Ford Unveils the F-150 Lightning, Its All-Electric Pickup Truck That Will Start Under $40,000 (techcrunch.com) 401
Ford unveiled Wednesday the F-150 Lightning, an all-electric pickup truck that is a critical piece of the company's $22 billion investment into electrification. TechCrunch reports: Ford had a challenging gig with the F-150 Lightning. The truck would need everything that has made its gas-powered counterpart the best-selling vehicle in North America as well as new benefits that come from going electric. That means torque, performance, towing capability and the general layout has to meet the needs of its customers, many of whom use it for commercial purposes. The vehicle specs suggest that Ford has delivered on the torque and power, while keeping the same cab and bed dimensions as its gas counterpart. [...] Will it convert or will the F-150 Lightning attract a whole new group of customers? It's a question that won't be answered until it comes to market in spring 2022.
The F-150 Lightning will be offered in four trims, which includes the base, XLT, Lariat and Platinum series, and two battery options. The truck, which has an aluminum alloy body, is powered by two in-board electric motors, comes standard with four-wheel drive, and has an independent rear suspension. Ford is only releasing two prices at the moment. The base version will be priced at $39,974 before any federal or state tax credits, while the mid-series XLT model will start at $52,974. According to the reservations site, a fully loaded Lightning will go for $90,474. All of these prices exclude the destination fees and taxes.
The standard battery range truck delivers a targeted 426 horsepower and 775 pound-feet of torque. The F-150 Lightning equipped with the extended-range battery helps push the horsepower to 563 (or 420 kW) and has the same torque, which Ford says is the most of any F-150 ever. The vehicle's battery has a targeted range of 230 miles in the standard and pops up to 300 miles in the extended version. One question remains: how will the range be affected by towing a boat or trailer? [...] Ford notes that the new frame on the truck uses the strongest steel ever put in an F-150 frame and supports a maximum 2,000-pound payload and up to 10,000-pound towing capacity. Other features include a 15.5-inch infotainment system, support for Ford's hands-free driving feature called Blue Cruise, and 9.6 kW of back up power, which the company says can provide energy to a home during a blackout for up to 10 days.
The F-150 Lightning will be offered in four trims, which includes the base, XLT, Lariat and Platinum series, and two battery options. The truck, which has an aluminum alloy body, is powered by two in-board electric motors, comes standard with four-wheel drive, and has an independent rear suspension. Ford is only releasing two prices at the moment. The base version will be priced at $39,974 before any federal or state tax credits, while the mid-series XLT model will start at $52,974. According to the reservations site, a fully loaded Lightning will go for $90,474. All of these prices exclude the destination fees and taxes.
The standard battery range truck delivers a targeted 426 horsepower and 775 pound-feet of torque. The F-150 Lightning equipped with the extended-range battery helps push the horsepower to 563 (or 420 kW) and has the same torque, which Ford says is the most of any F-150 ever. The vehicle's battery has a targeted range of 230 miles in the standard and pops up to 300 miles in the extended version. One question remains: how will the range be affected by towing a boat or trailer? [...] Ford notes that the new frame on the truck uses the strongest steel ever put in an F-150 frame and supports a maximum 2,000-pound payload and up to 10,000-pound towing capacity. Other features include a 15.5-inch infotainment system, support for Ford's hands-free driving feature called Blue Cruise, and 9.6 kW of back up power, which the company says can provide energy to a home during a blackout for up to 10 days.
Hope They Aren't As Flammable (Score:4, Funny)
as the Pinto.
Re:Hope They Aren't As Flammable (Score:5, Insightful)
Around the time Samsung phones were catching fire a guy asked me if I was worried about driving around with a giant battery. I pointed out that his vehicle had a large tank full of flammable liquid and was powered by explosions.
Re:Hope They Aren't As Flammable (Score:4, Insightful)
In an ICE vehicle, the "explosions" and the flammable liquid are kept rather well isolated from each other. Lithium batteries have both the fuel (the chemicals in the battery are quite flammable) and the potential source of ignition, in the same package.
Either way though, regardless of which energy source is providing the propulsion, the most dangerous part about driving is plain 'ol physics. It can ruin your day when things go wrong.
Re:Hope They Aren't As Flammable (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't seen a car fire have you?
From an electric or ICE car. When something goes wrong a small fire get real big real fast.
