Jump to content

All Electric Ford F-150 Lightning to be revealed on May 19 at 930 pm ET


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Biden in Dearborn talked about expanding that tax credit......don't know if he needs 60 votes in Senate to sign it into law. 

 

I think it needs to go away, but I also think it's only fair that Ford get to use it on their vehicles since Tesla and the other mfrs are using it (or used it already).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

Biden in Dearborn talked about expanding that tax credit......don't know if he needs 60 votes in Senate to sign it into law. 

 

Yes sir FordBuyer. During his visit to Ford's Rouge Electric Vehicle Center, President Biden referred to the provision in H.R. 848 that increases the maximum number of "qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles" eligible for the federal tax credit to 600,000 per manufacturer.

 

It will take time before the Senate acts on this bill, it's still being reviewed by the House Committee on Ways and Means as of now. Be sure to write to your representatives asking them to support H.R. 848.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 Be sure to write to your representatives asking them to NOT support H.R. 848.

 

FTFY.  Not sure why the US Government should give up 3 trillion dollars (3 mfgs x 400,000 x $7500) worth of taxable income just to incentivize this purchase?  If people claim to be committed to this technology, they should be prepared to pay for it.  I do agree with letting Ford hit the 200K threshold, that would only be fair, after others have had the chance.

 

I look at the trip I'm making this Saturday. Chicago to Miami OK, 9 hours, 603 miles.  With a 300 mile max range, I'd possibly have to stop and charge twice, adding how many hours to my drive time?

 

HRG

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mach-E, Transit, and Lightning are all high-effort, customer-focused, homeruns.

 

This bodes well for Ford going into the 2nd half of this decade. 

 

Ford is so far ahead of the game on the EV pickup, it is going to dominate this space, going from strength to strength. I'm very excited by the prospect of Ranger and Bronco EV which I'm sure will come shortly after 2023 with the new Ranger. 

 

 

_DSC9943.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

FTFY.  Not sure why the US Government should give up 3 trillion dollars (3 mfgs x 400,000 x $7500) worth of taxable income just to incentivize this purchase?  If people claim to be committed to this technology, they should be prepared to pay for it.  I do agree with letting Ford hit the 200K threshold, that would only be fair, after others have had the chance.

 

I look at the trip I'm making this Saturday. Chicago to Miami OK, 9 hours, 603 miles.  With a 300 mile max range, I'd possibly have to stop and charge twice, adding how many hours to my drive time?

 

HRG

 

First, you can't do math ? 3 x 400,000 x 7,500 = $9  billion, not 3 trillion. $9 billion over a decade is a drop in the bucket to the Federal Govt. We spent multiple times that every year subsidizing the oil industry.

 

Second, there is nothing wrong with UG Govt using tax incentives to encourage a positive outcome. That's good Govt policy. 

 

Third, if you are going to act like a simpleton and not think critically about what this little tiny tax break can mean to a whole industry, then you should apply the same standards to every industry. The oil industry is already well established, and yet we pile state and federal subsidies to fracking industry, exempting or limit its mitigation liabilities. If people claim to be supporting the fossil fuel technology, they should be prepared to pay for it. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

7 minutes ago, bzcat said:

If people claim to be supporting the fossil fuel technology, they should be prepared to pay for it. 

 

If people claim to be supporting BEVs they should be prepared to pay for it.  Why is it different?

 

The subsidies were needed early on to encourage development before the products were mainstream.   At this point they are not needed.  Tesla is still selling fairly well without them.

 

That said it wouldn't be fair to kill the credits now.

 

If anything needs to be subsidized it should be US battery production.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

First, you can't do math ? 3 x 400,000 x 7,500 = $9  billion, not 3 trillion. $9 billion over a decade is a drop in the bucket to the Federal Govt. We spent multiple times that every year subsidizing the oil industry.

 

Second, there is nothing wrong with UG Govt using tax incentives to encourage a positive outcome. That's good Govt policy. 

 

Third, if you are going to act like a simpleton and not think critically about what this little tiny tax break can mean to a whole industry, then you should apply the same standards to every industry. The oil industry is already well established, and yet we pile state and federal subsidies to fracking industry, exempting or limit its mitigation liabilities. If people claim to be supporting the fossil fuel technology, they should be prepared to pay for it. 

 

I agree, I fat-fingered the math on that one!  But, I still suggest that these subsidies, for any industry, need to be looked at closely. 

