Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

For sure Rick73. In addition to Silverado EV, Tesla Cybertruck just started production. Competition is getting very intense.

 

F-150 Lightning is the most important vehicle in Ford's global lineup nowadays, and it seems that Ford is going to do everything possible to ensure that its first mover advantage in the BEV full-size pickup truck segment isn't lost.

Yes, pricing for Silverado EV listed in Car and Driver article linked above suggest to me that Ford had to lower Lightning prices to remain competitive.  In addition to being brand new which will appeal to some buyers, the much larger 215 kWh battery and up to 450 miles of range beat Lightning by significant amount.  The midgate (assuming it works) provides a lot of flexibility also.

 

I do not need a truck, but if I did, the Silverado would be my choice over the Cybertruck by far.  I just can’t warm up to Cybertruck radical styling.  To me it looks part spaceship from Star Wars movie, but uglier as a vehicle.  The Silverado looks much more traditional.

 

As I’ve stated before, I don’t like any of these vehicles if used for personal transportation.  The Silverado, for example, is a very heavy truck. Notice on pictures 8-lug wheels like on a HD pickup.  These massive BEVs will not help combat global warming much, if at all, and will place greater strain on electrical power generation and distribution.  Charging will also require at least twice as much energy, adding to system costs.  If electrification is being pushed to lower GHGs, these trucks are going in wrong direction.  In my opinion, these types of vehicles have potential to create divisiveness because they can pollute as much or more than an affordable ICE or HEV yet are “legal” to purchase if you have deep pockets.  I don’t see why BEVs are not regulated for efficiency just like other vehicles.  Maybe they are and I don’t know about it.

[silvrsvt]

30 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

As I’ve stated before, I don’t like any of these vehicles if used for personal transportation.  The Silverado, for example, is a very heavy truck. Notice on pictures 8-lug wheels like on a HD pickup.  These massive BEVs will not help combat global warming much, if at all, and will place greater strain on electrical power generation and distribution.  Charging will also require at least twice as much energy, adding to system costs.  If electrification is being pushed to lower GHGs, these trucks are going in wrong direction.  In my opinion, these types of vehicles have potential to create divisiveness because they can pollute as much or more than an affordable ICE or HEV yet are “legal” to purchase if you have deep pockets.  I don’t see why BEVs are not regulated for efficiency just like other vehicles.  Maybe they are and I don’t know about it.

 

That is a problem-its done partly by the manufactures-they want to make a profit off a vehicle so they are going to gravitate to higher end vehicles like full sized pickups that can support that pricing since currently it is so expensive to make them. That is why expecting a 500 mile range out of an EV at this moment is folly, due to the huge weight and price penalty it will have. The GMC Hummer isn't even listed on Fuelecomony.gov yet to see how it compares when it comes to upstream CO2 usage vs other EVs to see how accurate your statement is. 

 

That is why Ford is talking up how efficient its upcoming three row vehicle will be 

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I don’t like any of these vehicles if used for personal transportation. 

 

I don't like that either, but in the U.S., a wide swath of consumers find full size pickup trucks appealing for personal transportation. Plus, they're major status symbols. As such, transitioning this segment from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles to BEV ASAP in a manner that focuses on the gasoline/diesel "superusers" is needed.

 

Coltura recommends just this "superusers" approach and put together an updated report with details. Report-COLTURA-2.0.pdf

 

 

[Chrisgb]

Concerning the electrical grid's ability to support charging, as BEVs become commonplace, there should be a measurable if not significant reduction in power needed to refine petroleum. Below is the onsite electrical distribution grid of Flint Hills Pine bend refinery, which is supplied by Xcel Energy. FH has begun constructing a 45 MW solar farm on site, which will allow XL to divert 3200 home's worth of electricity to other parts of their grid. FH will still need to rely on the grid,  but much less so.