Also the current percentage of an ICE car catching fire is still higher than electric cars (Although they are more older ICE Cars that may not be in good repair, and we will need more time to see how Electric Cars age with time)
But Electricity from a battery system with cooling and circuit breakers (a bunch of features that are not on your smart phone or laptop) can be better controlled compared to a tank sloshing around fluid mixed with normal air, being piped down under the seats, to the engine who creates a lot of extra heat. Even having a massive Lithium batteries under your seat, you have a lot of extra safety measures that makes it harder for a fire to happen. Including being enclosed in an armored, air-tight seal, cooling system for the batteries, computer monitoring of the battery health with a fast shutoff if there is a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hope They Aren't As Flammable (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have seen ICE cars that crash into trees at high speed which then have caught on fire as well. When you abuse something, no number of safety systems can stop stupid.
Destination fees, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
A/K/A ADP (Additional Dealer Profit) [msn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
From your link, which you apparently didn't read: "Some of the fees you won't be able to avoid, such as the destination fee, which covers the cost of getting your car from the factory to the dealership."
Ford stands for... (Score:5, Funny)
Fix Or Repair Daily
Found On Road Dead
Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge
Fords Only Run Downhill
Ford Owner Really Dumb
Spelled backwards? Driver Returns On Foot.
Re: Ford stands for... (Score:2)
Re:Ford stands for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Never driven anything but.
Parts are dirt cheap, and you can get hold of them.
Fixes are usually really easy.
They just keep going.
Every Ford I ever had I ran into the ground, and I used to pick them up when they were 15+ years old already for a few hundred. If the repairs cost more than another few hundred, I'd just buy a replacement and scrap often perfectly legal and fully working vehicles.
Then I bought my first ever vehicle from new and it was a Ford. It's the best car I've ever owned. In five years it's had... new tyres. That's it.
It's comfy, it does exactly what I want, it just works.
People knock Fords and then I watch them pay a fortune for a small component for their own vehicle, that you can't get to, which then incurs a ton of labour (their own or a garage's), and they're in the garage all the time.
This is like the era of 90's Britain where even the kids were making Skoda jokes and then they all died out because those people then realised that Skoda were making better cars than most of their competitors.
Re:Ford stands for... (Score:5, Interesting)
The really funny thing is that the 2003 Mazda3 and the 2003 Ford Focus are based on the same platform [wikipedia.org].
Re:Ford stands for... (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a Ford Taurus for over 10 years, did my own oil changes and never took it to the shop. Ran very boring and smooth the whole time I had it. Probably an outlier though.
Fords, are like any other car made. You get good ones and you get bad ones. Some are simply bad designs and some are just simply a bad car.
Generally speaking a good car will last forever as long as you put proper maintenance in to it. My first car was a '77 Ford F-150. My dad and I put close to 200,000 miles on it. Did proper maintenance, changed the oil and stuff, when recommend. When we traded it, it was running perfect.
My next car was Ford mustang, probably the worst car you could own at the time from Ford. I put 230K miles on it. The only real issue I ever had with it was the clutch cable broke.
Traded it for Ford Taurus, time to do the family thing. That thing was a piece of shit. Nothing but problems. Took it out and shot it.
Next car was a Mitsubishi Mirage. Put 350K miles on it. Drove it from job to job. Did proper maintenance on it, replaced worn parts and kept it up. When I traded it, it looked like it had 350K miles on it but ran like it was right off the lot. Hell, it might still be out there prowling the roads.
Current car is a Honda, with close to a 150K on it already. I expect to get another 100K or more out of it.
9 times out of 10 when a car is running like a piece of shit you will find that it has been treated like a piece of shit.
Get off my lawn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please wake me when the stop with the damned touchscreens in cars...
Re: (Score:2)
This one's even better, it has weird buttons integrated into the screen so enjoy the repair costs.
Re:Get off my lawn! (Score:4, Informative)
I put a touchscreen stereo in my truck because it was the cheapest way to get the functionality I wanted. It has no physical controls, only touch. The lack of physical controls is irritating. My next stereo will have some physical buttons on it.
Anything you're forced to do through the screen that could be done with a button or knob is better done with a button or knob. Letting you do stuff through the screen is cool, forcing it is bad.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a car with touchscreen and physical controls for key things.
Criticially, the steering wheel audio controls are important, and I'm ok with the fact that my stereo has only two physical controls 'off'' and 'volume knob' in the center stack is not a huge deal, because the steering wheel buttons cover cycling modes, mute/unmute, volume, next/back.
The vehicle in question seems to have a reasonable number of physical controls. One example of a smart choice is having the 'max defrost' be available as a but
Re: (Score:3)
I put a touchscreen stereo in my truck because it was the cheapest way to get the functionality I wanted. It has no physical controls, only touch. The lack of physical controls is irritating. My next stereo will have some physical buttons on it.
