mismanaged the inital launch was, the assumptions made by Ford which affected where they spent their money (factories, etc.) and the return they expected to realize. The lack of dealer network support.

There is also when the tax credit was taken away, which car makers priced in, and tariffs, that impacted the supply chain and then you have an administration that is actively working against clean energy. It shook up the market and did what it was designed to do, impact/slow EV sales. All of this transpired fairly quickly, within the last two years.

Band wagon, piss poor planning, impacted by a mafia inspired administration.

EREV predicitons...
It may not even get released.
EREV will not be cheaper than the BEV.
EREV will not dramatically surpass sales of the Lightning.

Time will really tell the tale but I'm confident enough about these predictions as to post them on the interwebs for posterity

I agree with you 100%!!
Big mistakes were made by ford with the dealership network. Forcing the dealership to jump through hoops, red tape and making the dealership pay to sell EV’s as well as forcing them to install public chargers, which reduces their security of vehicles on their lot. The over pricing from the dealerships at first also didn’t help with the early sales. .
Ford should’ve implemented faster charging, and better software. The ceo admitted that they were far behind technology of the Koreans and Chinese. All of this creates lower sales than they wanted.
The ceo sucking up to the criminal inspired administration is a huge mistake. Now gas prices in California are over $6 and they will probably go up to $8 a gallon. Driving to the mountains to ski this weekend the most expensive charge was $34.77(a 90% charge) try filling up a 28 gallon gas tank at $6 a gallon for this price. I paid $193 total round trip of over 700 miles!
Ford should have kept making the current Lightning and added a option to get the EREV generator.

 

[Altivec]

There's no data either way from Ford, of course. But we do have market indications from both Ram and Scout pre-orders that indicate many times more people are considering buying the EREV than were the BEV. Actual sales data doesn't exist yet so there's no "real" data yet.

Yes, the magic batteries that will be available next year...as has been said for the last 10 years or so. Don't get me wrong, they'll get here eventually, but I wouldn't place any large bets they'll be here in quantity, at a low price very soon. Even when they are, they are only solving the easy part of the problems to solve (see my above infrastructure comments).

Both CATL and BYD, huge reputable battery companies, CATL supplies Ford announce they will have Solid state batteries in production within a couple of years. The only problem to solve is getting charge times down. If you could fill up a current lightning in 5 minutes, range would not be an issue. Gas stations as is could easily be converted to charge stations. Same amount of stalls and pull through because the wait times would be the same as a gas fill up. But yes the Magic Batteries are talked about as much as the Magic EREV trucks that solves all of life's problems with no draw backs. The only reason Scout pre-orders are skewed toward EREV is that so many people drank the koolaid. Especially scout, which chose a small generator. That thing is going to be junk, if again, it ever makes it to market.

That's what I was talking about as well. Have you compared the specs of your EREV to those of the RAM (Ford hasn't released detailed specs yet)? A whopping 84 HP 4-banger (you did say it sounded like a lawnmower, right?) 157 HP in EV mode, man, that must feel just like driving a Tesla, right? 16.5 kWh battery--to small for much usable EV range, much less having a buffer to ensure the vehicle has more than 84 HP at times. And all powered through that fantastic CVT automatic tranmission!

I was saying your EREV was the Trabant of the EREV world (compared with modern offerings). Your experience with all its "drawbacks" have little in common with the experience users can expect from the new Lighting or Ram.

And yet...I've been driving my Trabant for 10+ years and the RAM and FORD's EREV's that are in Magic and Dream land are far superior as fact. You outlined my points perfectly. For a truck a 84HP 4 banger is not going to cut it. (yes, it's a loud annoying lawn mower sound). and 16.5KW battery is not going to cut it either. So they are going to need up things significantly to haul around a heavy truck towing 14k lbs. That is not going to be cheap in terms of weight and price.

