Fords Game Changer LMR Battery

[ANTAUS]

Carscoops

[Rick73]

The following Detroit Free Press article on LMR has additional information, and also sounds considerably more cautious IMO.
 

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2025/04/24/ford-ev-battery-lithium-manganese-rich/83231092007/

[Motorpsychology]

It reminds me of Thomas Edison, whose engineers researched some 10,000 different materials to use for filaments in electric light bulbs that would be dependable, long lasting and relatively simple to produce before finally settling on tungsten. Now we are going through a similar battery-chemistry-of the-month in search for cheap, long lasting, fast charging batteries Breakthroughs always declare that this is The Answer and it won't be long now before we drive 400 miles or so on a 15-20 minute charge. Meanwhile, BEV prices are going up slightly to a lot. I think Fuel Cell technology needs a closer look. 

[Rick73]

This GM article projects a 33% energy density improvement.  Apparently they have been working on LMR for about 10 years and are now expecting commercialization with LG in 2028.  That’s still 3 years from now, and a lot can change.

 

https://news.gm.com/home.detail.html/Pages/topic/us/en/2025/may/0513-LMR-batteries-outlook-EV-market.html

 

 

With LFP now so inexpensive I don’t see how LMR is going to change the BEV game all that much even if they solve all remaining technical issues, especially for smaller BEVs with 50~60 kWh batteries.  Saving a couple hundred pounds will no doubt improve performance and range, but I doubt that in itself will convert many ICE, HEV, PHEV and EREV prospective buyers.   As article implies, perhaps for larger pickups and SUVs it will make a much greater difference.

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

This GM article projects a 33% energy density improvement.  Apparently they have been working on LMR for about 10 years and are now expecting commercialization with LG in 2028.  That’s still 3 years from now, and a lot can change.

 

https://news.gm.com/home.detail.html/Pages/topic/us/en/2025/may/0513-LMR-batteries-outlook-EV-market.html

 

 

With LFP now so inexpensive I don’t see how LMR is going to change the BEV game all that much even if they solve all remaining technical issues, especially for smaller BEVs with 50~60 kWh batteries.  Saving a couple hundred pounds will no doubt improve performance and range, but I doubt that in itself will convert many ICE, HEV, PHEV and EREV prospective buyers.   As article implies, perhaps for larger pickups and SUVs it will make a much greater difference.As much as Ford is pushing the self serving proclamation of smaller battery mid sized BEVs, a decent  amount of buyers

are always going to value a long range version with greater battery density. The best part about LFP is it’s lower cost and

free of thermal runaway which gives those buyers peace of mind but it can’t match that longer range.

 

 

Whenever some article says something is just three years away or the energy density is going to be X,

just remember that’s just long enough for folks to forget what was said  and then go with some future

change of plans. We’re still waiting for that Toyota Solid State battery.

 

In saying that, Ford will use a version of LMR tech for extended range, the biggest advantage will be price.

Edited September 20, 2025 by jpd80

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

In saying that, Ford will use a version of LMR tech for extended range, the biggest advantage will be price.

https://www.spglobal.com/automotive-insights/en/blogs/2025/07/lmr-battery-technology-the-next-rival-to-lfp

 

 

Quote

Superior energy density compared to traditional chemistries 

Another significant advantage of LMR over established chemistries such as lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries is its superior energy density. LMR cells typically operate at a higher voltage (about 4.1 V) than LFP (about 3.2 V), enabling more energy storage per unit weight or volume. GM estimates its new LMR cells will achieve 33% more energy density while maintaining a cost comparable to that of LFP batteries.

 

 

The question I have is what is “comparable” cost?  If they are talking about cost per kWh as batteries are normally priced, then LMR and LFP will be similar except for LMR’s smaller volume and lighter weight.  For example, at same kWh and therefore comparable price, a 1,000-pound battery could be reduced to +/- 750 pounds per GM estimate, saving 250 pounds (battery only, total vehicle savings would be more).  Is that a game changer?  Objectively that 750-pound LMR battery could be increased to 1,000 pounds thereby increasing driving range by 33% compared to 1,000-pound LFP battery, but if LMR cost is comparable to LFP on a kWh basis, then the 33% higher energy LMR battery pack just got more expensive.  What they are saying is being able to use an 80 kWh LMR battery in place of a 60 kWh LFP battery, as an example, due to volume and weight, but I suspect comparable cost Barra fed analyst is per kWh, so cost savings not a “game changer” in my opinion. 

 

Article above predicts LMR chemistry won’t play a major role for many years at best.  For near term we should expect LFP to dominate on many new vehicles due to lower costs.  That seems to be supported by a few recent BEV and battery-plant announcements.

