Will You be upgrading to the Lightning EREV?

[Mal106]

Yes; ideally both EREV and BEV versions of the Lightning should be available. A build-to-oder option that: deletes the ICE genset, increases the usable EV battery into the 120-140kWh range, and adds a DC fast-charging port would be great.

I feel certain the EREV will have a DC port but maybe not. When I think of road tripping an EREV it leaves me a bit wondering what happens after "700" miles. DC fast for another 200 or so? Fuel for another 500 at 20 mpg? Or stop twice for 700. I've lived with a PHEV since 2019 and it's pretty much a hybred on road trips. I suspect an EREV will be the same. Drag around a maintenance heavy ICE around town and drive a hybred on road trips hauling a heavy battery only used really on the first leg. It really doesn't make sense to me. As someone road tripping my 123 KWH Lightning the majority of my 14,000 miles, I have found the infrastructure for DC charging expensive, frustrating and fiddley but adequate thanks mostely to Tesla.

Sponsored

 

[flux capacitor]

For the group of Lightning owners that rarely take long trips or pull trailers long distance and only use their Lightning for local and short trips where a round trip can be achieved on one charge having a EREV has it's own set of problems of most of the time not being used enough to keep it in optimum condition. It might just be wasted and not needed most of the time. Anything that does not get used very often eventually stops working. It also is like carrying dead weight constantly for no reason at all. If the generator is always running then you are like hauling a portable generator in the back of your truck for no benefit at all when the battery is doing all the work. I think as a hybrid it is a better design than Fords current hybrid, but not as a replacement for the Lightning BEV. Mazda is reworking their Wankel engine to be more efficient and meet all the emission standards. They are also hinting about a Mini Wankel. That may be just the thing for a generator. I think using something that resembles one of those ER rescue table transports for people that collapses as it is put in the ambulance but with a portable generator with a mini Wankel that you could slide into the bed of your truck for when need it would be far better. It is no different than the having to buy the whole house back up system as an accessory. When you do not need it for the Lightning you can use it for other things. Also a generator like that is easily replaced when dead than having expensive replacement for something integrally part of the vehicle.

 

[djwildstar]

I feel certain the EREV will have a DC port but maybe not. When I think of road tripping an EREV it leaves me a bit wondering what happens after "700" miles. DC fast for another 200 or so? Fuel for another 500 at 20 mpg?

I feel like the Ford engineers will ask themselves this question, too. On a road trip, probably towing a trailer -- you will eventually get to the point where both the battery and the gas tank are low, but the trip isn't done yet. So now what? As I see it there are basically two options:

1. You could fast-charge the EV battery to about 80%. Assuming the EREV will get around 2.0 mi/kWh and have 100-150mi of electric-only range, we're going to need between 33kWh and 50kWh for 65-100mi of extra electric range. It'll cost over 16 cents/mile (usually 25 to 30 cents/mile at fast chargers) for the charge, and take somewhere between 20 and 40 minutes depending on charger and battery architecture. Plus another 20 minutes to drop and re-attach the trailer at most chargers.
2. You could pull into a gas station and tank up. I'm guessing the EREV will have the 30-gallon PowerBoost gas tank, so you'll fill it from 20% to 100% -- about 24 gallons, adding 460mi of range at a cost of under 16 cents/mile. The fill up will take 10 minutes tops, and you probably won't have to drop the trailer.

Which would you choose?

Why would you ever choose Option 1?

Based on this, the engineering team may decide not to even include a DC fast charge capability. It seems unlikely that people will use it, unless and until gasoline gets to be so expensive that DC fast charging is comparatively cheap enough that people will be willing to put up with the delay to save money.

There's definitely an advantage to plugging into an AC charger if you have to stop overnight. You'll start your next day with a full battery, and AC charging is free at some hotels (and usually lower-cost than fast charging even if it isn't free).

 

[djwildstar]

Anything that does not get used very often eventually stops working. It also is like carrying dead weight constantly for no reason at all.

Yes. Here's the issue I have with the EREV: Looking back at 2025, I would have used the gas range extender 7 days out of the year: two road trips, each with 3 driving days each, and one long local driving day of almost 200 miles.

There were no trips or activities that I didn't do because of range or charging access. Gas would have made my road trips faster -- I spent roughly 3 hours each trip fast-charging. But gas would also mean that I have to pay for an oil changes, buy gas and presumably have to run the ICE engine at least every few months to keep gas from going bad on me.

 

[Peddyr]

the Silverado EV already has almost 500 miles of range and most ICE don’t have that kind of range. Your Lightning will probably live longer than you do and by the time you’re going to want to call it quits with your Lightning there will probably be much more capable EV trucks, even if not Ford. Your logic appears a little fuzzy to me.

I should have been more specific. Until someone that knows how to build a proper EV truck with a 500 mile range. I wouldn't drive a Chevy if you gave it to me for free. I've owned Silverado's and Sierra's, both of which pale in comparison to the F-150. In addition, the warranty support and durability of the Chevy vehicles I had were laughable.

Sponsored