So two factors are at work: less refining going on, and less reliance on the overall grid and the third of two factors; FH is investing an awful lot of money into this, they must envision oil products being viable for several decades I believe more large industrial complexes will build their own renewable energy systems to augment that which they get from the grid.

https://www.hometownsource.com/sun_thisweek/community/dakota_county/flint-hills-resources-advances-large-solar-energy-project/article_aba4433e-95a0-11ec-ab36-d760d3da104c.html

Flint Hills Pine Bend Refinery. The two highlighted areas are the power distribution & transforming plants. One of scores of refineries in the US that represent a huge reliance on  the overall grid:

 

[Rick73]

59 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

I don't like that either, but in the U.S., a wide swath of consumers find full size pickup trucks appealing for personal transportation. Plus, they're major status symbols

That’s where I see biggest issue.  You’re saying it should be acceptable to sell extremely large and inefficient BEVs to rich people because that’s what they want and demand, but it’s not acceptable to sell efficient ICE and Hybrids that produce much less GHGs just because they don’t fall under “BEV” umbrella?

 

I can afford one of these monstrosities if I wanted one bad enough, so my reasoning is not clouded by envy.  I just have a tough time dealing with injustice, particularly when it comes as a result of abuse of power, and find that allowing one person to drive a 10,000-pound BEV to grocery store while telling another that they won’t be able to buy a Honda Civic or similar in a few years intolerable.  I’m actually pro-BEV (under right conditions) yet ignoring fairness feels wrong.

[rperez817]

12 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

That’s where I see biggest issue.  You’re saying it should be acceptable to sell extremely large and inefficient BEVs to rich people because that’s what they want and demand, but it’s not acceptable to sell efficient ICE and Hybrids that produce much less GHGs just because they don’t fall under “BEV” umbrella?

 

BEV are much more efficient than ICE and hybrids in the same vehicle categories. Going back to the Coltura report, the best way to address the issue is to accelerate the transition to BEV first and foremost in the categories that have the highest gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. That means large, inefficient ICE powered full-size pickup trucks (LD and SD) and SUV, particularly older models that are used primarily by middle class people.

 

Coltura summarized gasoline superusers as follows and its recommendation to revise the BEV purchase incentive structure so that those people get the most.

• Drivers are highly unequal in their gasoline consumption. The drivers in the top 10% of gasoline consumption each use upwards of 1,000 gallons of gasoline each year. 
• Collectively Gasoline Superusers burn nearly one-third of all U.S. gasoline consumed in the U.S. by light duty vehicles. This is more than the bottom 60% of users combined. The top 20% of gasoline users burn 48%.
• Revising EV incentives to focus on displacing gasoline consumption will cut gasoline use faster, more efficiently, and at lower cost. 
• Getting Gasoline Superusers into EVs as quickly as possible is critical to hitting our climate goals

 
Key Characteristics of Gasoline Superusers:

• Use more than 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year
• Drive three times more miles than the average driver
• Are more likely to drive pickups and SUVs
• Are more likely to live in rural areas
• Have similar income and educational levels as the general population
• Have lower average income levels than current EV drivers
• Spend on average 8% of their income on gasoline — more than twice that of average drivers.

[silvrsvt]

18 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

That’s where I see biggest issue.  You’re saying it should be acceptable to sell extremely large and inefficient BEVs to rich people because that’s what they want and demand, but it’s not acceptable to sell efficient ICE and Hybrids that produce much less GHGs just because they don’t fall under “BEV” umbrella?

 

Not sure where you going with this-more expensive/higher end products get newer features then lower end products to help off set the costs in developing them. I think the disconnect is that people think that we won't be able to buy ICE products in 5 years and expensive EVs will be the only option when its going to be a transition period over the next 10-12 years as tech and prices improve. 

 

As for the off setting part- at least in the Ford world you can get Hybrids in lower end products but they'll be eventually phased as EV tech gets cheaper in the next decade. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Having read the Cloture study, one of the limitations of switching these "super users" to EVs is that they actually haul heavy loads and tow with them. Currently the highest payload EV is the F150 Lightning at about a ton isn't enough for many of these users who are farmers, tradespeople, etc.. For those who need to tow heavy and/or big trailers, those loads will cut the F150 Lightnings load to the point it can't do the job.

 

So reality is, even the F150 Lightning won't do the job for many of these "superusers".