It's blood irritating to think that they want to put touch screens on every fucking thing. Trucks, cars, even airplanes. Give me a nice '67 Piper 180 with a analog cockpit any day.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a 2012 Tundra, and I think it has a good balance/ratio of physical buttons to touchscreen functionality. The current Ford F150 (not this new lighting) has far too many physical buttons and controls. I think the best way to balance it is to have buttons specifically grouped by function, and buttons that you need immediately or frequently should be physical, and buttons that are used infrequently or when not actually driving - those should be hidden in the touchscreen somewhere. Ford has WAY too muc
Re:Get off my lawn! (Score:4, Informative)
I have a touchscreen radio/climate control thing in my Dodge Journey. Hate it. Otherwise I like the car.
But give me physical controls I can adjust without even looking at them and I'd be happy.
Same thing is happening with the newest version of the US's fighter jets, going to touchscreens. Pilots hate it because no longer can you adjust something by feel without looking.
Re:Get off my lawn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Question: Have you actually tried driving a car with lots of touchscreen controls, for enough time to get used to it? You may find out that it's your expectations which are wrong.
My last two cars have had touchscreens. I still hate them.
I would hate them less if:
1. The UI isn't garbage. The Android/Carplay stuff isn't bad, but the the native UI is usually terrible
2. It was fast. Like instantaneously fast. Bringing up another page should take *no* time. Every system I've used has had lag in opening pages.
3. There were physical buttons along the bottom, that I could feel and navigate by touch
Which is better for a Zombie Apocalypse (Score:2)
An old G-Series (Score:3)
I want a mid-1970s 300GD, but with the 300SD engine (for some stupid reason, MBZ never fitted the G with a turbo). Mechanical fuel injection (including the fuel pump) and mechanical control of the transfer case and differentials. Once started, it needs no electricity to continue running. Electricity may be needed for the glow plugs and starter motor, but it is plain old DC, not electronics.
Swap a manual trans for the automatic, and it is shade-tree mechanic/Zombie Apocalypse ready. Add a Union of South
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere but: if there were a Zombie Apocalypse and a country's infrastructure collapsed, which would it be better to possess: a gas-powered vehicle or an electric? Or would it matter either way?
Uh, have you seen a zombie movie lately?
You should be more concerned about asking the dealer about armor plating and weapons upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
Using only your scenario, there a few factors to consider. First, how many living people are left? What is the conversion rate of people to zombies?
With gas, you can carry a hand pump to suck gas out of gas stations or other vehicles. However, depending on how many living people there are, and the type of vehicle they drive, gas supplies would run out fairly quickly (see the recent shut down of the Capitol Pipeline for an example). Only in a Zombieland scenario, where there are only a handful of people le
Re: (Score:2)
For travel around the local area? Both have advantages. Get some solar panels and the EV will be fairly self-sufficient. The ICE car will need to be converted to run on alcohol, and then you could build your own still and potentially manufacture your own fuel. Better start with a Flex Fuel vehicle or it could be a nightmare of gasket and hose leaks.
The EV would be easier on maintenance. God help you if you damage the transmission in the ICE car. There are also a ton of other fluids that you'll need to sourc
Re:Which is better for a Zombie Apocalypse (Score:5, Interesting)
No question the electric would be better. First of all, regular gasoline only has a shelf life of three to six months. Diesel can last for up to a year. So in only a few months, unless you had the right type of engine and the ability to make alcohol, you'd be screwed. You'd also have to find other fluids to keep your gas guzzler fed and happy...oil, coolant, tranny fluid, brake fluid, for example. Also, maintenance would be more difficult...more parts, and a lot more regular maintenance.
With an electric vehicle, as long as you had solar panels, you could keep it going for quite a long while.
Re: (Score:3)
Neither.
Gasoline has about a 6-month shelf life. After that, it's going to start fouling the engine, eventually causing it to fail. And even if you have a mechanic in your camp; you probably don't have all the diagnostic kit and spare parts to fixit unless your apocalypse camp happens to be in an appropriate car dealership. And those tend not to be designed with defensibility in mind.
With electric, where are you going to charge it once the power plants fail? Your gas-powered generator that you use at Bu
Re: (Score:3)
a horse!
Seriously, in an zombie apocalypse your best bet is going back a couple of centuries technologywise, cars, ICE or electric, phones and even some types of guns would run or be somewhat useful for a couple of years but after that lack of consumables and just plain old use would kill them and you cannot breed new cars, but you can get new horses.
Need rating kWh (Score:3)
10.6 kWh/day (Score:2)
The average US home is 10.6kWh/day [eia.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
The average US home is 10.6kWh/day [eia.gov].
That's not what your link says...
In 2019, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,649 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of about 877 kWh per month.
877 / 30 = ~29 kWh / day.