I am sure they will spec it appropriately, which again will be pricey, but the drawbacks remain the same as my experience. Biggest issue being the battery is constantly being taxed. The smaller the battery they put in to make it cheaper the faster it will go through its life cycles. If you want to use it mostly as an EV with the occasional long gas trip, on top of the small range due to smaller battery, expect maintenance issues with gas and the engine and losing performance and efficiency because you are hauling around a heavy engine/components and fuel for nothing.

If you understood how the system worked, you'd know the engine doesn't need to produce enough power to tow a 14k lb trailer up a mountain. It only needs to produce the average power needed to go up and down the mountain and maintain on flat ground. That's the beauty of it--no Power Strokes required.

Now you are claiming I don't even know how EREV's work. Oh yes the miracle of providing unlimited energy out of a lawn mower engine theory. If they just would have figured this out sooner, we could have put these lawn mowers in superduties and semis. Heck, if these things are so great, why aren't they starting with a F450 EREV.

Yes, the battery allows a buffer to smooth out short peak power requirements but the engine needs to be big enough to be a net positive into the battery. If not, it means you are depleting the battery and not able to use the truck as per its spec of 14000lb towing without using battery. If you require the battery that means not only will you need to stop for gas but you will also need to stop to charge. That would be a whole lot of LOL. I keep waiting to see the truck review sites do some tests to see if RAM and whoever is next spec'ed their engines according to what their mouths are spewing or are all the disclaimers going to come out then. Year after year I wait for these tests but these mythical unicorn trucks that RAM shows off at every auto show for some reason can't be given to a reviewer.

Of course if you keep the battery the same size the pure BEV will be cheaper. But nobody wants to buy those. Comparing it with a BEV with a battery of usable size, it will be cheaper. I'll let the CEO of Ram math for you:

You do realize that even if they kept the same battery size that the EREV's efficiency and range would be less because its now hauling around an engine/fuel/and components. Others have shown that the battery savings won't be much at all in order to keep a decent range. Then you state "nobody wants those, referring to a pure EV" LOL... What the heck does that mean. The only purpose to consider an EREV is that you want to use it primarily as a BEV but have the ability to go further at times with gas. If not, why not just get a gas truck. So to keep costs down, you want a smaller battery which will give you low range, low pack level perfomance, with less efficiency due to the extra weight. In other words, a poor BEV experience. and you want a small noisy engine to save costs that now needs to haul around a heavy battery for no reason giving you a poor gas vehicle experience. You can't have it both ways. In order for this vehicle to be spec'ed properly to give a decent experience (still worse than BEV or ICE) its going to be priced higher then a BEV.

 

[Jon A]

Very typical use case. /s
....
And then reality starts setting in...

I think you need to pick an argument and stick with it. In the first you seem to be implying trips of that distance are extremely rare (in which case, an EREV owner would be using very, very little gas for the bulk of their use).

In the second you seem to be implying that much, much longer trips, even when towing, are so common people should really be concerned about not saving much gas on such trips.

Which is it?

Gas cars have never run out of fuel. /s

I think you need to actually read the context of what was said. Your comment makes no sense.

 

[Jon A]

I think this is to general of a statement. I believe "and I am sure others do as well" that the current ER version of the Lightning is perfect for the majority of truck owners.

It was generalized. I wasn't saying it doesn't work perfectly well for lots of people. It was generalized in the context of getting a wider customer base to actually buy it. Being lacking in some specific capabilities (even if they aren't needed very often for most people) tends to drive buyers away. You can argue they're making the wrong choice, but it's their money.

 

[25StarWhiteLightning]

I think you need to pick an argument and stick with it. In the first you seem to be implying trips of that distance are extremely rare (in which case, an EREV owner would be using very, very little gas for the bulk of their use).

In the second you seem to be implying that much, much longer trips, even when towing, are so common people should really be concerned about not saving much gas on such trips.

Which is it?

I think you need to actually read the context of what was said. Your comment makes no sense.

