Jump to content

Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year


Recommended Posts

No surprise which vehicle won. The Ford F-150 Lightning Is the 2023 MotorTrend Truck of the Year

 

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

 

2022-ford-f-150-lightning-01.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lightning is a splendid effort by Ford but shows where the thinking was with BEVs four or five years ago.

Back then, modifying an ICE vehicle was seen as a way of not only controlling costs by keeping scales of

economy but also showing ICE buyers what electrification means, this is proof of concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Lightning is a splendid effort by Ford but shows where the thinking was with BEVs four or five years ago.

Back then, modifying an ICE vehicle was seen as a way of not only controlling costs by keeping scales of

economy but also showing ICE buyers what electrification means, this is proof of concept.

Lightning is a very good truck, flawed by high purchase price, limited range, and slow charging times. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2022 at 5:30 PM, jpd80 said:

Lightning is a splendid effort by Ford but shows where the thinking was with BEVs four or five years ago.

Back then, modifying an ICE vehicle was seen as a way of not only controlling costs by keeping scales of

economy but also showing ICE buyers what electrification means, this is proof of concept.

 

Motor Trend thinks this approach is smart. Here is what they said about F-150 Lightning in the context of appealing to ICE pickup truck buyers.

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.

 

On 12/26/2022 at 9:54 PM, Trader 10 said:

Lightning is a very good truck, flawed by high purchase price, limited range, and slow charging times. 

 

Not just a very good truck, but the best F-150 ever and better than any ICE powered pickup truck. Motor Trend said.

[F-150 Lightning] offers a host of features no gas- or diesel-powered truck can match. Be it for the campsite, the job site, or the homestead, the Lightning offers up a world of new possibilities for truck owners all while saving them money at the pump and likely at the repair shop, too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Motor Trend thinks this approach is smart. Here is what they said about F-150 Lightning in the context of appealing to ICE pickup truck buyers.

Ironically, over 70% of Lightning orders are from people who are buying their first F150, makes me think that having a big car experience is more important than how much it can tow and the range when doing that. Most probably won’t carry more than a few groceries in back…just having the capability is probably more than enough

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

I think the award is well deserved, no question.  However, I also think that this vehicle will be rendered obsolete very quickly (from both within Ford and by the competition) as it is a modified ICE vehicle and its basic design is a compromise.

To be fair, by the time that happens, the next gen, more extreme, lighting will be revealed. 

ford-bronco-ev-ranger-ev-confirmed-along-with-next-generation-ev-platforms_3.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

However, I also think that this vehicle will be rendered obsolete very quickly (from both within Ford and by the competition) as it is a modified ICE vehicle and its basic design is a compromise.

 

I agree 7Mary3. As you and DeluxeStang noted, advancement in design and technology will be very rapid as the global automotive industry exits the ICE age and optimize their BEV.

 

Given the importance of pickup trucks as well as the transition to a 100% electric vehicle lineup within Ford Motor Company, I wouldn't be surprised if Ford's "all-in" efforts with second gen F-150 Lightning and other upcoming BEV pickup trucks like Ranger and Super Duty win future Motor Trend Truck of the Year awards. But competition from GM (Silverado and Sierra EV), Tesla (Cybertruck), and Stellantis (Ram Revolution) will be intense.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

To be fair, by the time that happens, the next gen, more extreme, lighting will be revealed. 

ford-bronco-ev-ranger-ev-confirmed-along-with-next-generation-ev-platforms_3.jpg

Yuck lol

 

with a shorter hood, they’ll lose space in the frunk.   It’ll be interesting to see what they come up with to counteract that.

Edited by rmc523
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2022 at 5:32 PM, jpd80 said:

Ironically, over 70% of Lightning orders are from people who are buying their first F150, makes me think that having a big car experience is more important than how much it can tow and the range when doing that. Most probably won’t carry more than a few groceries in back…just having the capability is probably more than enough

 

You may be correct about the “big car experience” in that there are not many large BEV options in the same price range as Lightning that I can recall.  Many buyers I know like oversized SUVs and pickups in large part because they sit high, and feel safe, but those are generally not the most energy efficient whether ICE or BEV.

 

Motor Trend’s statement about limited jobs this truck is intended to do is key in my opinion.  At one extreme it does not seem well suited for tough truck use like towing longer distances, and at the other extreme it is not well suited as an efficient urban commuter.  It appears to be in the middle, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Or can it be if setting a bad precedence?  

