F150 Lightning Pro Sub $40K Work Truck

[rampagex7]

Hey guys, I don't mean to detract from the thread topic on the F-150 Lightning (especially since I'm really interested in it and just put in a reservation for one this morning) but all the discussion on PHEV pros/cons peaked my interest.

 

As a current 2020 Aviator GT PHEV owner (plus my company now has 3 other PHEV vehicles in our fleet) I could spend hours talking about PHEV's but most of the important points have been covered. 

 

I just wanted to share one specific thing about my own experience with the Aviator PHEV that has blown me away (aside from the performance and environmental benefits) and that is the cost savings!  Since I picked up the Aviator over a year ago in January 2020 I have been tracking my exact fuel and hydro consumption with a detailed chart and the overall result is impressive.  (See chart below) To date I've traveled about 17,000km (10,500mi) and overall spent just over $1,500 in gas and hydro combined!  That is less than half of what I would spend in a year on just gas on my previous 2017 MKX which had cost me about $3,800-4,000 a year in gas for the similar distance of about 16,000km/year and it was a smaller, lighter ICE vehicle.  My average fuel consumption on the Aviator worked out to 6.27L/100km (37.5 MPG).  Also the PHEV powertrain on the Aviator has no issues at all towing my 3,500lb boat, which it can handle even in Pure EV mode when the battery is charged, whereas my previous MKX with the 2.7L EB V6 had a bit of hard time with towing.  I have no complaints about my PHEV.

 

2020 lincoln aviator PHEV fuel log.pdf

[jasonj80]

9 hours ago, rampagex7 said:

Hey guys, I don't mean to detract from the thread topic on the F-150 Lightning (especially since I'm really interested in it and just put in a reservation for one this morning) but all the discussion on PHEV pros/cons peaked my interest.

 

As a current 2020 Aviator GT PHEV owner (plus my company now has 3 other PHEV vehicles in our fleet) I could spend hours talking about PHEV's but most of the important points have been covered. 

 

I just wanted to share one specific thing about my own experience with the Aviator PHEV that has blown me away (aside from the performance and environmental benefits) and that is the cost savings!  Since I picked up the Aviator over a year ago in January 2020 I have been tracking my exact fuel and hydro consumption with a detailed chart and the overall result is impressive.  (See chart below) To date I've traveled about 17,000km (10,500mi) and overall spent just over $1,500 in gas and hydro combined!  That is less than half of what I would spend in a year on just gas on my previous 2017 MKX which had cost me about $3,800-4,000 a year in gas for the similar distance of about 16,000km/year and it was a smaller, lighter ICE vehicle.  My average fuel consumption on the Aviator worked out to 6.27L/100km (37.5 MPG).  Also the PHEV powertrain on the Aviator has no issues at all towing my 3,500lb boat, which it can handle even in Pure EV mode when the battery is charged, whereas my previous MKX with the 2.7L EB V6 had a bit of hard time with towing.  I have no complaints about my PHEV.

 

2020 lincoln aviator PHEV fuel log.pdf

For people not from Canada - “hydro” is what they call electric power. 
 

 

[sullynd]

17 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

For people not from Canada - “hydro” is what they call electric power. 
 

 

Thank god for Mike Holmes or I’d never have known.

 

All of Canada, or is it regional? (Canada is the world’s third largest producer of hydroelectricity)

[jpd80]

A bit left field but I wonder about something like this:

1. an extended range Lightning with say, a baby 1.5 Panther diesel generator in the engine bay.

2. Super Duty F250/350 Lightning but with a bigger motor generator set.

 

 

[slemke]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

A bit left field but I wonder about something like this:

1. an extended range Lightning with say, a baby 1.5 Panther diesel generator in the engine bay.

2. Super Duty F250/350 Lightning but with a bigger motor generator set.

 

 

I think you are on to something.  I thought there was a Ford patent on some sort of range extender.  Of course, that sounds like a PHEV and regulators will not allow for it ?

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, slemke said:

I think you are on to something.  I thought there was a Ford patent on some sort of range extender.  Of course, that sounds like a PHEV and regulators will not allow for it ?

The Ford patent is for a removable range extender, that might be key to differentiate between a PHEV 

What I was thinking about is more about moving ICE buyers who tow and do lots of miles into something new age.....

[twintornados]

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

A bit left field but I wonder about something like this:

1. an extended range Lightning with say, a baby 1.5 Panther diesel generator in the engine bay.

