Top 3 lists: what went wrong and right

[xwing]

Wrong:
Marketing: During the mannequin period, Ford should have had these trucks out to every public event they could get to. Driving is believing.
Dealer: I just had mine back to the dealer to have the 12v battery checked. While I was getting checked in the tech that actually works on the truck came out. In my conversation with him, he is the only tech there that will "touch a Lightning". He thought they were neat and bought one himself. I just reinforces how poorly the service aspect has been.
Costs: It can not cost dramatically more than an ICE F-150. When I bought mine I built as close as I could get an ICE Lariat. The cost difference was 9K. Adding in my A plan pricing to both and the 7500 gov. rebate brought the differential down to about $1500. Based on almost zero maintenance that closed that gap.

Right:
It looks like an F-150.
Pulls as good as my diesel F-250
The frunk. If the EREV eliminates the frunk, Ford is going to have a hard time selling this too. Why get an EREV when a Powerboost will do just fine.

Sponsored

 

[VAF84]

WRONG:

1. RANGE - Ultimately, range did me in and was the primary reason I traded it. Now that I have a Sierra EV with 440mi range and super fast charging speeds, I have found this is the sweet spot for a pickup. I would never buy an EV truck with less than ~400 mi of range having experienced the 320mi Lightning ER and then the Sierra EV with the 440mi range.

2. PRICE – This was my first EV, and at the time I had zero intention of paying more than an ICE truck. With incentives, my ’23 Lariat came out to about $67k. For that money I got most of the bells and whistles of a fully loaded truck, for the same—or less—than a comparable ICE setup. I bought it after driving it and being blown away by how different (and better) the experience was compared to ICE. That was before I really dug into the range details and realized I wouldn’t see the full 320 miles at highway speeds.

3. DEALERS - Few if any knowledgeable sales/service reps on the product. Few if any accessible or functioning chargers at dealers in less populated areas (whereas GM did have faster and working chargers in same areas). Fixes took a long time.

RIGHT:

1. FUN/COMFORTABLE TO DRIVE - After my test drive, I found it hard to go back to ICE. I had a 22 Sierra Denali 6.2L at the time. This and price was what sold me on the Lightning as a first EV. As far as driving dynamics, this was the best all around pickup experience ever.

2. FRUNK- As someone who travels all over to job sites in rural areas. Great to finally have a clean and secure spot to hold valuables.

3. TECH (PAAK, Lane Centering, CarPlay) - My 24 Sierra EV doesn't have any of these (introduced in MY 2026), I miss it so much. The lack of these items made me somewhat resentful of my current ride after buying it. I assumed that all EV's had PAAK.

 

[Skidrowe]

Wrong:
1. Marketing.
They nailed it getting the truck in front of EV enthusiasts, on blogs, influencers,, and in trade shows. That's a very small percentage of their customer base though. Not all EV owners or potential owners are enthusiasts. When EVs became a politically polarizing topic, they failed to get their marketing in front of conservatives who only heard about these trucks via the political opinion talk shows. All of my parking lot conversations about the truck went well and I told people it was the best truck I've ever owned. The majority of them would say, "What about..." followed by a list of mistruths, exaggerations, and lies perpetuated in conservative circles. I would patiently explain that each one was wrong and explain why. When they'd ask about rural, long distance drives, road tripping, or hauling heavy trailers and campers long distance, I'd tell them how those things can be done, but realistically, it was the wrong truck for those jobs. In the end, they'd admit that they didn't really even do those things and were impressed with my experience. How many of these misinformed potential consumers didn't get to talk to a lightning owner? If Ford bought enough ad space on Fox during the political segments, I'm sure they could have had contract discussions on whether the content of those segments shit on their product with lies.

2. Software.
It did everything it said it would do, but it was slow and the user experience and number of presses needed to reach features while driving was bad. They needed user experience (UX) software engineers as part of the design and development. It did improve with iterations and customer feedback. Once I accepted that it was slow and became familiar with where the features I regularly used were located, I was very happy with it. The setup of the Ford charger was nightmare and if not for the troubleshooting of other owners who posted here, I would have never gotten it connected and setup. The FordPass app regularly just did nothing or timed out with no indication that I should try again or let me know that the problem is with the truck's connectivity vs. my phone's cell connection. This all improved, but it was rough for the first couple years.

3. Dealerships
I had to tell the salesmen what was going on. I read and was aware of bulletins before the salespeople were at my dealership. I read about so many horror stories on here. I regularly had to tell them what was wrong with my truck to get the right services and/or fixes done. I know Ford is hamstrung by dealership laws, but they needed and still need to find creative ways improve the current model and get better support for the sales and services of EVs.