[DeluxeStang]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

are always going to value a long range version with greater battery density. The best part about LFP is it’s lower cost and

free of thermal runaway which gives those buyers peace of mind but it can’t match that longer range.

 

 

Whenever some article says something is just three years away or the energy density is going to be X,

just remember that’s just long enough for folks to forget what was said  and then go with some future

change of plans. We’re still waiting for that Toyota Solid State battery.

 

In saying that, Ford will use a version of LMR tech for extended range, the biggest advantage will be price.

Not to mention those LFP batteries are practically indestructible, lithium ion batteries already last 10-15 years in modern hybrids and EVs, and these LFP batteries apparently last about twice as long as lithium ion. So pair that with the fact that electric motors basically last forever, and you're not only gonna see incredible cost with Ford's new EVs, but incredible reliability as well.

 

My biggest concern, or one of them, is range. Ford has to have talked about this internally, it doesn't matter how good, or how affordable an EV is if the range isn't good enough. I'm genuinely hoping the range starts with a 2, and not a 1. Because if these affordable EVs come out and have like 150 miles of range, I feel like they'll be dead in the water. 

 

Apparently people think the battery pack will be 50 KWH, they talked about how the aero is so radical that alone gained them 50 miles of range compared to a more conventionally styled truck. So the areo gains, paired with increased motor efficiency, I really hope they're able to squeeze 220-250 miles or more out of these things. The range for most LFP 50 KWH EVs I researched was around 180-250 miles, so hopefully it's near the upper end of that. 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Apparently people think the battery pack will be 50 KWH, they talked about how the aero is so radical that alone gained them 50 miles of range compared to a more conventionally styled truck. So the areo gains, paired with increased motor efficiency, I really hope they're able to squeeze 220-250 miles or more out of these things. The range for most LFP 50 KWH EVs I researched was around 180-250 miles, so hopefully it's near the upper end of that. 

Honestly, 250 miles of range with only 50 kWh battery pack does not sound all that ambitious a goal if we were talking about cars.  Lucid has achieved 5 miles per kWh with a relatively large and heavy sedan already, but once we start talking about pickup trucks, range suffers significantly because historically frontal area and coefficient-of-drag are much worse than those of cars, or even newest SUVs.  In EPA City Cycle, where speeds are very slow, it’s possible a compact and light PU may get close to 5 miles/kWh, but at steady 70~75 MPH it seems much less likely to me.  IMO a PU would indeed need to be radical by present standards to even get close to 4 miles/kWh on the highway.  I hope they reach 5 but not holding my breath.

[DeluxeStang]

18 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Honestly, 250 miles of range with only 50 kWh battery pack does not sound all that ambitious a goal if we were talking about cars.  Lucid has achieved 5 miles per kWh with a relatively large and heavy sedan already, but once we start talking about pickup trucks, range suffers significantly because historically frontal area and coefficient-of-drag are much worse than those of cars, or even newest SUVs.  In EPA City Cycle, where speeds are very slow, it’s possible a compact and light PU may get close to 5 miles/kWh, but at steady 70~75 MPH it seems much less likely to me.  IMO a PU would indeed need to be radical by present standards to even get close to 4 miles/kWh on the highway.  I hope they reach 5 but not holding my breath.

But Lucid probably uses a more energy dense battery pack chemistry that offers more range per KWH. As for areo, my guess is it's more radical, as they gained 50 miles of range just from areo changes compared to a normal looking truck. 

 

If you look at this patent, or this image of Ford's EVs under a sheet, you can probably see something that hints at the direction they're going in. 

 

 A lower front end, possibly sail pillars on the side like a cyber truck/Ridgeline, a bed cap. Lots of things they could to to make it more areo efficient over a conventional truck. 

[Sherminator98]

57 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

A lower front end, possibly sail pillars on the side like a cyber truck/Ridgeline, a bed cap. Lots of things they could to to make it more areo efficient over a conventional truck. 

 

I think the EV Pickup will be blurring the line between what is a pickup and a CUV look like. Hopefully they can pull it off without it looking like ass. 

 

Plus it would help it differentiate itself from the Maverick and Ranger, while appealing to CUV buyers/owners. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

But Lucid probably uses a more energy dense battery pack chemistry that offers more range per KWH.

For what it’s worth, battery energy density has some but minimal effect on range per kWh, particularly in highway driving where it matters most; though by providing more overall energy, it results in greater driving range.  In case of Lucid, IIRC they achieved 5 miles per kWh with a battery pack just over 80 kWh of stored energy, giving it over 400 miles of range.  Pretty much everything goes back to efficiency in one way or another.

