• 📊 Lightning Orders List: Add Yours Inside!
  • Welcome to F150Lightningforum.com everyone!

    If you're joining us from F150gen14.com, then you may already have an account here!

    If you were registered on F150gen14.com as of April 16, 2022 or earlier, then you can simply login here with the same username and password!

  • 📊 Lightning Owners Registry: Add Your Delivered Lightning!
OP
OP
F150ROD

F150ROD

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Threads
69
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
2,558
Location
SoCal
Vehicles
F150 IB Lariat Lightning/Miata ND2 Club
Occupation
U.S. Navy Retired
yes i was thinking about soccer moms going grocery shopping
Which is 90% of "real truck drivers"

BTW, I think Ford will be selling a lot of the work trucks to the Government since they are already moving towards EV and the amount of Bolts I see on military bases is insane.
 

Artie

New member
First Name
Arthur
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Vehicles
2001 F150 Lightning and 2020 MKZ
Occupation
Retired
Well I have owned an 01 Lightning for over 20 years now. This new electric 150 is not now or will it ever be a Lightning. Sorry just how I feel about stealing a name that has a true performance heritage. I have owned nothing but Blue Ovals for 50 plus years. This is not a good day in my book. If you own one you know just taking a drive still gets you more smiles to the miles. Listing to the whine of the blower and the sound of the exhaust can't be replaced with dead air. Don't get me wrong electric has it's place and offering that option for those who want it is great. Maybe just call it Flash. Artie
 

Service_Merchandise

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
211
Reaction score
7
Location
Tennessee
Vehicles
2018 Ford F-150
Once again, the same limitations on every current EV is going to inform how Ford decides to equip the Lightning.

Li-ion battery energy densities are notably deficient compared with gasoline. The gasoline engine has the advantage of only needing to carry 1/15th of the needed products of combustion. For every pound of gasoline burned, you're also using roughly 14 pounds of air. When you have burned through 22 gallons of gasoline, your truck is going to be 140lbs lighter and you will have sucked literally a ton of air through the intake manifold. The battery pack is going to weigh exactly the same full as empty and by it's very nature, it's going to require storing 100% of the energy used. The same as if you had to store 2,000lbs of air in your truck to burn the 22 gallons of gasoline.

To increase the range, not only would you need to increase the size of the battery to get more range but you would need to increase the size of the battery to carry around the extra weight of the battery. It would also reach the point where you have added so much battery weight to the vehicle, the range will decrease. That's not including the fact that bigger motors will be needed to move the larger battery.

If the battery weight is 1,800lbs and it has a 300 mile range, doubling that might get you an extra 100 miles because now the truck is always carrying 3,600lbs of battery weight and now you have zero payload. This is all rough guesses and assumes relatively flat terrain! I would also guess that the standard range battery weight is the same as the extended range battery, only with less expensive individual li-ion cells. Exaggerated example but probably not too far from reality, especially when steep hills are thrown in and regenerative braking can't do its part.

I don't think the battery technology is ready for replacing gasoline trucks for towing or 600 mile a day roadtrips. I don't think Ford intended to with the Lightning. However, I feel that at least half the trucks being used as daily drivers today could easily be replaced with a 100% battery powered truck and nobody would know the difference.

Anyone who is complaining about the range of any EV needs to be mindful of this and how incredible it is that the technology is competitive at all. Despite the promises of higher energy density with newer technology like solid state batteries, gasoline might never be exceeded in its current range and convenience.

There's mention of the truck only being available in Supercrew with a 5.5' bed, however, the image for the 'commercial oriented model' is unavailable at Ford.com. The difference is around $12,000 though and I wonder if it actually will be a single cab with only one motor and not as much battery pack as the XLT?

The IRS and full belly pan shows that Ford is serious. One thing that could possibly extend the range at the extent of looking odd would be full fender skirts on at least the rear. Lowering the suspension 2" and chopping the top could also eke out a few extra miles on the highway!

As of now, Cybertruck is merely a concept car and I really hope that if it does go into production, that either it's fully self driving, or the windshield is revised to provide better visibility. I have put some miles behind the wheel driving the Lotus Esprit, which has miserable visibility and I can only imagine how much worse it would be with a truck. Audi had the same problem, the engineers decided that a steep windshield angle would be best for aerodynamics. The rally drivers complained enough that the race cars had revised, less steep windshields. The less accomplished, every day drivers had to make do with the harder to see out of cars!

GM has let slip some details about the new EV Hummer and it's going to be very heavy. They have also announced that a Silverado fleet EV is in the works, they're the only ones so far with real world experience making battery electric trucks with the old school S-10 EV. GM is claiming that the fleet truck will have a 400 mile range.