Re: (Score:2)
My HOA is going to have to take a serious look (Score:2)
at what it will take to get charging stations out in the carports. Not being able to charge an EV is going to become a drag on the resale value in a decade or so, and having two 120V plugs for 10 cars won't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of apartment buildings in the part of Canada I live in used to have plug-ins for block heaters at a fair percentage of the parking spaces. I don't see that this would be much more difficult than something we had half a century ago.
Re:City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what Dark Ages you just teleported in from, but the United States has electric outlets in something like 99.95% of the places where humans reside. The truck plugs into a standard wall outlet, like most EVs.
It may not be the fastest charge rate, but it's a charge.
Ironically, it's not like those parts of the US where there are no gas stations for nearly 100 miles at a span.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what Dark Ages you just teleported in from, but the United States has electric outlets in something like 99.95% of the places where humans reside. The truck plugs into a standard wall outlet, like most EVs.
It may not be the fastest charge rate, but it's a charge.
Ironically, it's not like those parts of the US where there are no gas stations for nearly 100 miles at a span.
At 120V, 12A, it's not only not the fastest rate, it's not a practical rate. Charging at about 3 miles per hour, it would take over 2.5 days to charge from 20% to full, and that's just for the smaller battery. Yes, it's possible, but few would do that except in an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
For my Tesla, that is 6 miles range per hour of charge, or 0-100% (300 miles) in two days. When doing a lot of driving (a bad day for me could be 200 miles back and forth to town twice) it starts to take some planning, but it is far from rocket science to survive off a 5-15R. Spend an hour at a place with a Level 2 charger as you eat lunch, and you add 25-30 miles of range in one shot.
I wouldn’t want to tow a horse trailer on the highway 500 miles in a day with current offerings, but they will come.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
This truck is for city or town services and works need to be plugged in at the shop over night
And the problem with that is...?
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
It only covers 97% of the use cases. Critics slinging FUD only care about the edge cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, when they are hanging around waiting for it to charge, I am sure there are money to be made from selling coffee, snacks, food, I'd even pay a dollar for proper cleaned restroom.
Re: City truck (Score:2)
Yes, there is more money to be siphoned out of their wallet while they and the crew are waiting around able to do nothing. That's lose-lose, not win-win.
Re: City truck (Score:4, Funny)
These "trucks" are toys and novelties.
Real work gets done by horses.
Re: (Score:3)
Skyscrapers? I've never seen one outside of cities and without them you know damn well that the sky would get dirty quite quickly, blocking the sunlight and killing all life on the planet.
Re: City truck (Score:5, Informative)
And that's fine. This one will only do 300 miles for the extended version, but it'll likely start every day fully charged, and there are plenty of people who don't need to drive longer than that in a single day on a regular basis. Electric vehicles don't currently need to be practical for every single person out there, just for enough people to justify making them. The percentage of the population that they can serve will gradually increase over time as technology improves.
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. I think if Ford can service 60-80% of the population of F-150 drivers that this truck's current capabilities can handle, they'll consider it a success. And then work on improving the other parts over time.
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like it could have some major advantages for certain people, like the high power inverter for running power tools that is way in excess of anything an alternator can provide.
Re: (Score:2)
Until you're out in the middle of nowhere having your entire battery drained on a tig welder. Not to talk this thing will have a very short range already when hauling or towing anything.
Real working people need a bit more than 115kWh which is the equivalent to ~3 gallons or 12L of fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick bit of research suggests that tig welding is generally done at under 100A, maybe 8kW. So a 115kWh battery would run one for 14 hours solid.
Re: City truck (Score:5, Informative)
A quick bit of research suggests that tig welding is generally done at under 100A, maybe 8kW.
A bit too quick! 100A means output to the welding point, not 110V or 220V AC wall input, which your maths seems to imply.
A powerful welder might draw 2kW.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks. In which case the proposed 110kWh battery would last for a week of 9-5 use.
Even cheaper models with say 65kWh batteries would easily get you to and from site, plus welding all day, in most cases.
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So welders won’t buy the electric version of the F150. Got it. Fine.
But plumbers, carpenters, electricians, drywallers, glaziers, weekend warriors should have no problems with it.
It's actually awesome for welders. ami is learning the difference between amps, watts and volts. You can get a simple welder that plugs in to a standard 120V outlet. Welders provide huge amps at low voltages. Example:
https://www.harborfreight.com/... [harborfreight.com]
It's 80A at the tip, but draws 20A at 120V.
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you're out in the middle of nowhere having your entire battery drained on a tig welder.
...just how many days of uninterrupted welding are you regularly doing?
Real working people need a bit more than 115kWh which is the equivalent to ~3 gallons or 12L of fuel.
12L of what? 115 kWh of electricity is 115 kWh of electricity. 12 L fuel is a roughly similar amount of...heat, not electricity. Are you suggesting a gasoline flame welder of some sort?