Right:
1. The physical engineering and design of this truck.
This cannot be understated. This truck is amazing and was designed well. Despite the software complaints, it's still the best truck I've ever owned. I love the torque, silence, lack of transmission, outlets, features, heating and cooling, storage (under back seat, frunk, normal bed size, center console, etc.) and the fact that it still looks like an F-150 full-size truck with a few external accents that subtly differentiate it from their traditional lineup.

2. Desire to improve
The software improved and was upgraded on prior year models. Iterative improvement that is provided to vehicles older than the current year is a good deviation of my experiences with past vehicles that felt like they were simply stuck with their flaws. Tools that allowed dealerships to perform recalls and software upgrades in my driveway instead of requiring me to drop my truck off for an indeterminate amount of time. The attempt (albeit a failed one) to change the dealership model for EV sales to better match the experience customers expected.

3. Partnerships with 3rd party EV companies and influencers
It was great to see the video blogs from the people many of us have watched for years get early access or media passes to reveals so we could get updates from trusted sources. My move across the country went smoothly with the plug and charge partnerships with Tesla, EA, and EvGo. The testimonials from MotorTrend and other established vehicle experts when they were loaned Lightnings before and after they were available to the public. Direct interviews with members of the C-suit and executive staff by the influencers we know and trust. Even the presence here on these forums.

 

[ZeusDriver]

Wrong:
1. Lack of vision and ability to focus at Ford, combined with a lack of training at dealerships.
2. No real commitment to developing the charging infrastructure (one of the selling points with Tesla).
3. Bait and switch, followed by jacking up the price to levels that ordinary people cannot afford.

Right:
1. Vehicle dynamics: Ride, handling, acceleration, quietness, etc: Going from a Tesla to the lightning, I was struck by how much better the Lightning is in all these respects.
2. Keeping the good things about an F150, including accessory availability, and the "real truck" look.
3. Ergonomics: The controls are safely positioned and do not require reference to the center screen... a huge improvement over Tesla.

 

[Lytning]

Wrongs:
1. Marketing - Ford, like most large businesses, focused on young / hip / influencer / woke market facing representatives. How many of those people buy their trucks? Most F-150 owners are campers, hunters, fishers, contractors, trades technicians, retired, homeowners, etc. Ford should have recognized them as the buyers, and used them to tout the Lightning meeting their needs and wants.
2. Software - I still have BlueCruise 1.0. I could stop here. But, I also experienced the extremely loud audio system runaway issue early on. It was made much worse when @Ford Motor Company did not deem the problem important enough to even follow-up with me. I am sure I cost them dozens of sales by telling folks what I experienced, and of Ford's lack of interest in resolving the problem. My wife would not even ride in my truck for 6 months after she heard the noise, and I pointed out the necessity of always having ear plugs within arm's reach. My ears are literally still ringing with tinnitus, which was made much worse by the extreme noise, over 3 years after that incident. I get reminded of it every day.
3. Reliability - I realized I would be a Beta Tester when I reserved my Lightning. However, I did not expect my truck to sit in the dealership parking lot, completely untouched, for over a month when an issue arose. The dealerships are absolutely swamped by the massive number of recalled Ford vehicles requiring warranty work. The antagonistic relationship between the dealerships and Ford, and the lack of customer service and common courtesy at the dealerships, are very detrimental to Ford's image.
4. I am going to add a 4th wrong, which I actually consider to be the most important ... the decision to discontinue the Lightning. To me, the Lightning BEV truck is vastly superior to what I have read regarding what the EREV truck will be. @Ford Motor Company would have done much better to improve the Lightning and expand the models of BEV trucks offered. Ford could have created focus groups from this forum of Ford BEV truck owners to guide improvement of Ford BEV trucks. I don't know where Ford got the idea for EREV trucks, but there surely does not seem to be much support of the idea from this group of Ford truck owners.

Rights:
1. Performance - I had a 2000 SVT Lightning, and I have a 1967 Pontiac GTO. The Lightning acceleration outperforms both of them.
2. Comfort - The smooth and quiet ride, seat comfort, and interior room make for an almost limosine ride. If you closed you eyes, you would never know you were in a truck.
3. CarPlay - Ford made a wise move by incorporating CarPlay and Android Auto.

 

[FirstF150InCasco]

IMO, you suffer from "I heard this / experienced this 3 years ago, so it must still be true" syndrome.

EA went from being a crap network to being raved about by people that never owned an EV until recently, due to massively overhauling their network.