You are the one who said hopping in for a 200-300 mile trip was a use case car companies should plan for, not me. And then later in the same post you said for these long trips, that you brought up, aren't even as efficient as an ICE truck. The EREV will be worse in battery only situations than a BEV and will be worse in gas only situations than an ICE vehicle. What is the point??

I think the fumes are going to your head.

 

[Jon A]

You are the one who said hopping in for a 200-300 mile trip was a use case car companies should plan for, not me.

If you don't want to read my posts, that's fine. But if you feel compelled to comment on them, actually reading them first may be helpful.

But when you need to jump in and take a 200 or 300 mile trip, it's not really going to matter if the generator kicks on at exactly 145 miles or 135 or 155. If you're playing the radio you may not even notice it happens and the driving experience will be the same. And at the end of the trip, your gas mileage will be off the charts better than any ICE vehicle making the same trip.

The statement was regarding exactly how far the BEV range is doesn't matter much when it is much longer than most people need on a daily basis--and that when you do exceed it on an occasional trip, it won't matter in any noticeable way. It had nothing to do with companies "planning for" such trips.

And then later in the same post you said for these long trips, that you brought up, aren't even as efficient as an ICE truck.

No, my comment on efficiency for those trips was clearly not that. I put it in bold above so there's a remote chance you'll notice it this time. When I said you may not save much on gas I was talking about much, much, longer trips.

It's true, on really long trips (even medium-long when towing) you're not going to save much, if any gas compared with an ICE truck.

200-300 miles is not a "really long trip."

The EREV will be worse in battery only situations...

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better but there's no evidence this will be the case when compared with an EV of decent battery size.

and will be worse in gas only situations than an ICE vehicle.

I gave a nice list of reasons it will be better than a ICE truck, even in gas-only situations. Maybe go back and read those? And if you don't think any specific reason is correct, point it out with specifics? Generalized slurs with nothing to back them up aren't going to be taken seriously by anybody.

 

[25StarWhiteLightning]

Driving 300 miles or more in a single day is a rare occurrence for the average American driver. While exact daily counts for this specific threshold are limited, national travel data consistently shows that the vast majority of trips are much shorter: [1, 2]

• Rare Long-Distance Trips: According to U.S. Department of Transportation data, only 2% of all daily tripsexceed 50 miles. [3]
• Trip Length Distribution: Approximately 95.1% of all personal vehicle trips are shorter than 31 miles. Only about 6.9% of vehicle trips are longer than 30 miles. [1, 4, 5, 6]
• Annual Long-Distance Frequency: Roughly 61% of Americans do not make any long-distance trips (defined as 50+ miles away from home) in an average year. [7]
• The 300-Mile Threshold: Trips of 50 to 499 miles make up about 90% of all "long-distance" travel, but these are typically for vacations or special events rather than routine driving. [8]
• Daily Averages: The average American driver covers only about 29 to 37 miles per day in total, typically split across roughly 2.4 to 2.6 separate trips. [4, 9, 10]

In short, for most Americans, a 300-mile drive is a yearly or less frequent event, often reserved for holiday travel or major road trips. [11, 12]

[1] https://www.reddit.com
[2] https://www.reddit.com
[3] https://www.energy.gov
[4] https://www.reddit.com
[5] https://afdc.energy.gov
[6] https://afdc.energy.gov
[7] https://nhts.ornl.gov
[8] https://www.bts.gov
[9] https://www.insuredbetter.com
[10] https://aaafoundation.org
[11] https://www.reddit.com
[12] https://cleantechnica.com

 

[25StarWhiteLightning]

While specific frequency data for towing distances over 50 miles is not publicly standardized, broader surveys of light-duty truck (pickup) usage indicate that most owners rarely use their vehicles for towing of any distance. [1]
General Towing Frequency
According to a widespread Strategic Vision survey of 250,000 pickup truck owners, a significant majority do not tow frequently: [2, 3]

• Rare or Never: Roughly 75% of truck owners use their vehicles to tow a trailer once a year or less. [4, 5]
• Frequent Users: Only about 7% of pickup truck owners report using their vehicles for towing on a regular or frequent basis. [1, 6]
• Occasional Users: Approximately 2% of owners report towing occasionally. [6]