[Flying68]

I drive ~18k miles per year, average about 17 mpg, so I am a super user.  There currently isn't an EV that will fit my needs and the infrastructure isn't their to support it.  My specific case is that I regularly make a 500 mile journey that doesn't have any EV support at the destination, nor any within 30 miles.  There isn't an EV available that will fit my needs to replace my current ride.  However, if we replace my wife's vehicle which is driven about 9,000 miles per year with an EV and it was a larger 2 row instead of the small 2 row (which our kids don't really fit in the back of anymore), we could conceivably reduce the mileage on the big vehicle and use the EV exclusively for the routine cross city drives we make.  This might cut down about 6,000 miles per year on the big SUV.  Or better yet, if they had a large SUV PHEV that increased the fuel mileage to 22 mpg instead of 17 mpg, it would basically have the same effect.

[rperez817]

16 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

So reality is, even the F150 Lightning won't do the job for many of these "superusers".

 

Good point GearheadGrrrl. That makes the introduction of BEV F-Series Super Duty even more critical. Hopefully Ford is first to market in that product category.

[GearheadGrrrl]

I fall into the "superuser" category by mileage, but thankfully flunk out on fuel use. I put about 18,000 miles a year on a VW TDI at about 45 MPG, using about 400 gallons of fuel of which about 40 is renewables at a current fuel cost of about $1400. I put about 12,000 miles a year on a Transit Connect with E85 capability at about 24 MPG, using about 500 gallons of fuel of which about 400 gallons is renewable with a GHG contribution about half that of gasoline, for a fuel cost of around $1200 a year at current prices. So my fuel cost is about $2600 a year with a GHG output similar to 680 gallons of gasoline. Both vehicles will easily and safely pull a 2000 pound trailer, and The Transit Connect with a small trailer can easily haul a metric toon of payload.

 

Meanwhile, IIRC the study's average superuser is using 3000 gallons of gas  at around $10,000 cost in a big pickup or SUV to drive the same 30,000 miles I do, but rarely if ever uses their massive vehicle's hauling capability.

 

 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

BEV are much more efficient than ICE and hybrids in the same vehicle categories. Going back to the Coltura report, the best way to address the issue is to accelerate the transition to BEV first and foremost in the categories that have the highest gasoline and diesel fuel consumption.

I understand the numbers quite well.  The issue for me is one of limiting personal choices that doesn’t seem equitable to me.  I mostly care about “Joe” being able to buy a truck that barely gets 2 miles per kWh of electricity, regardless of how much he drives, yet “Ethel” soon won’t have choice to buy a Civic that may actually produce less GHGs per mile driven.  That’s the direction we are presently headed, and I don’t like it at all.  And to make matters worse, Joe may drive his BEV truck 30,000 miles per year just for fun, yet Ethel may only drive 3,000 miles per year.  What gives any of us the right to tell Ethel that she will have to drive a BEV in future because it produces too much GHGs?

 

As a side note, the article seems focused on reducing gasoline without going too much into what the environmental cost of alternatives will be.  If it did, I missed it.  I personally want a small BEV, but also don’t want any government telling me I won’t be able to buy a 50 MPG car while a neighbor can buy a Silverado EV that pollutes more.  It is hard to articulate my views on how limiting personal choices versus limiting vehicle choices will create anger in society, but I see it coming.  If not here already.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Rick73

[GearheadGrrrl]

48 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Good point GearheadGrrrl. That makes the introduction of BEV F-Series Super Duty even more critical. Hopefully Ford is first to market in that product category.

For the users that can do their jobs with a heavy duty pickup EV's limited range, it'll be great. For users that need to drive over a hundred miles a day, it won't save them any $$$.

[rmc523]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Yes, pricing for Silverado EV listed in Car and Driver article linked above suggest to me that Ford had to lower Lightning prices to remain competitive.  In addition to being brand new which will appeal to some buyers, the much larger 215 kWh battery and up to 450 miles of range beat Lightning by significant amount.  The midgate (assuming it works) provides a lot of flexibility also.

 

I do not need a truck, but if I did, the Silverado would be my choice over the Cybertruck by far.  I just can’t warm up to Cybertruck radical styling.  To me it looks part spaceship from Star Wars movie, but uglier as a vehicle.  The Silverado looks much more traditional.

