Ford CEO Outlines How Many EVs Company Will Sell With New Platform

[DeluxeStang]

19 minutes ago, Zestyg said:

 

On styling, one thing I had noticed a month or so ago was that one of the sketches for the skunk truck looked really similar to the Lightning Supertruck.

 

I've noticed this as well. We know Ford likes to differentiate their trucks a little bit, but they have a shared design language and styling cues. So even thought this is a larger truck, maybe some of the f-150 super truck sketches, which I'll share below, could hint at the direction they're going in. 

 

You'll have to use your imagination to remove things like the crazy race wings. Just looking at the overall proportions, I could see how the skunk truck could share some of these design elements. Things like the shorter hood that angles down near the leading edge, the general shape of the roofline, maybe even some of the lines on the body side. I wouldn't hate it if the truck pulled some inspiration from these sketches. 

[DeluxeStang]

34 minutes ago, Zestyg said:

 

On styling, one thing I had noticed a month or so ago was that one of the sketches for the skunk truck looked really similar to the Lightning Supertruck.

 

It's a wild theory, and like a lot of theories I've had, it could be wrong. But I believe the super truck was a preview of the t3 design. Kinda like how Ford used a off-road race truck to preview what the bronco was gonna look like. 

 

My reasoning is if you look at other Ford demonstrators, they have wild, insane areo, but they're also clearly inspired by their production cars. The mach-e 1400 still looks like a mach-e, the transit supervan looks like the electric transit in Europe. But the super truck looks nothing like the lighting.

 

It's possible the lightning design was so inefficient that they had to start over for this one off project. But if you look at the super truck, a lot of the general proportions and shapes align with how t3 was described. Things like having a much shorter, and slanted hood lines up exactly with how the styling for t3 was described. 

Edited April 12 by DeluxeStang

[Trader 10]

3 hours ago, Zestyg said:

A lot of the most popular SUVs (the Big 3’s full sized SUVs, Rav4, etc) can get 400+ miles on paper. I full expect this doesn’t happen in reality because most people don’t drive in a fuel efficient manner, but its definitely possible. I have no clue if this is something people actually think about or if its just something that they notice when range gets too low (i.e. below 300)

 

edit: I really want to echo the fact that cold weather also affects ICE

Yes, cold weather definitely affects ICE engines, the difference being you can fill a gas vehicle in 5 minutes. 

[AGR]

23 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Unfortunately it will have two huge disadvantages. Limited range and slow charging. 

So, you're privy to the unreleased charging and range specs? Do tell.

 

With the pricing Ford has hinted at, most will be bought as the 2nd car in two-car households so charge times will be somewhat irrelevant,

[morgan20]

17 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Buying an 80k EV is a huge risk because if you buy it, hate it, and want to sell it

 

That's a rare occurrence. The typical outcome of buying an EV, whether above, at, or below $80k, is that the customer likes it a lot. 

 

The big shots at JD Power said this in their recent EV customer satisfaction study:

 

Overall satisfaction among current battery electric vehicle (BEV) owners is at its highest level since the study’s inception in 2021. Notably, nearly all owners of new BEVs (96%) say they would consider purchasing or leasing another BEV for their next vehicle.

 

Improvements in battery technology, charging infrastructure and overall vehicle performance have driven customer satisfaction to its highest level ever. What’s more, the vast majority of current EV owners say they will consider purchasing another EV for their next vehicle, regardless of whether they benefited from the now-expired federal tax credit.

 

 

[morgan20]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

LFP batteries are different than lithium in that you can run them down to close to 0 and charge to 100% with virtually no longevity penalty. Ford has said they'll encourage buyers to do so because the batteries can handle it.  

 

Yea, LFP (which is one of several lithium-ion battery chemistries) typically has better longevity and safety but lower energy density than NMC (which is what both my family's Ford EVs use for their high voltage batteries).

 

I agree that Ford is smart to utilize LFP battery chemistry for its upcoming CE1 products. LFP is also well suited to battery energy storage systems (BESS), which is a business that Ford is now in. 😎

 

Edited April 12 by morgan20

[akirby]

5 hours ago, Texasota said:

@akirby, @DeluxeStang just called you old. Should he be banned?

The truth is a perfect defense.....  😂

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Yes, cold weather definitely affects ICE engines, the difference being you can fill a gas vehicle in 5 minutes. 

300 miles is plenty of range for an entry level low cost model.  Just like a smaller engine in an ICE vehicle.  Want more range/power?  Buy the upgrade.  
 

There are many EVs currently on the market with less than 300 mile range.  