 

What is concerning from an environmental standpoint is if too many buyers end up purchasing Lightning pickups primarily as a grocery getter only because they are relatively affordable and cheap to charge, instead of cars twice as efficient.  Ford Media stated that Lightning with extended range gets under 2 miles per kWh.  By comparison, the base RWD Mach-E gets 3 miles per kWh.  And newest Tesla are around 4 miles per kWh.  If Lightning ends up serving real truck duties, that may be pretty good for the environment; but as a commuter, it will add a lot of unnecessary load on the grid and charging infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

You may be correct about the “big car experience” in that there are not many large BEV options in the same price range as Lightning that I can recall.  Many buyers I know like oversized SUVs and pickups in large part because they sit high, and feel safe, but those are generally not the most energy efficient whether ICE or BEV.

 

Motor Trend’s statement about limited jobs this truck is intended to do is key in my opinion.  At one extreme it does not seem well suited for tough truck use like towing longer distances, and at the other extreme it is not well suited as an efficient urban commuter.  It appears to be in the middle, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Or can it be if setting a bad precedence?  

 

What is concerning from an environmental standpoint is if too many buyers end up purchasing Lightning pickups primarily as a grocery getter only because they are relatively affordable and cheap to charge, instead of cars twice as efficient.  Ford Media stated that Lightning with extended range gets under 2 miles per kWh.  By comparison, the base RWD Mach-E gets 3 miles per kWh.  And newest Tesla are around 4 miles per kWh.  If Lightning ends up serving real truck duties, that may be pretty good for the environment; but as a commuter, it will add a lot of unnecessary load on the grid and charging infrastructure.

I think you’re discussing two points here, the energy consumption of a zero emission large BEV

and how that energy is generated from a mix of green, renewable and dirty energy. That’s a fair 

question at present but as the energy grid switches to even more solar/wind/ battery in the next

five or ten years, those assumptions will have to change. That brings up an interesting question 

about how the EPA calculates the eMPG ratings of BEVs on an assumed power generation profile.

(Probably a discussion for another thread).

 

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rick73 said:

What is concerning from an environmental standpoint is if too many buyers end up purchasing Lightning pickups primarily as a grocery getter only because they are relatively affordable and cheap to charge, instead of cars twice as efficient.  Ford Media stated that Lightning with extended range gets under 2 miles per kWh.  By comparison, the base RWD Mach-E gets 3 miles per kWh.  And newest Tesla are around 4 miles per kWh.  If Lightning ends up serving real truck duties, that may be pretty good for the environment; but as a commuter, it will add a lot of unnecessary load on the grid and charging infrastructure.

 

Good points Rick73, that's a legitimate concern. It would be ideal if Ford had a full lineup of BEV passenger cars that achieve 4 mi/kWh. But the U.S. retail automotive market has migrated away from efficient passenger car designs to less efficient pickup trucks and SUV/crossover. That shift seems to be permanent. In that context, F-150 Lightning is very beneficial from an environmental standpoint because of its broad appeal to buyers who would otherwise get a much more inefficient ICE powered pickup truck, both those who choose a pickup truck as a "grocery getter" or status symbol, and those who choose one for "real truck duties".

 

Plus, F-150 Lightning's V2G bi-directional charging capabilities help improve the resiliency of the electric grid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Good points Rick73, that's a legitimate concern. It would be ideal if Ford had a full lineup of BEV passenger cars that achieve 4 mi/kWh. But the U.S. retail automotive market has migrated away from efficient passenger car designs to less efficient pickup trucks and SUV/crossover. That shift seems to be permanent. In that context, F-150 Lightning is very beneficial from an environmental standpoint because of its broad appeal to buyers who would otherwise get a much more inefficient ICE powered pickup truck, both those who choose a pickup truck as a "grocery getter" or status symbol, and those who choose one for "real truck duties".

 

Plus, F-150 Lightning's V2G bi-directional charging capabilities help improve the resiliency of the electric grid.

 

In my opinion it is a very complicated problem that too many have oversimplified by thinking that just going electric will accomplish goals.  For example, if not for battery costs that have essentially limited vehicle weight and size, where exactly would the auto industry have taken BEVs in general, and especially pickup trucks that need even more stored energy to tow?  Already we are seeing plans for pickups with 200 kWh of battery capacity or even higher, as if that in itself doesn’t cause additional problems.  Of course the normal reply is that when we achieve 100% renewable energy it won’t matter, but that is not in the foreseeable future based on most published forecasts that predict well over 10 years.

 

From a technical standpoint I believe energy efficiency does matter significantly,  but as you say buyers want larger vehicles, which coincidentally often lead to higher profits for manufacturers.  As discussed in article below, large vehicles may be what buyers prefer, and what manufacturers want to sell them, but it’s not what is best for the environment.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/12/28/elon-musk-tesla-cybertruck-climate-commitment/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

From a technical standpoint I believe energy efficiency does matter significantly,  but as you say buyers want larger vehicles, which coincidentally often lead to higher profits for manufacturers. 