 

HRG

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came away impressed after last nights presentation. It was more than I was expecting. 

 

As a whole, I think this a good first step for Ford in the electric truck market. I mean, having a commercial version option at 40k all the way to a fully loaded Platinum at 90k makes sense. They aren't pulling a "we're only making the expensive ones first".

 

I watched the TFL video on this, and they made a great point. Ford will have the most complete truck lineup of any manufacture. Gas, hybrid, diesel, and electric options available on virtually all trim levels. Just think about that, virtually all trims can get these options. The customers will dictate when they make the move from gas to electric (and if there is a stop at hybrid in between) but Ford has all the bases covered. Even next year, we'll get the Halo Supercharged V8 in the Raptor as a send off.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviews from media people who actually test drove the pre-production units report that it will have the option of single-pedal driving. Also the handling dynamics feel a lot more planted than a regular F-150 (due to more balanced weight). Obviously still no range tests - going to be a while until we get those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, akirby said:

I

 

If people claim to be supporting BEVs they should be prepared to pay for it.  Why is it different?

 

The subsidies were needed early on to encourage development before the products were mainstream.   At this point they are not needed.  Tesla is still selling fairly well without them.

 

That said it wouldn't be fair to kill the credits now.

 

If anything needs to be subsidized it should be US battery production.

 

So you are ok with $5 a gallon gas that was fracked or extracted in the US? Because that's probably what gas extracted in the US should cost without various subsidies and removed legal liabilities for environmental clean up cost. The US is a large oil producer because of the tax subsidies. Without which, domestic producers cannot compete with Saudi Arabia. 

 

We accept that there is an economic incentive for the US Govt to subsidize gasoline extraction and production in the US. Just like there is an economic incentive for US Govt to subsidize EV production and adoption in the US. The Govt subsidizes all kinds of things and industries. Why single out EV subsidy, which is both insignificant but yet proved to be very effective? Like you said... Tesla is selling very well without them, which means the previous tax incentive clearly worked as intended. 

 

We spend a lot more every year subsidizing corn than EV. Let's put this in perspective. 

 

BTW, I think it is very reasonable to limit any new EV subsidy to vehicles and/or battery packs produced in the US only. We don't need to subsidize Chinese battery or German labor. If Ford wants to take advantage of the credit, bring the midsize EV back to Ohio... fair and square. 

 

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, petemill said:

Reviews from media people who actually test drove the pre-production units report that it will have the option of single-pedal driving. Also the handling dynamics feel a lot more planted than a regular F-150 (due to more balanced weight). Obviously still no range tests - going to be a while until we get those.

 

Here's Car and Driver's test drive impressions. Ride the Lightning: We Ride in Ford's New Electric F-150 Lightning (caranddriver.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bzcat said:

BTW, I think it is very reasonable to limit any new EV subsidy to vehicles and/or battery packs produced in the US only. 

 

Yes sir bzcat. Ideally, in addition to what you mentioned, subsidies should go to U.S. companies only, or subsidiaries and JV that are incorporated in the U.S.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HotRunrGuy said:

I look at the trip I'm making this Saturday. Chicago to Miami OK, 9 hours, 603 miles.  With a 300 mile max range, I'd possibly have to stop and charge twice, adding how many hours to my drive time?

 

 

Well, if one wanted to be time-efficient and only charge at your fastest rate, then you might want to stop on more occasions for less time. At it's peak the extended range battery in the F-150 will charge at 54 miles of range per 10 minutes (that's information from Ford). It might only do that between 20% and 70% (this part is just a guess, they haven't released the charging curve). So let's say you went down from 300 miles of range to 60 miles of range (20%) then charged for 20 minutes to 54+54+60 = 168 miles of range (56% of battery), you'd then drive another 108 miles and repeat that 2 more times, to get to your destination with about 20 miles spare (6.6%). So either you charge at your destination or you charge one more time before you arrive. So you'd be looking at 1 hour total charging time.

 

Of course, very few people would want to be this geeky, and just want the gas-like experience of fill-and-go. We'll get there 1 day. Perhaps the F-150 Lightning isn't for people who take regular long road trips (especially towing), but we'll get there one day. It's definitely ready for people who stay local though IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

Came away impressed after last nights presentation. It was more than I was expecting. 