 

Do you mean the frunk? Since there is technically no engine bay...

 

[Harley Lover]

On 5/27/2021 at 9:53 PM, rampagex7 said:

Hey guys, I don't mean to detract from the thread topic on the F-150 Lightning (especially since I'm really interested in it and just put in a reservation for one this morning) but all the discussion on PHEV pros/cons peaked my interest.

 

As a current 2020 Aviator GT PHEV owner (plus my company now has 3 other PHEV vehicles in our fleet) I could spend hours talking about PHEV's but most of the important points have been covered. 

 

I just wanted to share one specific thing about my own experience with the Aviator PHEV that has blown me away (aside from the performance and environmental benefits) and that is the cost savings!  Since I picked up the Aviator over a year ago in January 2020 I have been tracking my exact fuel and hydro consumption with a detailed chart and the overall result is impressive.  (See chart below) To date I've traveled about 17,000km (10,500mi) and overall spent just over $1,500 in gas and hydro combined!  That is less than half of what I would spend in a year on just gas on my previous 2017 MKX which had cost me about $3,800-4,000 a year in gas for the similar distance of about 16,000km/year and it was a smaller, lighter ICE vehicle.  My average fuel consumption on the Aviator worked out to 6.27L/100km (37.5 MPG).  Also the PHEV powertrain on the Aviator has no issues at all towing my 3,500lb boat, which it can handle even in Pure EV mode when the battery is charged, whereas my previous MKX with the 2.7L EB V6 had a bit of hard time with towing.  I have no complaints about my PHEV.

 

2020 lincoln aviator PHEV fuel log.pdf

 

Awesome post. Thank you for sharing your real world experience. Some posters here will have a hard time believing you, because your actual experience conflicts with their preferred narrative regarding PHEVs.

[Harley Lover]

On 5/27/2021 at 5:12 PM, bzcat said:

 

Ok, no arguing. Just explanation ?

 

If you do plug in PHEV regularly, it has very low CO2 footprint. Remember, intended use = intended results. 

 

If you never plug in PHEV and if the PHEV is regularly used in charge mode, then it will likely emit more CO2 than a comparable ICE car. PHEV is heavier than ICE so they consume more gas when operating in ICE only or charge mode. And the conversion lost on charge mode means driven in such a way over long periods, it becomes a gross CO2 polluter. 

 

In Europe, PHEV was conceived as a work around to enable ICE to operate in congestion zone which has exemption for ZEV. The idea is that if the car is plugged in when parked, it can use the EV mode to go in and out of congestion zone as a ZEV. But of course car companies quickly sold the idea that in fact, you don't need to plug it in at all because we will give you this charge mode so you can charge up while commuting from the suburbs and just switch to EV mode when you get into congestion zone. This is obviously not how regulators intended PHEV to be used. And since PHEV is expensive (twe driventrain = twice the cost... I'm generalizing but it's mostly true) so it is mainly a luxury car feature. The middle part of the market prefers EV because it is a lot more affordable compared to PHEV. This is why most brands in Europe now offers EV version of their B or C segment CUV, instead of PHEV. 

 

In the US, PHEV was always sold as a remedy for range anxiety as opposed to a tool for rich people to get around congestion zone. But because of the tax credit in place, some people bought it just to claim the tax credit and they never plugged in the car. Early PHEV like Gen 1 Volt or Audi A3 etron had software algorithm that automatically charged the battery in certain condition while in hybrid mode or have charge mode that increased fuel consumption. This is what CARB came down against. CARB made it much more difficult for PHEV to charge by running the engine so it became necessary to plug those cars in because otherwise they run out of electric only range very quickly. In hybrid mode, they still work just fine because hybrid mainly recharge by capturing regen braking. To get around the CARB rule, GM and Audi had to disable the charge mode on their PHEV in 2017 model year. Some manufacturer like BMW refused to do it citing various reasons. This is why some early 2017 Volt and the F30 generation BMW 330e didn't qualify for CARB rebate or HOV lane access. Other companies like Honda also temporarily suspended sales of PHEV but eventually brought it back with revised software that limited the use of charge mode. On Clarity for example, it will only recharge when there is excess engine power and will only charge up 60% of the battery capacity. That was carefully calculated to make sure it doesn't exceed theoretical CO2 limit if it just ran on ICE only for a certain distance. As you can see, the regulatory hurdle for PHEV is high and will be increasingly so. It's like the next diesel...