Another detail to keep in mind, is just like horsepower in the 60's, the manufacturers have been fudging the numbers. Since there are various precautions on discharging a lithium ion cell below 15-20% as well as charging above 90-95% capacity. If that holds true for the Lightning, it could mean that the 300 mile range is closer to 225 miles before any miles are driven. Either that or the marketing department thinks that Ford buyers might be less EV savvy and not in on the joke, so were more conservative about their ratings. Testing in the Mach-E suggests the latter. If Ford is underrating the Lightning battery, then that's the reason for the seemingly disappointing range compared to Tesla who readily admit to using unrealistic battery range estimates.

99% of the charging infrastructure already exists and apart from the highway system, power lines have changed the landscape of this country more than anything. The addition of charging stations will be a nominal expense for the power companies if it means getting a portion of the cash that gas stations are now getting, it's much easier and cheaper to put in a charging station in a remote area than a gas station and the power supply is already there. No need for sending out tanker trucks or other support needed and while you only need twenty bucks to buy an old oil drum and steal 55 gallons of gas with a garden hose. It's a lot more expensive and I imagine slightly more sophisticated to store stolen electricity. So it's much less of a risk now to leave charging stations unattended.
Once again, the same limitations on every current EV is going to inform how Ford decides to equip the Lightning.

Li-ion battery energy densities are notably deficient compared with gasoline. The gasoline engine has the advantage of only needing to carry 1/15th of the needed products of combustion. For every pound of gasoline burned, you're also using roughly 14 pounds of air. When you have burned through 22 gallons of gasoline, your truck is going to be 140lbs lighter and you will have sucked literally a ton of air through the intake manifold. The battery pack is going to weigh exactly the same full as empty and by it's very nature, it's going to require storing 100% of the energy used. The same as if you had to store 2,000lbs of air in your truck to burn the 22 gallons of gasoline.

To increase the range, not only would you need to increase the size of the battery to get more range but you would need to increase the size of the battery to carry around the extra weight of the battery. It would also reach the point where you have added so much battery weight to the vehicle, the range will decrease. That's not including the fact that bigger motors will be needed to move the larger battery.

If the battery weight is 1,800lbs and it has a 300 mile range, doubling that might get you an extra 100 miles because now the truck is always carrying 3,600lbs of battery weight and now you have zero payload. This is all rough guesses and assumes relatively flat terrain! I would also guess that the standard range battery weight is the same as the extended range battery, only with less expensive individual li-ion cells. Exaggerated example but probably not too far from reality, especially when steep hills are thrown in and regenerative braking can't do its part.

I don't think the battery technology is ready for replacing gasoline trucks for towing or 600 mile a day roadtrips. I don't think Ford intended to with the Lightning. However, I feel that at least half the trucks being used as daily drivers today could easily be replaced with a 100% battery powered truck and nobody would know the difference.

Anyone who is complaining about the range of any EV needs to be mindful of this and how incredible it is that the technology is competitive at all. Despite the promises of higher energy density with newer technology like solid state batteries, gasoline might never be exceeded in its current range and convenience.

There's mention of the truck only being available in Supercrew with a 5.5' bed, however, the image for the 'commercial oriented model' is unavailable at Ford.com. The difference is around $12,000 though and I wonder if it actually will be a single cab with only one motor and not as much battery pack as the XLT?

The IRS and full belly pan shows that Ford is serious. One thing that could possibly extend the range at the extent of looking odd would be full fender skirts on at least the rear. Lowering the suspension 2" and chopping the top could also eke out a few extra miles on the highway!

As of now, Cybertruck is merely a concept car and I really hope that if it does go into production, that either it's fully self driving, or the windshield is revised to provide better visibility. I have put some miles behind the wheel driving the Lotus Esprit, which has miserable visibility and I can only imagine how much worse it would be with a truck. Audi had the same problem, the engineers decided that a steep windshield angle would be best for aerodynamics. The rally drivers complained enough that the race cars had revised, less steep windshields. The less accomplished, every day drivers had to make do with the harder to see out of cars!

GM has let slip some details about the new EV Hummer and it's going to be very heavy. They have also announced that a Silverado fleet EV is in the works, they're the only ones so far with real world experience making battery electric trucks with the old school S-10 EV. GM is claiming that the fleet truck will have a 400 mile range.

Another detail to keep in mind, is just like horsepower in the 60's, the manufacturers have been fudging the numbers. Since there are various precautions on discharging a lithium ion cell below 15-20% as well as charging above 90-95% capacity. If that holds true for the Lightning, it could mean that the 300 mile range is closer to 225 miles before any miles are driven. Either that or the marketing department thinks that Ford buyers might be less EV savvy and not in on the joke, so were more conservative about their ratings. Testing in the Mach-E suggests the latter. If Ford is underrating the Lightning battery, then that's the reason for the seemingly disappointing range compared to Tesla who readily admit to using unrealistic battery range estimates.