 

As a whole, I think this a good first step for Ford in the electric truck market. I mean, having a commercial version option at 40k all the way to a fully loaded Platinum at 90k makes sense. They aren't pulling a "we're only making the expensive ones first".

 

I watched the TFL video on this, and they made a great point. Ford will have the most complete truck lineup of any manufacture. Gas, hybrid, diesel, and electric options available on virtually all trim levels. Just think about that, virtually all trims can get these options. The customers will dictate when they make the move from gas to electric (and if there is a stop at hybrid in between) but Ford has all the bases covered. Even next year, we'll get the Halo Supercharged V8 in the Raptor as a send off.

 

 

 

Ford has always been seen as the most affordable brand, and good to see Ford BEVs will be affordable too. Let others make vehicles that aren't affordable to many. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I

 

If people claim to be supporting BEVs they should be prepared to pay for it.  Why is it different?

 

The subsidies were needed early on to encourage development before the products were mainstream.   At this point they are not needed.  Tesla is still selling fairly well without them.

 

That said it wouldn't be fair to kill the credits now.

 

If anything needs to be subsidized it should be US battery production.

 

Biden is not trying to push through a bill building 50,000 more charging stations without continuing  to subsidize the fledging BEV industry. And at same time pushing power plants away from fossil fuels, even natural gas. This Administation believes in Global Warming. So don't expect something different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

 

So you are ok with $5 a gallon gas that was fracked or extracted in the US? Because that's probably what gas extracted in the US should cost without various subsidies and removed legal liabilities for environmental clean up cost. The US is a large oil producer because of the tax subsidies. Without which, domestic producers cannot compete with Saudi Arabia. 

 

We accept that there is an economic incentive for the US Govt to subsidize gasoline extraction and production in the US. Just like there is an economic incentive for US Govt to subsidize EV production and adoption in the US. The Govt subsidizes all kinds of things and industries. Why single out EV subsidy, which is both insignificant but yet proved to be very effective? Like you said... Tesla is selling very well without them, which means the previous tax incentive clearly worked as intended. 

 

We spend a lot more every year subsidizing corn than EV. Let's put this in perspective.

 

Apples and oranges.   Gasoline is used by everyone every day (other than EV only drivers).   The analogy would be to subsidize electricity and/or battery production which I'm ok with.

Look at Leaf.  The subsidy allowed them to sell super cheap leases which people bought just because they were cheap, then they went back to gasoline vehicles.   It did nothing to further adoption of EVs.   And most EVs today will sell without the credit.   It's simply unnecessary and has outlived its original intent.  

 

The old "it's a drop in the bucket" argument is fine until you add up hundreds or thousands of "drops in the bucket" and suddenly you have an ocean of debt.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Biden is not trying to push through a bill building 50,000 more charging stations without continuing  to subsidize the fledging BEV industry. And at same time pushing power plants away from fossil fuels, even natural gas. This Administation believes in Global Warming. So don't expect something different. 

we already have rolling blackouts WITHOUT everyone having EVs rammed down their throats...and mark my words...mileage tax is coming to counter potential lost tax revenues from good old Gasoline...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 70 Stang said:

Just read in Motortrend that the Lightning has the same locking rear differential as it's ICE counterpart.

That can't be right.....is it?

 

Why not?  There is only one rear motor so it has go through a differential to power both rear wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

We've got 9 reservations so far but you're at a much larger dealership. 

 

Ford claims they got 20,000 reservations within 12 hours. Wonder how many Lightnings can be made in 1 year at the new plant? Maybe 50,000? Looks like many more orders coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Interesting editorial from Eric Tingwall at Car and Driver. Mr. Tingwall wants Ford to make a hi-po supertruck version of F-150 Lightning. Lightning Struck Ford's F-150 Twice. This Time, I Think It Missed (caranddriver.com)

 

 

 

Car and Driver being Car and Driver. No matter how good is a Ford vehicle. No matter how good is a Ford feature in their vehicles. Car and Driver say that is not enough good for them.   Ford designed the 1st electric truck that cover the traditional truck buyer needs and much more. With revolutionary features and capabilities.  A truck that will put the EV at the center of the American market. But a Car and Driver guy think Ford missed the opportunity to made a race track ready truck, with low suspension and 0 to 60 in 2 sec.   Maybe Ford will make in the near future a sport truck based on the Lightning to please Car and Driver. But now, the news are this truck. The first electric truck for the masses.    But that is not enough for Car and Driver and their biased journalists.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...