Steel Body for F-150 EREV?

[mackinaw]

Interesting comment in today's Autoline Daily that the F-150 EREV will be made of steel, not aluminum.  

 

Ram is supposed to come out with a range extender pickup this year. Ford is said to be working on a steel-bodied F-150 EREV at its Tennessee Truck Plant. EREVs are thought to be the perfect EV technology for full-size pickups and SUVs because you can drive or tow all day long and never worry about range anxiety.

 

 

[rmc523]

3 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

Interesting comment in today's Autoline Daily that the F-150 EREV will be made of steel, not aluminum.  

 

Ram is supposed to come out with a range extender pickup this year. Ford is said to be working on a steel-bodied F-150 EREV at its Tennessee Truck Plant. EREVs are thought to be the perfect EV technology for full-size pickups and SUVs because you can drive or tow all day long and never worry about range anxiety.

 

 

 

Well, this adds fuel to the fire of the F-100 (or Ranger) being there - makes sense that they'd use steel to save costs.

[Texasota]

3 hours ago, mackinaw said:

Interesting comment in today's Autoline Daily that the F-150 EREV will be made of steel, not aluminum.  

 

Ram is supposed to come out with a range extender pickup this year. Ford is said to be working on a steel-bodied F-150 EREV at its Tennessee Truck Plant. EREVs are thought to be the perfect EV technology for full-size pickups and SUVs because you can drive or tow all day long and never worry about range anxiety.

 

 

This is contrary to Ford's previous statement that the F-150 EREV will be built at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center:

 

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/ford-reinvests-trucks-hybrids-affordable-electric-vehicles

 

 

[Texasota]

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Well, this adds fuel to the fire of the F-100 (or Ranger) being there - makes sense that they'd use steel to save costs.

Not following or understanding the F-100 connection with the F-150 EREV?

[Sherminator98]

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

Not following or understanding the F-100 connection with the F-150 EREV?

 

The Ranger and this possible F-100 would use steel instead of aluminum like the F-150, but apparently this article got the plant location inccorect, so I'm guessing its just a nothing burger at this point.

 

I don't know why Ford would build a presumably heavier steel bodied F-150 EREV vs building the rest of them in Aluminum. Unless the next gen drops aluminum for cost reasons?

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

The Ranger and this possible F-100 would use steel instead of aluminum like the F-150, but apparently this article got the plant location inccorect, so I'm guessing its just a nothing burger at this point.

 

I don't know why Ford would build a presumably heavier steel bodied F-150 EREV vs building the rest of them in Aluminum. Unless the next gen drops aluminum for cost reasons?

Auto line likes to do this sort of thing, get something controversial out there to increase clicks.

Say steel body F150 EREV at Tennessee and ears prick up everywhere…

(maybe they heard full sized truck and assumed it was F150?)

 

Think about it, why build F150 at Dearborn and Kansas city as well as Tennessee…..

[akirby]

8 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

The Ranger and this possible F-100

F-100 would be the Ranger replacement.

[twintornados]

31 minutes ago, akirby said:

F-100 would be the Ranger replacement.

 

...and add to overall F-Series sales. 

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

F-100 would be the Ranger replacement.

 

Technically the Ranger isn't going away-it would be sold ROW, just not here most likely. 

But at this point, the F-100 is nothing but conjecture 

[rmc523]

13 hours ago, Texasota said:

This is contrary to Ford's previous statement that the F-150 EREV will be built at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center:

 

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/ford-reinvests-trucks-hybrids-affordable-electric-vehicles

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Texasota said:

Not following or understanding the F-100 connection with the F-150 EREV?

 

I completely misread it and plugged in "F-100" because of the Tennessee Truck plant line.   They're likely mixing rumors.

 

I find it incredibly hard to believe that they'd have a separate steel-bodied F-150 - regardless of plant - just for the EREV model.....for one, weight savings to help the battery power goes out the window, and it also completely eliminates economies of scale they'd already have with a single body production across all F-150s (and Cabs further spread out with Super Duty).

 

 

This rumor to me means there'll be an F-100 (Ranger replacement) EREV at TTP.

 

 

...........actually you know what, this leads me to 2 thoughts:

 

1) now that we've heard this rumor plus thinking about Farley's statements about a "different kind of truck" at TTP.......I wonder if this F-100/Ranger will be EREV only ?   That's pretty "different" while still being a traditional truck body style.  Then Maverick and Ranchero can divvy up the small truck market hybrid/BEV, Bronco truck can handle ICE/hybrid (presumably) midsize truck customers, and this new EREV can slot underneath F-150's ICE/Hybrid/EREV models, and appeal to a different customer than Ford currently targets.

 

2)...or....taking this thought a step further, what if there is no "F-150" Lightning EREV (F-150 continues as ICE/hybrid only), and they're instead doing the EREV as something closer to midsize as F-100??

 

This last idea doesn't necessarily make the most sense, as there's the talk of EREV Super Duty (at least I think there was), so why would you skip F-150?

 

 

1 hour ago, twintornados said:

 

...and add to overall F-Series sales. 

 

This would be stupid, IMO.