Usage by Truck Category
The likelihood of towing varies significantly by the type of light-duty truck owned: [7, 8, 9]

• Full-Size Trucks: Owners of full-size pickups (e.g., Ford F-150, Ram 1500) are more likely to engage in "truck-specific" tasks like towing and hauling than owners of compact or mid-size trucks. [7]
• Electric Pickups: Interestingly, early data suggests that Ford F-150 Lightning owners may use their trucks for "work" tasks like hauling and camping more frequently than traditional gas-powered F-150 owners. [10, 11]

Contextual Distance Data
While a specific "over 50 miles" frequency isn't isolated in national surveys, general driving data shows that 95.1% of all personal vehicle trips are shorter than 31 miles. Since 75% of truck owners tow once a year or less, a 50+ mile towing trip would be an outlier for the vast majority of light-duty truck drivers. [5, 12]

[1] https://www.facebook.com
[2] https://www.facebook.com
[3] https://www.facebook.com
[4] https://www.facebook.com
[5] https://x.com
[6] https://news.ycombinator.com
[7] https://www.facebook.com
[8] https://www.mavericktruckclub.com
[9] https://www.reddit.com
[10] https://www.motortrend.com
[11] https://www.nyeford.com
[12] https://www.facebook.com

 

[Lukewv]

No thanks, If I wanted a hybrid I'd have bought one.

In California we have to smog test ice auto every two years another reason I love my Lightning my question is will we have to smog test this gas generator?

 

[Shmoe]

Driving 300 miles or more in a single day is a rare occurrence for the average American driver. While exact daily counts for this specific threshold are limited, national travel data consistently shows that the vast majority of trips are much shorter: [1, 2]

• Rare Long-Distance Trips: According to U.S. Department of Transportation data, only 2% of all daily tripsexceed 50 miles. [3]
• Trip Length Distribution: Approximately 95.1% of all personal vehicle trips are shorter than 31 miles. Only about 6.9% of vehicle trips are longer than 30 miles. [1, 4, 5, 6]
• Annual Long-Distance Frequency: Roughly 61% of Americans do not make any long-distance trips (defined as 50+ miles away from home) in an average year. [7]
• The 300-Mile Threshold: Trips of 50 to 499 miles make up about 90% of all "long-distance" travel, but these are typically for vacations or special events rather than routine driving. [8]
• Daily Averages: The average American driver covers only about 29 to 37 miles per day in total, typically split across roughly 2.4 to 2.6 separate trips. [4, 9, 10]

In short, for most Americans, a 300-mile drive is a yearly or less frequent event, often reserved for holiday travel or major road trips. [11, 12]

[1] https://www.reddit.com
[2] https://www.reddit.com
[3] https://www.energy.gov
[4] https://www.reddit.com
[5] https://afdc.energy.gov
[6] https://afdc.energy.gov
[7] https://nhts.ornl.gov
[8] https://www.bts.gov
[9] https://www.insuredbetter.com
[10] https://aaafoundation.org
[11] https://www.reddit.com
[12] https://cleantechnica.com

Yup.. these guys are way too close to the situation to realize they are a niche/corner case at best. We'll solve these problems too though. And the solution will ultimately be a BEV.

 

[Rayden]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the charging infrastructure is expanding at a massive scale. Just to show a few...

Ionna:

• Rapid Growth: By mid-March 2026, the network reached 100 sites and nearly 1,000 live charging bays, with 3,700 more in process.
• Infrastructure Goal: The company, backed by eight major automakers, has a long-term goal of 30,000 DC fast-charging bays by 2030.

Tesla:
As of the end of 2025, Tesla operated over 36,400 individual Supercharger stalls in the United States.