If you think lack of Dog Mode is a major failure, you must be a former Tesla owner. Because nobody else knew what Dog Mode was nor gave a crap. And, by turning off the shutdown timer, hanging a note on the screen or writing on it, and locking the door, you have dog mode.

Anyone that bought a Ford and expected Tesla-like software did no research.

1. Tesla Owner - Not: Never owned a Tesla. Don't like them. Never been in one.
2. Ford Capability No reason why Ford cannot have software as good as Tesla.
3. Dog Mode: I'm the one that has repeatedly published instructions on how to make a DYI dog mode. That said, there's no reason for Ford not to automate this.
4. Electrify America: The EA's that are around me are as bad as ever. I try to use them -- I've got tons of free crecit to use up -- but they are poor is so many ways vs. the Tesla.

 

[PreservedSwine]

It's simple.
It's a truck that can't tow. It loses too much range in the cold.
The software isn't great.
Yet, if you don't tow, and can charge at home, it's the finest truck you can buy, in my humble opinion.

The standard range battery should not exist.
The long range battery should be the standard range battery, and a true long range battery should be over 400+ miles at 75 miles an hour at sea level.

 

[htobin]

Wrong - Abandoned the truck. Granted they had lost a lot of money, but by now production was set up. Why not continue production at a limited scale.

Lack of marketing. Towards ads had totally abandoned the lightning.

Right - great truck

 

[Beetroot]

Wrong:

A political regime that promised the oil industry anything it wanted in exchange for $1 billion in campaign funds.

Woah

 

[PreservedSwine]

Wrong:

A political regime that promised the oil industry anything it wanted in exchange for $1 billion in campaign funds.

How did that prevent people from buying the lightning?

Even with subsidies, it didn't sell.
Are you saying the current administration forced Ford to cancel the lightning?
1 Billion seems a lot less than the 19.5 billion they lost investing in Lightning.

How did the admin force Ford to cancel the lightning, and why isn't that working to end other ev's? Or is the administration only targeting the Lightning?

 

[Henry Ford]

How did that prevent people from buying the lightning?

Eliminating tax incentives, CAFE standard rollbacks, eliminating penalties for companies that don't meet emission standards, withholding EV charging infrastructure funds, rescinding California's ability to set it's own standards, reorienting national priorities around fossil fuels and nuclear and away from clean energy (e.g. removing goal of 50% EV sales by 2030) are all examples of the administration's hostility toward clean energy in general and EVs specifically. The Lightning is an EV.

Even with subsidies, it didn't sell.
Are you saying the current administration forced Ford to cancel the lightning?
1 Billion seems a lot less than the 19.5 billion they lost investing in Lightning.

The current administration is doing everything it can to benefit it's benefactors in the oil industry. EVs, and therefore the Lightning, are collateral damage.

How did the admin force Ford to cancel the lightning, and why isn't that working to end other ev's? Or is the administration only targeting the Lightning?

The administration is targeting anything the isn't good for the oil industry. EVs aren't good for the oil industry. They aren't picking on Ford, the Lightning was just one of the earliest to be cancelled.

Here's a list from Reddit of EVs cancelled in 2025. I haven't vetted it and it was published prior to the Lightning or idBuzz being cancelled.

• Acura ZDX (discontinued)
• Polestar 2 (discontinued for US)
• Volvo ES90 (plans to bring to US scrapped)
• Volkswagen ID.7 (plans to bring to US scrapped)
• Genesis G80 EV (discontinued for US)
• Kia EV4 (put on hold for US)
• Chevrolet BrightDrop (discontinued)
• Dodge Charger Daytona R/T (discontinued)
• Ram 1500 BEV (development cancelled)
• Dodge Charger Daytona SRT Banshee (development cancelled)
• Jeep Gladiator 4xe (development cancelled, PHEV, but goes to show you lack of incentives is even impacting non BEVs)
• Honda three row EV (development cancelled)
• Nissan Ariya (discontinued in US, future in US uncertain, it could return)
• Mercedes EQB (discontinued in US, future uncertain, it could return)

 

[PreservedSwine]

So ev's are only successful if the government uses taxpayer funds as subsidy incentives? And even then only temporarily. To be successful- people have to buy them.