 

As I’ve stated before, I don’t like any of these vehicles if used for personal transportation.  The Silverado, for example, is a very heavy truck. Notice on pictures 8-lug wheels like on a HD pickup.  These massive BEVs will not help combat global warming much, if at all, and will place greater strain on electrical power generation and distribution.  Charging will also require at least twice as much energy, adding to system costs.  If electrification is being pushed to lower GHGs, these trucks are going in wrong direction.  In my opinion, these types of vehicles have potential to create divisiveness because they can pollute as much or more than an affordable ICE or HEV yet are “legal” to purchase if you have deep pockets.  I don’t see why BEVs are not regulated for efficiency just like other vehicles.  Maybe they are and I don’t know about it.

 

I'm sure they will be....right after they switch everyone over, I'm sure they'll magically/suddenly realize theyre not as good as advertised and be regulated more.

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

theyre not as good as advertised and be regulated more.

 

This is a serious issue nowadays, though the remedy may be a matter of updating the regulations rather than regulating "more".

 

Example. Back in April a discussion thread was started on this site regarding the proposal to update PEF calculations so that CAFE numbers for BEV are more realistic. The issue here is that even though BEV is much more efficient that ICE powertrains including hybrid, BEV CAFE numbers are wildly inflated (example, 237 MPGe for F-150 Lightning). CAFE numbers for ICE vehicles are inflated too, though not the same extent as BEV. 

 

 

[silvrsvt]

17 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

CAFE numbers for ICE vehicles are inflated too, though not the same extent as BEV. 

 

They are inflated because they are using the original standard when CAFE was first implemented, not the updated standard used on window stickers today. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

The issue here is that even though BEV is much more efficient that ICE powertrains including hybrid, BEV CAFE numbers are wildly inflated (example, 237 MPGe for F-150 Lightning). CAFE numbers for ICE vehicles are inflated too, though not the same extent as BEV. 

It’s not just that MPGe numbers are inflated, what they represent in the “real world” is misleading.

[DeluxeStang]

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

I don't like that either, but in the U.S., a wide swath of consumers find full size pickup trucks appealing for personal transportation. Plus, they're major status symbols. As such, transitioning this segment from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles to BEV ASAP in a manner that focuses on the gasoline/diesel "superusers" is needed.

 

Coltura recommends just this "superusers" approach and put together an updated report with details. Report-COLTURA-2.0.pdf

 

 

The issue is these "super users" are some of the most risk/technology adverse car buyers out there. They're the kind of people who often want things to remain consistent as possible. Trying to talk them into transitioning in BEV is essentially an impossible task because they're so opposed to change. 

 

The issue is if you want to win over those staunch truck traditionalists, you really need to dazzle them. Not small improvements. I mean you need to come out with a truck that's literally 2-3 times better at every single thing a truck is known for, and throw in some razzle dazzle on top for added wow factor. There are no electric trucks on the market that do that. 

 

It seems like electric truck offers are either super over the top 1,000 hp mega trucks that start at close to six figures, or look like stainless steel pyramids. Then on the other side, you have many brands making basic trucks that don't really push the envelope enough over a gas powered truck to win over members of this demographic.

 

Everyone is either going too hard, or not hard enough. If you really want to please these people, you need to blow them away,  but not scare them. That's a very tricky thing to balance that no-one has gotten right this far. 

 

 

[rperez817]

16 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Everyone is either going too hard, or not hard enough. If you really want to please these people, you need to blow them away,  but not scare them. That's a very tricky thing to balance that no-one has gotten right this far. 

Ford got it right with the current generation F-150 Lightning. Motor Trend summed it up nicely when awarding it 2023 Truck of the Year.

 

Quote

As much as vehicles like the Rivian R1T and GMC Hummer EV reimagine the pickup truck as an expression, they make less effort at appealing to longstanding truck buyers who may not necessarily see a need for a rethink when today's pickups are better than they've ever been. The Ford F-150 Lightning successfully bridges the gulf between the powertrain of the future and the pickup of today in a way no other EV truck on the market has accomplished.

Our unofficial criterion for awarding any electric vehicle is that it cannot be only a good EV or a good vehicle; it must be both. For a tool like a truck, this is even more important. The Ford F-150 Lightning is both, and it's just the type of pickup we need to make the coming electric revolution work for most everyone.

Edited July 18, 2023 by rperez817

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Ford got it right with the current generation F-150 Lightning.