 

I recall the previous Lucid CEO stating he thought an efficient compact electric vehicle could be built with as little as 40 kWh battery that could achieve 400 km (250 miles) of range.  He just didn’t think Lucid had the capital or resources to pursue it, nor did he expect it to be profitable if they did.

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I think the EV Pickup will be blurring the line between what is a pickup and a CUV look like. Hopefully they can pull it off without it looking like ass. 

 

Plus it would help it differentiate itself from the Maverick and Ranger, while appealing to CUV buyers/owners. 

My concern if they blend it with CUV cues is that it could come away looking like Ford's take on a sante Cruz, which has been a dud. It's hard to say. My guess is they'll try to keep the rugged squared off truck styling as much as possible, just with radically different proportions than what we're used to, much lower, and shorter front end for instance. It probably won't look that good if that's what they decide to do, but it'll be very practical, so I can see people excusing the design because of how efficient the packaging is. 

 

I'd personally love to see a proper UTE lifestyle truck join Ford's lineup because I agree with you, this truck needs to differentiate itself from the rest of Fords trucks, and a radical looking lifestyle truck is one of the only sub markets within the truck sector Ford doesn't have an entry in. But I don't believe such a vehicle would have broad enough appeal, it would be too polarizing. 

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

My concern if they blend it with CUV cues is that it could come away looking like Ford's take on a sante Cruz, which has been a dud. It's hard to say

 

I think the biggest issue with the Santa Cruz is that it has a CVT and doesn't come from an established player in the truck world. I wonder how their upcoming midsize will be accepted in North America.

 

Getting back to the Ford EV pickup-I'm thinking it could be possible that cover over the truck bed might be option in some form-either you don't need it or it will be part of a package to improve aerodynamics that will improve your range by 10-15%-the variable will be pricing.

 

The other thing that entered my mind about Ford claiming it will have a larger interior then the RAV4-I'm gonna guess it will have more interior space, but the cargo area will be opened or limited by the aero aid mentioned above.

I think they'll be able to get the styling to look good, but it will be different-I'm thinking something like the rounded out 1994 F-150 but taken to the next level. 

[fordmantpw]

14 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

...the rounded out 19947 F-150 but taken to the next level. 

 

Sorry, had to FTFY. 

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I think the biggest issue with the Santa Cruz is that it has a CVT and doesn't come from an established player in the truck world. I wonder how their upcoming midsize will be accepted in North America.

 

Getting back to the Ford EV pickup-I'm thinking it could be possible that cover over the truck bed might be option in some form-either you don't need it or it will be part of a package to improve aerodynamics that will improve your range by 10-15%-the variable will be pricing.

 

The other thing that entered my mind about Ford claiming it will have a larger interior then the RAV4-I'm gonna guess it will have more interior space, but the cargo area will be opened or limited by the aero aid mentioned above.

I think they'll be able to get the styling to look good, but it will be different-I'm thinking something like the rounded out 1994 F-150 but taken to the next level. 

 

Yeah, the Aero F-150 seems like a likely design inspiration.

[Rick73]

23 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

A lower front end, possibly sail pillars on the side like a cyber truck/Ridgeline, a bed cap. Lots of things they could to to make it more areo efficient over a conventional truck. 

 

 

Drawing you posted resembles the AeroX cap that MotorTrend tested on a Lightning while trying to improve high-speed driving range.  Initial test results indicated their cap experiment didn’t work, but I’m pretty sure an OEM cap with proper design could be more effective in reducing coefficient of drag.  For what it’s worth there’s a lot of improvements to be had when one considers that pickups can have a Cd twice as high as the most aerodynamic cars.  And when we add pickups’ greater frontal area on top of that, it’s not hard to see why miles per kWh is often in the proverbial toilet.  With proper design I don’t see why a Cd below 0.30 can’t be achieved with a removable and or folding/adjustable aerodynamic cap.  May look a lot like a car though when cap is on, which may not go over well with traditional truck buyers.

 

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2023-ford-f-150-lightning-xlt-yearlong-review-update-6

 

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2023-ford-f-150-lightning-xlt-yearlong-review-update-7-fast-back-roof-cap-range-results

[Sherminator98]

48 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Drawing you posted resembles the AeroX cap that MotorTrend tested on a Lightning while trying to improve high-speed driving range.  Initial test results indicated their cap experiment didn’t work, but I’m pretty sure an OEM cap with proper design could be more effective in reducing coefficient of drag.  For what it’s worth there’s a lot of improvements to be had when one considers that pickups can have a Cd twice as high as the most aerodynamic cars.  And when we add pickups’ greater frontal area on top of that, it’s not hard to see why miles per kWh is often in the proverbial toilet.  With proper design I don’t see why a Cd below 0.30 can’t be achieved with a removable and or folding/adjustable aerodynamic cap.  May look a lot like a car though when cap is on, which may not go over well with traditional truck buyers.