Re: (Score:3)
You're not driving 300 miles on 12L of gasoline in a F-150. You're continuing to conflate energy content of the gasoline with energy content of the battery. The gasoline version converts that energy to useful work about about 20% efficiency. The electric version converts that energy to useful work at >85% efficiency.
A gasoline-powered F-150 [caranddriver.com] can go between 416-572 miles
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what generators are for. If you're hauling a welder out to a remote location, you're also hauling a gen unless you're silly.
But why would you bother with the extra equipment if you have a massive battery capable of getting you to and from the job site and running your equipment all day?
Re: (Score:3)
You could also put a smaller efficient generator in the truck bed that would never run/start a decent welder/compressor/xxx at peak but would be able to slowly charge the trucks batteries letting the truck's inverter handle the peak load, but charging just enough that you don't really lower the charge on the batteries and/or may actually slowly charge it. Given the tools duty cycle is generally quite a bit less than 100% the generator would only need to be a much smaller % of the peak load so would cost le
Re: (Score:3)
Re: City truck (Score:4, Insightful)
> Yeah. I think if Ford can service 60-80% of the population of F-150 drivers that this truck's current capabilities can handle, they'll consider it a success. And then work on improving the other parts over time.
Actual slashdot conversation about incandescent bulbs from the early 2000's: CFL/LED light bulbs will never catch on because they won't work in an oven.
This is why old people are bitter. They've lived long enough to literally see morons proven wrong and all that happens in a fresh group of morons.
Re: City truck (Score:4, Informative)
And that's fine. This one will only do 300 miles for the extended version, but it'll likely start every day fully charged, and there are plenty of people who don't need to drive longer than that in a single day on a regular basis. Electric vehicles don't currently need to be practical for every single person out there, just for enough people to justify making them. The percentage of the population that they can serve will gradually increase over time as technology improves.
Exactly. This truck is a great fit for companies such as utilities, where field staff have trucks to drive to sites and the truck can be charged when they are not working. Lower maintenance costs and less price volatility in electricity prices make them attractive alternatives. Install a charger at the employee's home and reimburse for the electrical use and you've easily replaced an ICE truck. There are plenty of trucks in the F150's class that rarely leave the local area to be a potentially large market, such as those used in construction, delivery, police, etc..
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Off to the Rodeo (Score:3)
EV trucks will not be city trucks (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong, I will by an EV truck to do truck things, and I'm not alone. You'll eventually come around. [nytimes.com]
I own and use a Dodge 2500 turbo diesel. When hauling any kind of a load or pulling anything, or if driving 85 mph on a freeway, or in stop-and-go city traffic, it gets about 300 miles on a standard tank of diesel. If pulling a large trailer on the highway at 85 mph it has below 300 mile range. At 65 mph on the freeway with no load, it exceeds 400 mile range. An equivalent gasoline truck would have even less range under load, but better range in the city due to a more flexible valve and ignition controls. When I use this truck I spend far more time standing around at a fuel pump than when I use and drive my EV.
When I drive my EV it charges overnight. I spend seconds per day plugging and un-plugging the charging cable. It would charge overnight completely after my 40 mile round trip commute on just a standard 115 volt plug, but I have a fast charger in the garage so that I can deplete the 300 mile battery during the day and have a full charge in the morning, which I do about once per month. The company I work for is installing chargers in the parking lot. When that happens, I could live in an apartment and only charge at work, and still have plenty of range to run errands before and after work, even with a standard range EV with only around 200 miles of range. And, these ranges will only increase with each new generation of EV.
I will absolutely replace my Dodge diesel with an electric truck as soon as a suitable truck is available. I expect a 500 mile range EV truck to have a range of around 200 miles when hauling or pulling anything significant. This range will be suitable for a day of real world work of hauling and towing - gravel, landfill runs, lumber, top soil, tree removal, things that I do with a truck. Charging overnight back at the shop, or at home, will not be a problem. Nor will charging on a drive across multiple states be a problem - fast chargers are everywhere now.
I also expect an EV truck to not have a transmission or clutch that needs replaced every 80k miles. I also expect an EV truck to utilize regenerative braking and not require new rotors and brake pads every 30k to 50k miles, depending on use. I'm also looking forward to never changing the oil again, or timing belts, or injectors, or fuel filters, or air filters, etc.
I live in a typical sprawling US city, but I've also lived on a farm 15 miles from the nearest grocery store. Even then, rarely did my driving exceed 200 miles per day. Most farmers have a plug or two to power a welder and air compressor - which would charge an EV truck just fine. And irony of ironies - a well equipped farmer might have a welder/generator/air-compressor on their truck, which would add significant charge to an EV truck in a few hours while fixing fence, or baling hay, or while drenching the wheat that will go into your bread with Roundup.