 

As more time goes on, the less I'm sure about that. It's not the worst thing in the world, it's just very generic/bland. It has some good features, but there are of things left to be desired about it. 

[rperez817]

9 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's not the worst thing in the world, it's just very generic/bland. It has some good features, but there are of things left to be desired about it. 

 

That's true, but the same can be said about the conventional and PowerBoost versions of F-150. And F-150 Lightning is a better product all around than those. As Motor Trend says below, whatever demerits the current gen F-150 Lightning has, it's still a game changing pickup truck and the most important new product introduction from Ford in the 21st century thus far.

 

No joke: The Lightning is one of the most important pickup trucks—vehicles, really—in history. Forget early adopters, environmentalists, and technophiles. This truck has to convince construction workers, farmers, ranchers, surveyors, and everyday truck fans that electric pickups aren't just viable but desirable. That an EV truck not only can do the work but also do it better. It does that.

To get to brass tacks, the Lightning is the best-driving, best-riding, and best-handling F-150 you can buy.

[akirby]

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

As more time goes on, the less I'm sure about that. It's not the worst thing in the world, it's just very generic/bland. It has some good features, but there are of things left to be desired about it. 

So you think regular F150 and Superduty designs are generic/bland?  Or are you just comparing them to other BEVs?  

Edited July 19, 2023 by akirby

[Rick73]

Lightning may be generic/bland as a passenger vehicle, but as a real work truck for many guys doing actual physical work on the farm or construction site, the opposite is likely true.  I think it’s too nice for many real work applications.  Besides, in my experience, most farm and construction pickups normally have 8-foot beds, something Lightning doesn’t offer as far as I know.

 

With due respect to Motor Trend professional writers, if Lightning was meant for “construction workers, farmers, ranchers,” etc, I think Ford would offer it with an 8-foot bed.  This is not meant to criticize Ford because Silverado EV and Cybertruck likely have similar primary applications of being people haulers.  These pickups could be a good fit for managers with a laptop, but I don’t see many hauling large tool boxes, welders or tractor tires in their bed.

 

 

 

 

[Joe771476]

On 11/16/2021 at 11:01 PM, Willwll313wll said:

 

If I were running Ford, AND THIS IS JUST WHAT I WOULD DO before anyone screams, I would not put another Develop dollar towards ICE with maybe an exception for some F-Series models.

Every new vehicle Ford/Lincoln released from now on would be an EV. I'd go all in. It is feasible, we can innovative enough to make the turn around that quick and drastic while bringing the public with us. 

 

I am a Mustang Bullitt and 351 Bronco owner, so I'm sad to see the V8 and manual go... but it's time. 

We'll still have what Ford has built over the last 100+ years in the world for us to enjoy, albeit with synthetic fuel...

 

And keep losing billions?!

[rmc523]

12 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

As more time goes on, the less I'm sure about that. It's not the worst thing in the world, it's just very generic/bland. It has some good features, but there are of things left to be desired about it. 

 

That's why it's being replaced in another year and a half or whatever it is.  The current is a stopgap, purposely using a lot of existing components to help them get it out the door.

 

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Lightning may be generic/bland as a passenger vehicle, but as a real work truck for many guys doing actual physical work on the farm or construction site, the opposite is likely true.  I think it’s too nice for many real work applications.  Besides, in my experience, most farm and construction pickups normally have 8-foot beds, something Lightning doesn’t offer as far as I know.

 

With due respect to Motor Trend professional writers, if Lightning was meant for “construction workers, farmers, ranchers,” etc, I think Ford would offer it with an 8-foot bed.  This is not meant to criticize Ford because Silverado EV and Cybertruck likely have similar primary applications of being people haulers.  These pickups could be a good fit for managers with a laptop, but I don’t see many hauling large tool boxes, welders or tractor tires in their bed.

 

 

 

 

 

I think once the next-gen model arrives ("Thunder" if you will......), I think we'll see the current Lightning stay in the lineup as the "classic work" version and potentially offer other bed sizes, while the "Thunder" will be an all-out more controversial looking take.  That way you appeal to both sets of customers - those that want the more traditional type and those that want futuristic.  And then down the road, maybe we'll see the more traditional version go away.