[Sherminator98]

7 hours ago, Zestyg said:

A lot of the most popular SUVs (the Big 3’s full sized SUVs, Rav4, etc) can get 400+ miles on paper. I full expect this doesn’t happen in reality because most people don’t drive in a fuel efficient manner, but its definitely possible. I have no clue if this is something people actually think about or if its just something that they notice when range gets too low (i.e. below 300)

 

edit: I really want to echo the fact that cold weather also affects ICE

I have a 2.7L V6 Bronco and I get about 21 mpg with my commute to work or about 400 miles per tank. 
 

Outside of someone living in an apartment that doesn’t offer charging or some other situation like that, don’t think 300 miles range is an issue at all if you can plug it in overnight. 
 

The range issue boils down to operating a vehicle in a different way then people are use to. 

[DeluxeStang]

22 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

I have a 2.7L V6 Bronco and I get about 21 mpg with my commute to work or about 400 miles per tank. 
 

Outside of someone living in an apartment that doesn’t offer charging or some other situation like that, don’t think 300 miles range is an issue at all if you can plug it in overnight. 
 

The range issue boils down to operating a vehicle in a different way then people are use to. 

Not to mention more apartments are putting in charging stations as well. 

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

300 miles is plenty of range for an entry level low cost model.  Just like a smaller engine in an ICE vehicle.  Want more range/power?  Buy the upgrade.  
 

There are many EVs currently on the market with less than 300 mile range.  

It actually surpasses my expectations. A few months ago, a lot of us were thinking the range would be in the low to mid 200s. There were even times where I was concerned that the range would be sub 200, because it is with a lot of other affordable EVs with smaller batteries. 300 is a really respectable number by comparison. 

[jpd80]

12 hours ago, AGR said:

So, you're privy to the unreleased charging and range specs? Do tell.

 

With the pricing Ford has hinted at, most will be bought as the 2nd car in two-car households so charge times will be somewhat irrelevant,

My “snooping” suggests CE1 has just over 50 KW HR STD LFP battery

400 volt system with 250 Kw charging, you do the math but I’m impressed.

If 10-15 minute fast charging is a reality, they’ll change people’s minds…

 

[Motorpsychology]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

My “snooping” suggests CE1 has just over 50 KW HR STD LFP battery

400 volt system with 250 Kw charging, you do the math but I’m impressed.

If 10-15 minute fast charging is a reality, they’ll change people’s minds…

 

Hmmmm... I was a D+ student in HS chemistry, but I cast me a jaundiced eye at changing the battery chems from depleted to charged in that short amount of time. adding electrons produces heat, no matter the chemistry. a fast charger can produce 300+ kW

and packing 50kW in 10-15 min seems like it could produce a dangerous amount of heat.

[rmc523]

On 4/11/2026 at 11:01 AM, DeluxeStang said:

I was watching an interview with the head engineer on it, and he basically brought up how the goal with the skunk truck wasn't just to do something that was like a maverick, but happened to be electric. But to create something that was better than a maverick, so that people didn't even care about it being an EV, they just cared that it was a better product. 

 

We know the cost of ownership will be lower, and it'll have more interior space, and be more refined with better interior tech than a maverick. We also know it'll have a pass through, and it'll be a lot faster and funner to drive. He also said the truck was designed to have what he called instant aesthetic appeal, how that was one of their most important goals. I don't know what that'll look like, he just said they "turned the knobs" on the form factor and design to make it fun and different. 

 

So it's not just an electric maverick. It's an electric truck that's more reliable, faster, advanced, and better looking. So it has a lot of benefits and compelling selling points over a maverick. 

On 4/11/2026 at 6:54 PM, DeluxeStang said:

To be fair, I think it's time to rethink priorities and requirements as we try to get back to affordable vehicles. Range is one of those areas. I feel like everyone wants cheap vehicles but doesn't want to accept cheap vehicle compromises like a smaller battery with less range. 

 

It depends on how bad the range is. If this thing comes out and it has like 150 miles of range, it'll be DOA. But if it has 250-300, maybe even more, then I don't see an issue. The head engineer during the bounties video kinda implied a 300 mile range, or close to it. 

 

The main concerns I have are range and styling, but it's starting to seem like it's a pretty compelling product on both of those fronts. I believe we were learning that test clinics were responding a lot better to the styling than they did with the three row for instance. 

 

Styling is very buyer dependent, though.  But as pointed out, it sounds like this product is more liked than the 3-rows were.

 

I'm hopeful that it gets at least/very close to 300 miles in base form to give them a chance.  Going too low will kill them before they get on the road, despite charging advantages

 

On 4/11/2026 at 8:32 PM, jpd80 said:

It’s important to understand Farley’s position at the moment, there is no choice for Ford

but to be up beat and positive about the coming mid sized BEV pickup. To do otherwise

would simply undo and traction that’s being made with credibility.

 

The flip side to all of that is to understand that ever since Mark Fields was fired in 2017,

Ford CEOs have been directed by Bill Ford to advance plans for BEVs and bring them 

to market as soon as possible. For the most part both Jim Hackett and Jim Farley have

played the cards before them with mixed success and a ton of “experience”…….