The type of people who will hate an EV truck are the mobile-home people, except RV campgrounds already have power in nearly every lot, which could charge an EV truck overnight. And then there's EV instant torque at every RPM that makes pulling anything with an EV a pleasure, rather than a smokey slog up a hill in an oil burner. An F-150 has never been good for pulling much of a camper, and the electric version won't be either, but it won't take long before a long range RV-pulling EV beast is available, and such a beast will be just as stupidly expensive as a new F-350, but far cheaper to own and operate.
Re: (Score:3)
You are wrong, I will by an EV truck to do truck things, and I'm not alone. You'll eventually come around. [nytimes.com]
I totally agree. I drive a truck, and you can sign me up for a $40,000 base model EV. I don't drive a top of the line truck; I drive a truck. Just a truck.
Re:EV trucks will not be city trucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Impressive, right? Well - sort of, except it's on 4 engines and 13 transmissions!
Re: (Score:2)
and? what is wrong with that, there's enough pollution in the city air as it is right now.
Re: (Score:2)
no consumer vehicle gas or otherwise targets a 500 mile range
My 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid begs to differ. 14(.3) gallon tank at 40 mpg = 560 miles. After 10,000 miles the onboard computer is telling me 44.5mpg lifetime. I occasionally see over 600 miles to empty after a fill-up.
But otherwise you are absolutely correct, my 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass V8 had a 21 gallon tank and around a 280 mile range, they clearly were not targeting 500 miles in that year..
Re: City truck (Score:5, Informative)
You must be an anti electric shill, no consumer vehicle gas or otherwise targets a 500 mile range. Gas vehicles generally have a range of 300-350 miles.
My 2017 F-150 has gotten > 25 mpg on the highway and has a 36 gallon fuel tank. I'll let you do the math on that.
Re: City truck (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a 4 seater with a tiny bed, it's for people to drive a way oversized vehicle to the supermarket. Electric will do just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a 4 seater with a tiny bed, it's for people to drive a way oversized vehicle to the supermarket. Electric will do just fine.
I certainly hope the person buying an F-150 AnyEngine isn't mainly using it for a fucking grocery bag hauler.
We invented SUVs for that shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Now I know you're going to say, how does that help if I need to carry a washer and dryer and fridge in one load - fine. But on the other hand, the frunk is locking storage, so now you get both that and the bed at the same time.
Re:The real question (Score:5, Informative)
How long does the electric motor last before it needs to be replaced, 7 years, 10 years?
The motor will last hundreds of years. Basically forever.
Nobody is going to want to buy a used electric truck if they know the battery will need to be replaced in a couple of years. That will drastically affect the resale value.
It's almost as if you've never googled the phrase "million mile battery".
Re: (Score:2)
> It's almost as if you've never googled the phrase "million mile battery".
imagine using google
now I know why "news for nerds" has gone
Re:The real question (Score:5, Informative)
EVs are already changing the scrap market. Even if the bodywork is destroyed the are lots of valuable parts in an EV, even a decade old one with 500k miles on the clock. The motors and battery cells in particular. The chargers can be valuable too.
Re: (Score:2)
"Worth more as scrap" sounds great until you realize the kid who flips your burgers needs a way to get to/from work, too.
Re: (Score:2)
In my past did maintenance on electric motors, while they are an order of magnitude more reliable than combustion engines, there are still various failure modes depending on the type of electric motor. I also did a lot of work with power electronics and they are subject to quite rough conditions especially for small high energy devices. So i would expect any power electronics and the battery systems would be the two electrical components that are subject to the most stress. I assume they select and confi
Re: (Score:3)
This is very confident and yet very wrong.
EV battery degradation is not driven primarily by battery age or mileage. It is driven by discharge cycles.
A typical EV battery with a half-decent BMS and some form of active cooling, like my little Renault Zoe, will be down to c80% state of health after somewhere between 500 and 1500 full discharge cycle equivalents (many more charges, because no-one routinely discharges all the way to zero). For my Zoe, that means the original summer range of c250 miles will be do
Re:The real question (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you were right and time was a significant issue, which it really isn't, for many years to come the reason second hand EVs will be unattractive due to range is not going to be degradation, but instead technology improvements.
My first Zoe, Dec 2015, had a summer range of 90 miles
My second, Dec 2018, had a summer range of 180 miles
My third, Jul 2020, had a summer range of 250 miles
Whether the original now achieves 70 or 90 miles is pretty irrelevant in that context.
You're also still wrong about the impact of time vs cycles. It's at least 20:80 the latter.