Walmart Charging Network Highlights (2025-2026):

• Expansion Scope: The new initiative adds 78 new high-power (400 kW) fast-charging locations.
• Proprietary Network: Unlike previous partnerships, this new network is owned and operated by Walmart.
• Site Features: New stations feature roughly eight stalls, including pull-through spaces for trailers.
• Future Goal: By 2030, Walmart aims to have thousands of stations, potentially with over 10,000 to 30,000 total charging stalls.

That's just THREE of the providers of the myriad out there. Interestingly, the first time I used a DCFC, on the way home from buying my truck, was at a Sam's Club. If you just think about the fact that there will very soon be a DCFC at every Walmart or Sam's Club, you suddenly realize just how little you have to worry about range.

 

[Shmoe]

Check out

https://dcfctracker.com/

 

[Jon A]

If you could fill up a current lightning in 5 minutes, range would not be an issue. Gas stations as is could easily be converted to charge stations. Same amount of stalls and pull through because the wait times would be the same as a gas fill up.

Gas stations do not need an actual pipeline direct from the refinery in order to keep them supplied with energy. Replace a row of gas pumps with 1-2 MEGAWATT! chargers, and the station does need a "pipeline of copper" directly to it. That will be obscenely expensive to do in even a small percentage of locations where gas is currently available. If you think that's going to happen any time soon then somebody here is clearly in "Magic and Dream land."

But yes the Magic Batteries are talked about as much as the Magic EREV trucks that solves all of life's problems with no draw backs.

You must be joking. "Magic Batteries" have been talked about among the EV crowd for as long as EVs have existed. It's one of the most common subjects on any EV board.

EREVs? Gas truck owners generally have never heard the term, don't know that they are or don't care. And as this very thread (and others on this board) illustrates so definitively, most BEV truck owners despise the very idea of them with a passion. Not the actual trucks based upon actual performance (because they don't exist yet), but the very idea that they might exist someday.

Especially scout, which chose a small generator. That thing is going to be junk, if again, it ever makes it to market.

I agree with you there. That EREV will certainly work much better than your Trabant, but it's bad enough for me to cross it off my list. It really looks like it was a complete afterthought thrown out there at the last minute. If they change their minds, put a decent sized engine under the hood (so tow rating doesn't need to be cut in half) it would be back on my list. It looks like a fantastic truck otherwise.

Biggest issue being the battery is constantly being taxed. The smaller the battery they put in to make it cheaper the faster it will go through its life cycles.

Remember, they aren't using Trabant-sized 16.5 kWh battery. A 92 kWh battery (in the case of the RAM) in an EREV will be less "taxed" than a 98 kWh battery in a BEV (by a long way for some use cases). Also consider never charging it to 100% (because you really don't need to), never draining it to below 17% (because you really don't need to).... And on really long trips/hard long distance towing, it's mostly just along for the ride. Battery life with any vehicle that has one is a concern, but given the above conditions of operation, there's no reason it shouldn't fair pretty well compared with batteries modestly larger in a BEV. Exact details will take real data and vary from owner to owner so bold proclamations one way or the other are silly speculation at this point.

Now you are claiming I don't even know how EREV's work. Oh yes the miracle of providing unlimited energy out of a lawn mower engine theory. If they just would have figured this out sooner, we could have put these lawn mowers in superduties and semis. Heck, if these things are so great, why aren't they starting with a F450 EREV.

The Ram (we don't know what Ford will use yet) at least, is not using a lawn mower engine like your Trabant. The specs for the RAM have been out there for a long time now. If it's so important to you to argue how terrible it will be, maybe spending a few minutes and looking at them may be in order?

Yes, the battery allows a buffer to smooth out short peak power requirements but the engine needs to be big enough to be a net positive into the battery. If not, it means you are depleting the battery and not able to use the truck as per its spec of 14000lb towing without using battery. If you require the battery that means not only will you need to stop for gas but you will also need to stop to charge. That would be a whole lot of LOL.

Again, look at the specs. It will be able to put a net positive into the battery almost all of the time. Have you ever looked at your average power consumption of a towing trip? Up a mountain pass? Do you think maybe, just maybe, using actual data to form an opinion might ever be wise?