 

In a nut shell, Farley is asking people to believe that this time, Ford’s BEV plans will be

successful…….the very same spiel the company has been saying for the past five years.

 

It’s time for Ford to put up or shut up and start showing us more about this amazing vehicle

or it risks potential buyers going off the boil with interest….

 

Yeah, I'm over the "just wait, it's coming" for just about everything future product related at Ford.  I know we're almost there, but it's getting old....

 

On 4/11/2026 at 9:41 PM, DeluxeStang said:

We're almost there, I believe Farley said it would be revealed later this year, so it won't be long until we see it. Giving Ford credit where it's due, it has been a rough road to get here, but I believe they're finally on the right path with EVs. 

 

Earlier moves with large, expensive EVs, we can kinda see the reasoning behind it. They were Ford's most popular, profitable, successful models. So we can kinda see why Ford may have thought offering electric versions of said models made a lot of sense.

 

The issue is we now know no-one wants large, heavy, expensive EVs. Maybe that'll change decades down the road, but for now, they're selling very poorly. Partially because EV tech as it currently stands isn't well suited to the use case of a heavy duty truck, or large SUV. It's much better for a commuter style vehicle. 

 

Additionally, the people who tend to be able to afford more expensive vehicles are often on the older side. Not all, but a sizable portion of older individuals are very anti tech. They don't want to have to relearn the car ownership process, how to charge at home, differences in driving styles, and so on. They also tend to be skeptical of newer tech. Again, that's not everyone, I know people like Akirby are examples of matured individuals who embrace new kinds of technology and consumer experiences, I'm just saying it's not as common with older generations as a whole even if there are exceptions. 

 

Whereas these new EVs are affordable vehicles, making them obtainable to younger buyers who have been proven to be more accepting of EVs and willing to buy them if the opportunity presents itself. I also believe people are far more willing to take a chance on a new kind of product if the financial risks are minimal. Buying an 80k EV is a huge risk because if you buy it, hate it, and want to sell it, you're gonna lose tens of thousands in depreciation most likely. 

 

Whereas with these 25-40 grand EVs, realistically you could buy one, try it for a year, and not lose a ton of money due to depreciation. That's gonna encourage more consumers to try EVs who've never owned one before. 

 

I think it depends on the use case for EVs.  For larger SUVs, I think they'd have done fine if they weren't crazy expensive.  The trucks are a different story because of the towing issues.  I hope that long term, Ford is able to take CE1 learnings and apply it to other, larger products.

 

21 hours ago, Zestyg said:

 

On styling, one thing I had noticed a month or so ago was that one of the sketches for the skunk truck looked really similar to the Lightning Supertruck.

 

 

21 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's a wild theory, and like a lot of theories I've had, it could be wrong. But I believe the super truck was a preview of the t3 design. Kinda like how Ford used a off-road race truck to preview what the bronco was gonna look like. 

 

My reasoning is if you look at other Ford demonstrators, they have wild, insane areo, but they're also clearly inspired by their production cars. The mach-e 1400 still looks like a mach-e, the transit supervan looks like the electric transit in Europe. But the super truck looks nothing like the lighting.

 

It's possible the lightning design was so inefficient that they had to start over for this one off project. But if you look at the super truck, a lot of the general proportions and shapes align with how t3 was described. Things like having a much shorter, and slanted hood lines up exactly with how the styling for t3 was described. 

 

 

I would agree that I think the super truck was likely a preview of the T3 Lightning, as it was reported to be closer to the '97-03 "aero" F-150, and I can definitely see elements of that.

 

That said, it's also entirely likely that they took some design elements from that vehicle and put them on the skunk truck, especially once they moved on from T3.

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, Motorpsychology said:

adding electrons produces heat, no matter the chemistry. 

 

Yea, exactly. That's why them automotive engineers put a lot of effort developing newfangled battery thermal management systems (BTMS). You can bet that Ford hired some of the best engineering talent in that area for its skunkworks operation.

 

 

[jpd80]

 

3 hours ago, Motorpsychology said:

Hmmmm... I was a D+ student in HS chemistry, but I cast me a jaundiced eye at changing the battery chems from depleted to charged in that short amount of time. adding electrons produces heat, no matter the chemistry. a fast charger can produce 300+ kW

and packing 50kW in 10-15 min seems like it could produce a dangerous amount of heat.

it’s not 50 Kw hr of charge though, it’s typically going from 20% to 80% charge before the rate clips over to a much slower rate. Tesla doesn’t seem to have trouble with this.p as heating up is normal and the battery management system controls this when DC fast charging is used.

 

its not like your power tool battery, vehicles come with heating and cooling systems that th battery management system controls to keep temp at optimum for fastest charging.