Re:The real question (Score:5, Informative)
We don't know yet. They haven't been on the market long enough.
As a point of comparison, Tesla roadsters have been on the market since 2008 and are just now starting to show signs of battery degradation, outside of the random failures you get out of any large population of devices. So, that's easily 12-13 years.
Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There are plenty of reports of Teslas going 400k miles and more with few issues. I suspect any early adopters are willing to take that trade-off in exchange for participating in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Roadsters are not a good example though because they are not everyday cars, they are weekend toys. They get long periods between uses and charges.
The Leaf is an interesting example to look at because it has an extremely basic battery. No thermal management. Ones that have not been cared for do show a fair bit of degradation, but ones which were looked after are holding up very well. Also those which got heavy use as taxis are looking extremely good, 300k miles and 90% capacity remaining, 1 or 2 rapid charge
Re:The real question (Score:5, Insightful)
The electric motor itself should outlast any gasoline engine by a massive margin, probably by decades if not longer. There have been electric motors that have been in near-continuous operation since the 1800s that aren't designed all that differently. That's not true of the entire drivetrain, however, and the batteries are another story. The average EV battery pack lifespan is estimated to be around 200,000 miles. That's how long they're expected to work in a useful manner, warranties are typically for 100-150 thousand miles.
The F-150 Lightning's warranty covers 100,000 miles over 8 years, at which point it's warrantied to maintain 70% of the original capacity. However, you shouldn't expect the car (or battery) to suddenly disintegrate at the 8-year mark, and most people don't keep their cars for 20 years: 6 years is the average for how long people keep a new vehicle in the US, and 11.4 years is the average age of vehicles on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
That also means that used motors are pretty much just as good as new ones. If you do manage to damage the motor unit, maybe the reduction gear or something, or some debris smashing into it... Well you just grab a used one and shove that in. Way easier than fixing a fossil engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Time will tell.
But because this is the more durable Lithium chemistry, it will differentiate between the cars who had a long initial range at purchase, and cars who can barely do commute. The former can still do commute at some distance, the latter is basically scrap waiting for battery prices to drop significantly.
Re:The real question (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you ask these questions when 15 seconds with a search engine would answer them for you? Electric motors last almost forever. Meanwhile, electric vehicles have something like a fifth of the parts a gas vehicle does.
Here's just some of what's not needed, including guaranteed-maintenance items: electric engines have no need for air, fuel, or oil filters, spark plugs, or exhaust components like mufflers. They also use fewer fluids and require less cooling. So you can dispense with many elements of traditional radiators, including assorted belts, hoses and pipes that degrade and fail over time. Specifically, timing belts are no longer necessary, since there's no need to control opening and closing engine valves. With no fuel system, you can also do without pumps and injectors. Also unnecessary: sensors to monitor things like oxygen in exhaust. In fact, you don't even need all those expensive exhaust system parts that keep muffler shop owners fat and happy. Additionally, battery life on existing electrics seems to be well ahead of predictions. Resale value, initially low because of one-time grants and no proof batteries would meet expectations, has been steadily rising.
All this information is easily available. Why wouldn't you take a few seconds to find out some basic facts before vomiting forth a worthless, ill-informed opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
Electric motors last almost forever.
I'm glad they don't use this mythical "forever motor" technology in HVAC equipment, because I'd be out of a job.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not particularly concerned. Here's why:
Re:Sell TSLA (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I forgot to mention the big one: There have reportedly been almost three quarters of a million preorders of the Cybertruck so far. That's about the same number as the total number of Model 3s sold up to the end of last year. That's also pretty close to Ford's total annual F-150 sales. Preordered. Without ever even seeing one in person. With potentially a two-year wait.
Tesla is doing just fine.
Re:Sell TSLA (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not particularly concerned. Here's why:
That last one is a show-stopper. The low-end model gets its 230-mile range from a battery that's estimated to be ~140 kWh. At 150 kW peak charging, assuming a charge curve that's similar to Tesla's model X 100D at an empty V2 supercharger, you're talking about 91 minutes to charge to 100%. If you assume Megacharger support, the Tesla version could potentially charge to 100% in less than half that time.
Don't get me wrong. It's great that Ford finally decided to join the party, but I don't expect this first version to sell particularly well unless it does so through pure brand loyalty; it just seems way too far behind the competition from my perspective.
To play the devil's advocate here:
Ford has no real history of building EVs to give buyers confidence. The other side of the coin is Tesla has no history of building pickups, and the chassis part of normal cars is something they have a bad history on. Same with low quality materials and low quality paint.