Oil industry subsidies are a bit different- typically reductions in tax rates to arrive at dollar figure "subsidies'l ie an oil
company paying 80 million in taxes and leases instead of 160 million didn't receive 80 million in taxpayer funds, they actually paid 80 million in taxes and leases. The additional taxes are hopefully recouped in a larger economic arena- a better local economy and more jobs. These types of subsidies are common in all industries that bring greater commerce to an area.
Whereas ev subsidies are wholly different- essentially money paid directly from the taxpayer to EV manufacturers or consumers, where the ev companies pay zero and are paid simply to exist.
This is ignoring the entire "carbon credit" shakedown, another avenue of revenue that's not without raised eyebrows and lack of a cohesive structure, strategy, or purpose, other than than to penalize auto manufacturers making a gasoline cars and enrich those making ev's, all at taxpayer expense
Are gasoline cars getting the same subsidy treatment?
Blaming oil companies for decisions that are clearly in the hands of automakers requires some mental gymnastics.

No one is buying the automakers models on the discontinued ev cars list. , Sales were tanking before the subsidies expired, reviews were poor.

There's only a small percentage of people who are going to pay over a hundred thousand for en ev that depreciates faster than virtually any car in history.

The ev infrastructure bill that Biden passed was misused, abused, and wasted in typical government fashion. Billions for less than 50 charging stations.



Back on topic:
The Lighting didn't fail because the government failed to prop it up. It failed because it never met sales expectations, with or without government help. The subsidies were thrown together with little thought, no foresight, and little oversight by those who don't understand the economics or industry.
Perhaps that will change in the future, but today it's that simple.


EDIT:
I don't disagree the government is helping the entire energy sector in the US. But I disagree its purpose is to hurt ev's. I believe the purpose is an effort lower energy costs to create a strong economy- which impacts, and will ultimately increase tax revenue across the board.

 

[Henry Ford]

So ev's are only successful if the government uses taxpayer funds as subsidy incentives? And even then only temporarily. To be successful- people have to buy them.

Oil industry subsidies are a bit different- typically reductions in tax rates to arrive at dollar figure "subsidies'l ie an oil
company paying 80 million in taxes and leases instead of 160 million didn't receive 80 million in taxpayer funds, they actually paid 80 million in taxes and leases. The additional taxes are hopefully recouped in a larger economic arena- a better local economy and more jobs. These types of subsidies are common in all industries that bring greater commerce to an area.
Whereas ev subsidies are wholly different- essentially money paid directly from the taxpayer to EV manufacturers or consumers, where the ev companies pay zero and are paid simply to exist.
This is ignoring the entire "carbon credit" shakedown, another avenue of revenue that's not without raised eyebrows and lack of a cohesive structure, strategy, or purpose, other than than to penalize auto manufacturers making a gasoline cars and enrich those making ev's, all at taxpayer expense
Are gasoline cars getting the same subsidy treatment?
Blaming oil companies for decisions that are clearly in the hands of automakers requires some mental gymnastics.

No one is buying the automakers models on the discontinued ev cars list. , Sales were tanking before the subsidies expired, reviews were poor.

There's only a small percentage of people who are going to pay over a hundred thousand for en ev that depreciates faster than virtually any car in history.

The ev infrastructure bill that Biden passed was misused, abused, and wasted in typical government fashion. Billions for less than 50 charging stations.



Back on topic:
The Lighting didn't fail because the government failed to prop it up. It failed because it never met sales expectations, with or without government help. The subsidies were thrown together with little thought, no foresight, and little oversight by those who don't understand the economics or industry.
Perhaps that will change in the future, but today it's that simple.


EDIT:
I don't disagree the government is helping the entire energy sector in the US. But I disagree its purpose is to hurt ev's. I believe the purpose is an effort lower energy costs to create a strong economy- which impacts, and will ultimately increase tax revenue across the board.

Do you think Lightning is still around if the administration didn't do all the things I've cited?

 

[RickLightning]

The ev infrastructure bill that Biden passed was misused, abused, and wasted in typical government fashion. Billions for less than 50 charging stations.

Factually incorrect.

As of October 2025, 121 stations have opened across 16 states. Billions have not been spent. Funds have been distributed to states, who allocate funds to projects. Hundreds of millions have been spent, much of it towards under-development sites.

One of the challenges in anything is getting people to comprehend that things aren't done instantly. States provided plans to federal government that had to be approved. Then they had to staff the process they outlined, and request bids. Review bids, award contracts. Sites had to be acquired, equipment ordered (including transformers in short supply), ...

Dark red are opened NEVI sites. Orange is under construction.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=14pH2Uv7plQPidEGYhnpTa1nwTgTC80Q&ll=38.96745439084669,-95.71755760295841&z=5

Every single government program can be criticized for all the things you listed.

 

[ZeusDriver]

and I have a 1967 Pontiac GTO

I looked up the 0-60 time of an SS396 Chevelle and compared it to a Prius Prime. The Prime won.

Sponsored