Edited April 13 by jpd80

[Zestyg]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

My “snooping” suggests CE1 has just over 50 KW HR STD LFP battery

400 volt system with 250 Kw charging, you do the math but I’m impressed.

If 10-15 minute fast charging is a reality, they’ll change people’s minds…

 

I do wonder where they are squeezing the last ~50 miles out of the battery. The Model 3 has like 60 kWh usable and a ~0.2 coefficient of drag and is supposed to get like 320 miles of range. It would be extremely impressive engineering-wise to get something as low drag as the Model 3 or even Lucid Air, but with 10 kWh less than the Model 3 the other efficiency gains have to add up. Otherwise its range would sit at like 250-270 miles.

[Harley Lover]

9 hours ago, Zestyg said:

I do wonder where they are squeezing the last ~50 miles out of the battery. The Model 3 has like 60 kWh usable and a ~0.2 coefficient of drag and is supposed to get like 320 miles of range. It would be extremely impressive engineering-wise to get something as low drag as the Model 3 or even Lucid Air, but with 10 kWh less than the Model 3 the other efficiency gains have to add up. Otherwise its range would sit at like 250-270 miles.

 

There have been claims from Ford that the internal work with the F1 aero team have yielded tangible improvements in range - but not sure how much range enhancement and if that might provide an explanation to your query.

[Sherminator98]

11 hours ago, Zestyg said:

I do wonder where they are squeezing the last ~50 miles out of the battery. The Model 3 has like 60 kWh usable and a ~0.2 coefficient of drag and is supposed to get like 320 miles of range. It would be extremely impressive engineering-wise to get something as low drag as the Model 3 or even Lucid Air, but with 10 kWh less than the Model 3 the other efficiency gains have to add up. Otherwise its range would sit at like 250-270 miles.

 

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2026/ford-electric-vehicle-platform-battery-efficiency

 

https://evinfo.net/2026/02/next-chapter-in-fords-ev-journey-premiering-tuesday-february-17-2026/

 

Quote

Aerodynamics is the other major lever at Ford’s disposal. Ford claims its pickup is more than 15% more aerodynamic than any other model currently on sale, a figure that translates into nearly 50 additional miles of range despite a smaller pack. More than half of the aerodynamics team came from Formula One, bringing with them what Ford Executive Director of advanced EV development Alan Clarke—who penned the deep dive—describes as a “bounty culture”. This framework, he noted, converts every engineering trade-off into a direct battery cost or range value.

 

“The aerodynamics team and interior team share the same goal, and both understood that adding even 1 mm to the roof height would mean US$1.30 in additional battery cost or 0.055 miles of range,” Clarke explained. “With bounties, each team has a common objective to maximise range while decreasing battery cost.” Among the results of this approach: side mirrors 20% smaller than conventional units, saving mass and adding 1.5 miles of range; and an underbody treatment that alone contributes 4.5 additional miles.

 

[Zestyg]

2 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2026/ford-electric-vehicle-platform-battery-efficiency

 

https://evinfo.net/2026/02/next-chapter-in-fords-ev-journey-premiering-tuesday-february-17-2026/

 

 

The claim appeared to be that it was 15-30% better than any other pickup, which would lead to a coefficient of drag around ~0.25. This would leave it behind the Model 3 comparison I described. If they did actually get a coefficient of drag of like 0.17 (15% better than Model 3 and Lucid Air) then that’s incredibly impressive. I don’t really doubt they have 300 miles of range, but it seems to me that they got a lot of that through things other than aero.

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

There have been claims from Ford that the internal work with the F1 aero team have yielded tangible improvements in range - but not sure how much range enhancement and if that might provide an explanation to your query.

They gained about 50 miles of range as a result of areo improvements to answer your question. 

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

They gained about 50 miles of range as a result of areo improvements to answer your question. 

And no one is concerned that Ford is down the same path again

using aero to make the battery smaller and cheaper for Ford.

[DeluxeStang]

15 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

And no one is concerned that Ford is down the same path again

using aero to make the battery smaller and cheaper for Ford.

I am a little concerned that applying radical aero could hurt design appeal. But the team is claiming this isn't the case. That balancing aesthetics and aero is very important for this project. So hopefully it's not a repeat of the three row shitshow. 

 

The response from people who've seen the truck seems to be overwhelmingly positive, so that's a good sign. 

[Trader 10]

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

They gained about 50 miles of range as a result of areo improvements to answer your question. 

Compared to what and at what speed? Ford isn’t saying yet. Are they inferring 50 miles better than a 200 mile range or a 250 mile range? I can see excellent aero improvements adding 50 miles at 70 mph but not during city driving. 

[Zestyg]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

And no one is concerned that Ford is down the same path again

using aero to make the battery smaller and cheaper for Ford.

Did we ever get any insight to what it looked like besides the totally concealed shape?