Ford's driver assistance systems is expected to be much more limited. Here, it's important to remember that perception and reality in Tesla's drivers assistance are very, very, very disconnected. We're not just ordering self driving Model 3 robo-taxi via the Tesla Network now , to illustrate the difference between Tesla marketing and reality.
I don't think the rapid charging speed is going to be a showstopper. The highest speeds are only reached for a very small amount of time, and you don't charge from 0 to 100%. 20% to 80% would be a more realistic scenario - which highlights Tesla's range advantage. In any case, most of the charging will be done at night at whatever speed is available. Is three phase charging at home a thing in the US? If so, that might be a very nice advantage for the truck supporting that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sell TSLA (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not sure of your Tesla Hate. I am still waiting for a Cybertruck and not planning on getting this Ford.
I am one of these people (actually they are a lot of us) who would like to have a Truck, but cannot justify owning one, due to its current poor fuel economy, and the bulk of my driving is just transporting me, however I do occasionally want to put stuff in the back such as a Ton of wood pellets.
The new Ford is appealing, as it would fit my need, however the Tesla has a few extras.
1. Air Suspension: I want a comfortable ride with any weight.
2. Self Driving Features: I like the vision/AI technology over high resolution maps, because it is more flexible, as well seeing the ability from the new Beta from Tesla on street driving it is more appealing.
3. Stainless Steal: I like the idea that I won't have rust or paint chips, which will allow me to keep the car for longer.
Now for a lot of people that isn't a big deal, and the Ford is a better option. I am all for people not buying a Tesla if they don't want it. However they are a lot of people who do like Tesla over other Auto Manufactures. And just FUDing Tesla just isn't helpful. We should have a healthy competition in the Auto Market, Tesla is part of the competition, Being that for Trucks have been Ford, Dodge, and Chevy (with a random Toyota and Nissan (in America) ) They have gotten lazy on what a Truck is and how it looks. Having Tesla actually trying to break that mode, will welcome in not the traditional truck drivers like Ford, but those like me, who Wants a Truck, but mostly a Luxary car.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck do you base your expensive truck purchases on who else you want to be seen as driving them?
I bought a car because... it goes... it does what I want... it was in my price range... it was a good car.
What celebrity drives it really didn't even figure in my purchase decision one bit.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't look senile while he was driving it. He looked energetic and enjoying himself.
And it's not young kids buying ridiculously expensive cars, it's rich people with money.
Re:Senile Grampa Car (Score:5, Funny)
Why would I want to get a truck driven by a senile president?
His normal ride comes with .50 Cal-proof glass, rocket-launcher hardened chassis, and armed agents. The backup gas tank, is a helicopter.
What kind of weak-ass shit you rollin' in again?
Re: (Score:2)
Stick a ton of load in the back and watch the range drop considerably.
Much less than on an ICE car. The rolling resistance will go up a bit, but the aerodynamic resistance will stay the same. And EVs can recoup most of the energy during braking.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe , but even so the range will drop and if you're in the middle of nowhere without much range left you don't have much choice except to beg to plug it into someones wal socket. Obviously people would avoid getting into that situation by not using the vehicle like that, but that restricts its use cases IMO.
Re:That'll be 230 miles unloaded I imagine (Score:4, Interesting)
In my experience towing with a long range Tesla Model Y was range at least were heavily dependant on aerodynamics more than weight. The ~75KWH battery gets ~320 typical but hauling a U-hual 5x8 trailer on the back cut that to about half near 160. My range had almost no dependance on the load with our without ~1 ton of stuff on the back. Some dependance was seen on hills and the air resistance being proportal the square of velocity was huge going from 55 to 70 which would bring the range to closer to 100 miles. Long range EVs like Teslas have the equivalent of about 2 gallons of gas in energy storage so every bit of effort goes into efficiency and it really shows when you skip a step. Roof racks, wheel covers, wheel diameter all have a substantial impact that is unheard of in gas cars.
Having said all of that, I'm surprised Ford is keeping that body. The F-150 isn't exactly an aerodynamic shape but the air over the truck bed shouldn't be moving quickly. I don't see mention of battery size, but I'm guessing it's close to the 75KWH just already getting the aerodynamic penalty. If the experiences are comparable, it's likely going to be able to hit 150 without too much effort assuming you're only using the truck bed and I expect you'll be sad if you need to tow for more than 100 miles.
Re: (Score:3)
It's entirely optimal for the world of F-150 truck buyers. If you want them to buy an electric F-150, it has to look like an F-150. Truck buyers are the last group of people that wants some kind of min-maxed science fiction artifact.
Once the vehicle gains adoption, the design can be slowly modified to reduce the design's use of ICE-related design elements.
I would also bet that Ford's business plan is strongly influenced by the commercial/light utility market of maintenance vehicles that only travel local
Re: (Score:3)