 

I agree with you that energy efficiency does matter significantly. But "ideal" is the enemy of "good" here. A very efficient passenger car BEV that doesn't appeal to consumers will unfortunately fail to accelerate the transition out of the ICE age. By the same token, automakers may be reticent to offer these kinds of very efficient BEV at all if they are not as profitable compared to less efficient pickup truck and SUV/crossover BEV.

 

Example. Mitsubishi Motors' i-MiEV was one of the earliest mass-produced, highway capable BEV in the 21st century. At the time it was introduced in the U.S. market 12 years ago, it was the "most efficient EPA certified vehicle in the U.S. for all fuels ever." But i-MiEV was practically ignored by U.S. customers, who prefer larger vehicles. Only 2,108 units were sold between 2011 and 2017.

 

Motor Trend said this about i-MiEV. 

For people with the right set of expectations, the i-MiEV could serve as a tailpipe emissions-free urban runabout, especially for those who have small garages or parking spaces. The Car of the Year title, though, is out of range.

 

Motor Trend said this about F-150 Lightning. It's less efficient than a Mitsubishi i-MiEV, but will do much more to advance the ongoing automotive industry revolution and to help the environment.

Given the undying popularity of trucks in America, it's hard to understate how important it was for a segment leader like Ford to absolutely nail the electric pickup. If the Lightning were terrible, it could have set the industry back years—or worse. Instead, Ford has risen to the occasion and built a great pickup truck that also happens to be a great EV, and just to be sure, it engineered clever charging functionalities, too. The Lightning is the truck we needed, right when we needed it.
 

 

2012-Mitubishi-i-MiEV-front-view-in-moti

2022-Ford-F150-Lightning-Blue-001.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys I wouldn’t fret too much about the limitations of the F150 in cases like towing long distances. 
 

For one thing having ridden with other drivers while towing medium to heavy loads with various tow vehicles I can unequivocally say that at least half the problem is the “nut behind the wheel” and I mean that very seriously. 
 

Commercial vehicles like F450 and F550 have tuning maps that are blunted for the very simple reason that drivers abuse the hell out of their vehicles as a rule and not the exception. 
 

Secondly transportation and vehicles meant to be mobile will be completely rethought in a very few short years. 
 

 

There will be trailers of all kinds becoming more streamlined and many will be equipped with their own battery storage system which can and will serve as a battery extender for the tow vehicle. 
 

Many campers for example with be covered by a solar array and will actually serve as both a remote energy reserve and probably also be able to supplement your home’s needs after a power outage much like the F150 Lightning can. 
 

Elon Musk has spoken about this but rarely I hear anyone mention it. The so called “grid” of the future will be very different and will be comprised of power generators, storage facilities owned by communities and eventually millions of private home and vehicular storage points. 
 

Eventually society will be sucking up solar energy in various ways on a scale no one is even talking about yet, except Musk. 
 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PS197TT said:

 

ICE is not inefficient in any way shape or form.  Not only is the Lightning very heavy, the range is less than impressive for the size of the battery.  The ICE F-150 has a range between 468 miles and 546 miles on the small 26 gallon tank and between 648 and 756 miles on the 36 gallon tank.  Imagine the range of the Lightning if the battery was the size of that same 26/36 gallon tank.  And the weight of those ICE F-150s range between 4705 and 5050 pounds where the Lightning weighs 6500 pounds.

 

And that's before one considers the major pitfalls of EVs, mainly being price (the Lightning is up almost $20K in one year) and the long recharge times.  ICE you can drive 756 miles, stop and fill up (to 100%...not 80%) for five minutes and do another 756 miles.  And if it's cold you won't lose 50% of your range.

 

Lets start with ICE-

 

Electric motors are far more efficient vs ICE-Electric motors only waste about 20% of their potential power, where as ICE loses 40-60%. That is why the Lighting has a higher eMPG rating then the gas F-150 because it uses less BTUs to do the same work.

As for your 768 mile use case-its completely edge use case...just using DC to Orlando as an example-roughly 850 miles takes 12+ hours to drive. Yeah you can do it in one shot, but that is LONG time behind the wheel without any sort of break. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Electric motors are far more efficient vs ICE-Electric motors only waste about 20% of their potential power, where as ICE loses 40-60%. That is why the Lighting has a higher eMPG rating then the gas F-150 because it uses less BTUs to do the same work.

 

Thank you silvrsvt, that is correct. Examples using EPA combined figures.