 

 

I was under the impression that bed cap didn't really do much aerodynamically on ICE pickups due to the high pressure bubble that is created by the air flowing over the cab at higher speeds. 

 

I think you'll see the biggest improvement with lower frontal area vs using a cap on something like this. 

[rmc523]

37 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I was under the impression that bed cap didn't really do much aerodynamically on ICE pickups due to the high pressure bubble that is created by the air flowing over the cab at higher speeds. 

 

I think you'll see the biggest improvement with lower frontal area vs using a cap on something like this. 

 

I vaguely remember Mythbusters doing a test on this and coming up with the result you posted.

[Rick73]

23 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I was under the impression that bed cap didn't really do much aerodynamically on ICE pickups due to the high pressure bubble that is created by the air flowing over the cab at higher speeds. 

 

I think you'll see the biggest improvement with lower frontal area vs using a cap on something like this. 

A standard bed cap doesn’t do much in either direction, at least that’s what I recall from when I added one to my Ranger.  If it made a difference it wasn’t enough for me to notice or worry about; not that I cared or tracked closely.  I added the cap for other reasons; primarily for hauling and utility.  However, it’s worth noting my bed cap was not intentionally shaped to reduce drag, which is a completely different matter.   

 

In “theory” a fastback-shaped bed cap can make a big difference by reducing drag as result of low pressure left behind the truck as it travels through air at speed. A vehicle creates a partial vacuum (not high pressure) behind it that sucks the vehicle backwards, thereby increasing aerodynamic drag.  It’s the opposite of what happens in front, where vehicle creates high pressure ahead of it which also pushes it backwards (using common terms for clarity).  The powertrain must overcome this backwards force, which obviously affects required battery capacity.  My guess is that the AeroX bed cap I mentioned above transitioned too abruptly which resulted in airflow separation, thereby losing its theoretical aerodynamic potential.

 

If we look at back of various airplane fuselage it is easy to see how critical tapering down gradually actually is to avoid separation.  The same applies to cars, where the goal should be to avoid airflow from separating from roofline until the very back of vehicle.  By then the cross sectional area at rear that is exposed to low pressure sucking vehicle backwards is much reduced.

 

IMO just like Cybertruck has much higher Cd than other Tesla vehicles, Ford will also have similar challenges designing a pickup truck that is both aero and practical, though I hope to be pleasantly surprised.  Realistically don’t expect any pickup truck to go very far on 50 kWh battery unless it was extremely compact, and even then only in low-speed driving.

 

Tiny trucks don’t sell well, and driving range is most important on longer trips which often involve higher driving speeds, so I don’t see a way for a successful mass-market truck to get by with only 50 kWh battery.  Again, hope to be proven wrong.

[DeluxeStang]

8 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Tiny trucks don’t sell well

 

[Rick73]

10 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

Not my idea of tiny, at least not small enough to go even close to 200 miles Highway on 50 kWh battery.

[rmc523]

31 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

 

His idea of a tiny truck is a smart car with a bed.

[Rick73]

14 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

His idea of a tiny truck is a smart car with a bed.

Actually, a Smart car did not even reach the level of energy efficiency some of you want out of this new Ford truck.  Should keep expectations real, based on science, not marketing hype.  I fear a lot of you are setting yourselves up for disappointment.

[Rick73]

54 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

P.S. — Maverick is not tiny, given it’s much larger than my Ranger was.  For proper context though, the proposed future Slate is much smaller than Maverick and is only projected to achieve around 3 miles per kWh.  That’s far better than Lightning or electric Silverado but still far from 4~5 miles kWh being discussed previously.

 

Quote

The Slate Truck uses a single rear-mounted motor producing 201 horsepower (150 kW; 204 PS) and 195 pound-feet (264 N⋅m) of torque. Two battery sizes are available: a 52.7 kWh battery, providing an estimated 150 miles (240 km) of range, and an 84.3 kWh battery, with an estimated 240 miles (390 km) of range.

 

[Sherminator98]

29 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

P.S. — Maverick is not tiny, given it’s much larger than my Ranger was.  For proper context though, the proposed future Slate is much smaller than Maverick and is only projected to achieve around 3 miles per kWh.  That’s far better than Lightning or electric Silverado but still far from 4~5 miles kWh being discussed previously.

 

The Maverick is "tiny" for a pickup given how the CAFE rules are written. Having a pickup the size of a 2 door Ranger from the 1990s is impossible with an ICE or even hybrid powertrain with CAFE.

 

As for the Slate, I'm guessing part of the reason for lower efficiently is its being made to a price point (aka barebones) so that range is fungible