Of course you haven't. You have "decided" these powertrains will suck based upon your emotions, your feelings.

I, on the other hand, didn't become so optimistic that these powertrains could be really good, until Ram release the specs on theirs. I then ran the numbers using actual data and it looked really, really good.

EVs are a candy store for Engineers--they provide so much data for us to geek out over. It's really fun! Lots of towing tests are done online providing lots of data. Often, if you can do some math, you can extract the data you need from what is given. Some pertinent examples:

While lots of people have done them, the guys at TFL have done gobs of towing tests on EVs that often provide good data.

Of all their EV towing tests with a large profile trailer at highway speeds, the highest average power consumption I found was just under 80 kW. The Ram generator can produce 130 kW steady state, all day long. That means in those specific tests, the generator would have been able to maintain the SOC of the battery with a whopping 60+% margin of safety.

If you extrapolate a larger trailer, big headwind, higher speeds, etc, you will eat into that and at some point you can hit a limit where power consumption exceeds 130 kW. Is that something that any user will ever experience? With a headwind that big is anybody going to try to keep going that fast?

Those are the questions that need to be answered. Contrary to popular belief, this is the type of case that will be the proof test for an EREV (not hills/mountains). A headwind can last all day long, mountain passes are quite short in comparison, and then you regen down the other side. A high load from wind/aero that lasts for hours is the case that will stress the generator the most.

But from the initial math, it looks like it will be a very strong performer for 99.9% (estimated ) of towing situations a 1/2 ton will ever run into. If you can find any tests that document higher average power use, please do post them up as they would be great info!

So now let's consider mountain passes. We have some good data points from TFL in that regard as well. They towed a specific 9K trailer up the Ike with several EVs.

The Lightning used an average of 180.75 kW on the way up, burning 24.1 kWh of the battery. The Ram's generator is capable of 202 kW max power. So if it held that for 8 minutes, it could pass that test without losing any battery SOC at all. It will be a calibration choice, but I'm guessing they wouldn't even bother running the generator in "max power" mode unless the battery SOC gets dangerously low (because it would be a bit obnoxious), which shouldn't happen if you're using tow/haul mode.

With the generator only running at its quiet, lazy 130 kW, you'd be consuming 50.75 kW from the battery on the way up and burn 6.77 kWh from it. The Lightning gained 8 kWh regening down the hill...so think about that for a few seconds and it becomes quite clear the Ram should be able to go up and down mountains like that all day long fairly easily.

I didn't jump to any conclusions based upon my emotions. I used real world towing data to determine what was required from a truck to do a thing. With Rams specs published, I was able to compare those specs to what was required for the task.

I came to the conclusion these powertrains have the potential to be very good at doing "truck things." And with the obvious benefits/savings for daily use, they're pretty compelling option.

If you want links to specific videos and for me to show you how to do the math, I'd be happy to provide it.

with less efficiency due to the extra weight. In other words, a poor BEV experience. and you want a small noisy engine to save costs that now needs to haul around a heavy battery for no reason giving you a poor gas vehicle experience.

OK, let's deal with "all that extra weight...."

Ford's 131 kWh battery weighs about 1800 lbs. The battery for the RAM weighs about 1200 lbs, so you're starting with a 600 lb battery advantage. My educated estimate (with a Sandy Munro assist) is the genset and all the crap that goes with it will run about 800 lbs. So, you're at a whopping 200 lbs weight increase due to the different powertrain.

That's going to have any noticable affect on efficiency, handling, the BEV experience? Really? I think you're exaggerating a bit.

Compared with the best towing BEV, that thing has a battery that weighs about 2800 lbs. So now the EREV weighs 800 lbs less.... But hauling that around every day isn't a problem, because we all know a pound of battery weighs much less than a pound of that icky ICE stuff....

When Ford comes out with specs for theirs, we can re-do all the math above where specs differ significantly.

Sponsored