 

The basic premise of PHEV is "best of both worlds". But it is really a compromise, not best of either world. If I had to guess, traditional ICE hybrids will live on longer than PHEV for this precise reason... hybrids are simple (relatively speaking), doesn't weight a lot more than ICE only, and can operate in short distance EV only mode if required (it can be programed that way). PHEV add complexity and more weight to this equation but with only limited upside - it can operate in EV only mode for longer distance than regular hybrid due to larger battery packs. But if operating in EV only mode is the primarily objective or desire, EV does a better job than PHEV. This is not to say PHEV won't exist. They will almost certainly continue to be an option on luxury cars. But hybrid and EV will be more common by 2030 than PHEV.

 

So there you have it... I hope this explains why I think PHEV's 15 minutes of fame is over. 

 

Edit: another way to think about this is there are two ways to make a PHEV:

1. Take ICE hybrid and add more battery

2. Take EV and add ICE

 

#1 is the European way and how Ford designed Aviator GT. This is falling out of favor rapidly because regulators don't like it. And there is some evidence that it doesn't reduce CO2 emission.

 

#2 is Volt... and it doesn't make a lot of sense because if you can run your daily commute in EV mode, then why even bother lugging around the engine which actually reduces your range?

 

Bz, as always, your posts are excellent. Thank you for the detailed explanation. It's frustrating that regulators allowed the loophole that the consumers (aided by the OEMs) leaped through. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer (something P.T. Barnum probably said).

[akirby]

I thought Aviator has 2 modes in addition to EV only and using the battery as needed for better performance:  One that works like a regular hybrid and only recharges the battery from regenerative braking and one that keeps the PHEV battery fully charged using energy from the ICE.   The latter is what I was referring to when I said charge sustaining mode but after reading more that may not be the correct term.  If you’re constantly using the ICE to keep the battery fully charged (which is what I thought Europeans were forced to do to save the battery for driving in the city) then that’s definitely going to be worse than just the ICE.    But outside govt regulations I see no need to ever use that mode.  Let it run in EV as long as possible then run in HEV mode.

[Harley Lover]

The Energi has 3 modes: EV only, EV later (force it to use the ICE only), or hybrid mode (operates as a standard hybrid). I've always used EV later on the Freeway/road trips, as conventional wisdom was that the HV battery didn't really like sustained running at 70-80 mph. EV mode, as I've posted before, is for around town operation (vast majority of its usage now), and only use hybrid mode if I've depleted the HV battery while I'm running around (which hasn't happened in a very long time). I would imagine current Ford/Lincoln PHEV offerings would have the same modes available?

[jpd80]

12 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

Bz, as always, your posts are excellent. Thank you for the detailed explanation. It's frustrating that regulators allowed the loophole that the consumers (aided by the OEMs) leaped through. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer (something P.T. Barnum probably said).

I think bzcat’s point was that PHEVs were an extension of hybrids (bigger battery) and persisted until rule changes caught up with recharging batteries on the run for later EV use. You only have to look at the modes offered on a PHEV to see that they rely more on the ICE side when battery is depleted. A true EV with range extender ICE would have to be nett charge depletion to conform with regulation.

 

PHEVs can still serve a function as a power adder, that now apparent in some applications,

perhaps it’s time for Ecoboost to make way for Powerboost........

Edited May 30, 2021 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

So another way to look at the PHEV vs BEV argument is this: 

 

The engineering and costs of producing a PHEV vs a BEV is just higher-Still have to have an ICE, the added engineering work of adding a smaller electric battery/motors with added weight (cutting into any MPG gains) to the platform. They are currently at this very moment "more practical" but due to regulations and anticipated gains in range with BEV only products, are a deadend developmental wise.

 

BEV advantages-Less complex product (less moving parts then an ICE) and simplified engineering going forward. Range is an issue, but given expected increases in the next 10 years, it will be more or less a non-issue.

 

What it boils down to is manufactures are coming to the conclusion that BEV development (long term) is the best route to go because they are in 60 month look ahead mindset.

 

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

What it boils down to is manufactures are coming to the conclusion that BEV development (long term) is the best route to go because they are in 60 month look ahead mindset.

 

It’s also clear that many government regulators don’t want them so it’s an uphill battle.