99% of the charging infrastructure already exists and apart from the highway system, power lines have changed the landscape of this country more than anything. The addition of charging stations will be a nominal expense for the power companies if it means getting a portion of the cash that gas stations are now getting, it's much easier and cheaper to put in a charging station in a remote area than a gas station and the power supply is already there. No need for sending out tanker trucks or other support needed and while you only need twenty bucks to buy an old oil drum and steal 55 gallons of gas with a garden hose. It's a lot more expensive and I imagine slightly more sophisticated to store stolen electricity. So it's much less of a risk now to leave charging stations unattended.
Ford actually produced A Ranger EV 1998-2002

280px-GSFRFrontQuarterView.jpg


GSFRUnderhood.jpg


250px-GSFRInsideCab.jpg


220px-SIEMENS_FORD-RANGER_EV_MOTOR_0.jpg


300px-GDFRInstruments.jpg


500px-GSFRRearViewUnderCropped.jpg


240px-GSFRController.jpg


GSFRAvconConnected.jpg
 


Pedaldude

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
792
Reaction score
343
Location
Arizona
Vehicles
2001 Lincoln Navigator, 2021 Ford F-150
Ford actually produced A Ranger EV 1998-2002

Thanks, I forgot to include the word 'consumer,' since the rangers were meant to be lease only, like many of the early EVs. I think that Ford made a bunch more of them too. That's what was implied by 'real world,' since an electric utility leasing the Ranger EV will be enjoying a far different experience than the average buyer.

Either way, I recall how enthusiasts were pissed at Ford about their trucks being selectively leased. Especially since it's not like there's a problem with finding electricity like there is for hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure. The degradation of a battery pack is pretty benign, especially compared with the specific requirements for high pressure vessels. I can see the need to control a fuel cell vehicle's life cycle but why were so many of the 90's and early 2000's battery electric vehicles only available for lease?
 

newF150

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
130
Reaction score
105
Location
NJ
Vehicles
Mustang Mach E GT
The estimates are based on a 1000 pound load also in the bed. For those using the truck as a regular old vehicle the range should increase. And this will be another "trim" in the F150 lineup. People will buy it if it fits their need, they won't if it doesn't.

I put my reservation in as it meets my needs. Not towing and not loading 1000 pounds in it.
 

Service_Merchandise

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
211
Reaction score
7
Location
Tennessee
Vehicles
2018 Ford F-150
Thanks, I forgot to include the word 'consumer,' since the rangers were meant to be lease only, like many of the early EVs. I think that Ford made a bunch more of them too. That's what was implied by 'real world,' since an electric utility leasing the Ranger EV will be enjoying a far different experience than the average buyer.

Either way, I recall how enthusiasts were pissed at Ford about their trucks being selectively leased. Especially since it's not like there's a problem with finding electricity like there is for hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure. The degradation of a battery pack is pretty benign, especially compared with the specific requirements for high pressure vessels. I can see the need to control a fuel cell vehicle's life cycle but why were so many of the 90's and early 2000's battery electric vehicles only available for lease?
It's cool brother, it was nearly 60k for a single cab Ranger in 1998! ?
 

astricklin

Well-known member
First Name
Andrew
Joined
May 24, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
1,038
Reaction score
1,010
Location
Dallas
Vehicles
99 Mercury mountaineer
It's cool brother, it was nearly 60k for a single cab Ranger in 1998! ?
And that is exactly why they were leased. Ford could eat the cost with tax credits and then jack up the residual value so the lease payments were reasonable.
 

EVTruckGuy

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
209
Reaction score
315
Location
Earth
Vehicles
F150
Do most people need a truck "around town"? unless they are a delivery company.
I use my truck around town to buy lumbar for hobby woodworking, plants and dirt for landscaping, family set of bikes, kayaks, dogs, and more.

My truck is also my daily driver to work even though my job does not utilize my truck in any way.

I went about 6 months last year without a truck thinking I wouldn't miss it, but I found myself having to rent or borrow a truck much more frequently than I had anticipated.
 


midmack

Well-known member
First Name
Mark
Joined
May 19, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
87
Reaction score
58
Location
Waco, TX
Vehicles
VE Jetta, Chrysler Pacifica
Occupation
Family Physician
This was from a YouTuber and has been denied by Ford.
You sure about that? Everything I have seen is that Ford supports the 1000# statement. We just don’t actually know how much removing that will make a difference.
 

shikataganai

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
64
Reaction score
45
Location
Denver
Vehicles
100 series Land Cruiser, Pacifica Hybrid
You sure about that? Everything I have seen is that Ford supports the 1000# statement. We just don’t actually know how much removing that will make a difference.
TFLtruck had a video that they took down where the gist of it was the same as here:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/40866...ge-could-be-a-lot-better-than-we-think-report

When we asked Ford about this, it declined to comment, with a company spokesperson replying in an email, "We are confirming that we have a targeted EPA estimate of 300 miles for the extended range derivative. No further detail to add at this point."
 

 
AOSK
Top