  • 2023 F-150 Lightning XLT Extended Range 4WD requires approximately 1,643 BTU to travel 1 mile
  • 2023 F-150 3.5L Ecoboost XLT 4WD requires approximately 6,053 BTU to travel 1 mile
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

I agree with you that energy efficiency does matter significantly. But "ideal" is the enemy of "good" here. A very efficient passenger car BEV that doesn't appeal to consumers will unfortunately fail to accelerate the transition out of the ICE age. By the same token, automakers may be reticent to offer these kinds of very efficient BEV at all if they are not as profitable compared to less efficient pickup truck and SUV/crossover BEV.

 

Example. Mitsubishi Motors' i-MiEV was one of the earliest mass-produced, highway capable BEV in the 21st century. At the time it was introduced in the U.S. market 12 years ago, it was the "most efficient EPA certified vehicle in the U.S. for all fuels ever." But i-MiEV was practically ignored by U.S. customers, who prefer larger vehicles. Only 2,108 units were sold between 2011 and 2017.

 

Motor Trend said this about i-MiEV. 

 

 

Motor Trend said this about F-150 Lightning. It's less efficient than a Mitsubishi i-MiEV, but will do much more to advance the ongoing automotive industry revolution and to help the environment.

 

 

 

2012-Mitubishi-i-MiEV-front-view-in-moti

2022-Ford-F150-Lightning-Blue-001.jpg


Or here’s a thought - maybe Americans just don’t want a car that looks like a shoe or something out of Dr Suess.  lol

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PS197TT said:


That may be true however no buyer cares or even thinks about BTUs when buying an automobile.  They care about things like real world range, time and convenience to refill and price, amongst other things.  
 

And the reality is that an F150 with 26 gallons of fuel will go much farther on that single tank than the extended range Lightning will on two full batteries.  That’s not very efficient.  
 

Btw the MPG figures I quoted above were from fueleconomy.gov using the mixed driving number. And I chose versions of the engines without start stop as that is a joke. 

 

So since your a bit ignorant, lets spell this out for you:

 

Stop-start saves about 7-10% in gas in stop and go situations


BTUs are a measurement that can be used to compare energy usage between different forms of energy...your actually using MORE energy aka less efficient with an ICE powered vehicle vs a BEV. 

 

The average driver drives about 41 miles to and from work each day. The cheapest/lowest range Lightning goes about 230 miles per charge, meaning you can drive to work for 5 days a week before worrying about charging again. Range can be increased due to stop and go traffic or reduced due to cold weather etc. If you had a commute like this, you'd have to worry about charging maybe once or twice a week. You could do this at work or at home and it would be no issue whatsoever and you'd never have to go out of your way to a gas station ever again if you can charge at home.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PS197TT said:

...As for start stop, I’m not buying it.  Sure maybe in an extreme use case it could save that much but under the most ideal of conditions but for the majority of people it makes no difference.  Having the heat on or having the AC on will virtually eliminate the vehicle from shutting off.  

 

Start stop is like those things that you plug into your cigarette lighter that claim to save you 10% on fuel.  Nothing more than a gimmick. 

My typical driving day is very start-stop friendly. It consists of 4 segments of city-street driving in often-heavy DC suburb traffic (where our thoughtful county keeps adding ever-more stop lights and keeps reducing the speed limits) of about 4-5 miles each. On my 2.7 Nautilus I typically only get 14 mpg during a week of this kind of driving. With start-stop on, I get about 16 mpg, which is well over a 10 percent improvement. Now, during weeks where I drive further and on the freeway my mpg jumps up significantly and the benefit from start-stop nearly goes away because, well, I'm not starting and stopping much in traffic. Its value all depends on your driving situation.

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

4 hours ago, PS197TT said:

 

Start stop is like those things that you plug into your cigarette lighter that claim to save you 10% on fuel.  Nothing more than a gimmick. 


You’re just rationalizing your dislike for auto start/stop.  

It absolutely saves fuel.  A running engine uses a lot more fuel than a non running engine.  When my battery got weak on my F150 it stopped working for a few months and I lost almost 2 mpg.  Even in extreme weather mine still works just not as long.  And it doesn’t require extra fuel to start the engine as some claim.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, PS197TT said:

That may be true however no buyer cares or even thinks about BTUs when buying an automobile.  

 

You're right PS197TT, that's why F-150 Lightning is such an important product, and part of the reason it won Motor Trend 2023 TOTY. It's such a good pickup truck that customers don't have to think about its efficiency. F-150 Lightning essentially makes ICE powered pickup trucks obsolete.

 

Motor Trend's title for its TOTY article sums it up best. "A Revolution Hiding in Plain Sight".

  • Like 1
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...