Edited July 2 by rmc523

[Texasota]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

1) now that we've heard this rumor plus thinking about Farley's statements about a "different kind of truck" at TTP.......I wonder if this F-100/Ranger will be EREV only ?   That's pretty "different" while still being a traditional truck body style.  Then Maverick and Ranchero can divvy up the small truck market hybrid/BEV, Bronco truck can handle ICE/hybrid (presumably) midsize truck customers, and this new EREV can slot underneath F-150's ICE/Hybrid/EREV models, and appeal to a different customer than Ford currently targets.

This would result in low volume sales for the F-100 and would not make sense. I don’t think EREVs are going to be the savior that many seem to think. Besides, Ford/Farley have stated that EREVs would be applied to full size trucks and SUVs.

 

F-100 will likely have multiple power train options that will appeal to the mass market. Just like F-150.

[Texasota]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

This would be stupid, IMO.

Why?

[Texasota]

3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

But at this point, the F-100 is nothing but conjecture 

Maybe, but only if you ignore what ExplorerDude and jpd80 have said.

Edited July 2 by Texasota

[rmc523]

47 minutes ago, Texasota said:

This would result in low volume sales for the F-100 and would not make sense. I don’t think EREVs are going to be the savior that many seem to think. Besides, Ford/Farley have stated that EREVs would be applied to full size trucks and SUVs.

 

F-100 will likely have multiple power train options that will appeal to the mass market. Just like F-150.

 

Ranger sales are already low, and they're reportedly adding a Bronco truck in the same segment, so those desperate to have an ICE-based powertrain could go that route.

I get what you're saying......at the end of the day, I'm just throwing out ideas.   My main thought for that is that it being EREV only would certainly fit the bill of "different kind of truck" without following a plan that doesn't make sense of having Bronco truck being at TTP, when it'll share a lot of parts with Bronco at MAP.

 

45 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Why?

 

Because now you're lumping sales numbers of an unrelated midsize offering into what has always been full size (light duty and heavy duty) offerings.  Just seems disingenuous to me, and a way to both hide a model's lack of sales, and pad another number (F-series).  At that point, call Maverick F-050 and lump it in too!   Bronco truck could be F-075 Bronco!  lump it in too!

 

I mean, Ford even line items the heavy trucks because they're so unrelated, why would it be "ok" to lump a midsize in?

 

 

Look at it as if another company were doing it......would you be ok with it if Chevy called Colorado the Silverado 1000, or Ram called Dakota the Ram 1000 just to throw them into the sales figure?  Or would you think they're just trying to pad a sales number?

Edited July 2 by rmc523

[Texasota]

39 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Look at it as if another company were doing it......would you be ok with it if Chevy called Colorado the Silverado 1000, or Ram called Dakota the Ram 1000 just to throw them into the sales figure?  Or would you think they're just trying to pad a sales number?

It's like politics. Anything is legit if it fosters the marketing narrative that you want. I mostly ignore this stuff and focus on the actual products. But, if marketing it under F-series results in more advertising dollars allocated to F-100 compared to Ranger, then that is a good change.

Edited July 2 by Texasota

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

I don’t think EREVs are going to be the savior that many seem to think. Besides, Ford/Farley have stated that EREVs would be applied to full size trucks and SUVs.

 

F-100 will likely have multiple power train options that will appeal to the mass market. Just like F-150.

Yea, I agree. If the Ford big shots want to do their multi energy thing with F-100 and next gen F-150, the most appropriate power train options would be:

• gasoline engine, both NA and turbocharged 
• Powerboost (regular non plug in hybrid)
• Pure EV (battery electric)

For F-100 and F-150, EREV amounts to an unnecessarily complex version of the third option without a significant benefit to customers or to Ford’s bottom line. If Ford is really into this EREV jazz, Super Duty would be more appropriate.

[fordmantpw]

6 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

Yea, I agree. If the Ford big shots want to do their multi energy thing with F-100 and next gen F-150, the most appropriate power train options would be:

• gasoline engine, both NA and turbocharged 
• Powerboost (regular non plug in hybrid)
• Pure EV (battery electric)

For F-100 and F-150, EREV amounts to an unnecessarily complex version of the third option without a significant benefit to customers or to Ford’s bottom line. If Ford is really into this EREV jazz, Super Duty would be more appropriate.

 

I don't know, quite a few people tow with their F150, and having the ability to tow with pure electric while having the gas engine to provide extra range would be a huge selling point.  I really don't think a full BEV F150 is going to move the needle that much (look at the current prior Lightning.  Though it was an awesome vehicle, it didn't sell in the numbers necessary for Ford to continue it.

[rmc523]

8 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

Yea, I agree. If the Ford big shots want to do their multi energy thing with F-100 and next gen F-150, the most appropriate power train options would be:

• gasoline engine, both NA and turbocharged 
• Powerboost (regular non plug in hybrid)
• Pure EV (battery electric)

For F-100 and F-150, EREV amounts to an unnecessarily complex version of the third option without a significant benefit to customers or to Ford’s bottom line. If Ford is really into this EREV jazz, Super Duty would be more appropriate.

 

I mean, customers have spoken and have said that BEV for F-150+ isn't the way to go, at least as the options exist now.  And that can be said for multiple companies - Lightning is still outselling Silverado EV in Q2 and full year, and it's been discontinued/had dwindling inventory for the last few months, with GM's effort being a much more "all in" approach than Ford's "slap some batteries in the existing frame" approach.

 

Long term, I think options will get there, but as the current products stand, they don't seem to be what enough customers want to warrant that approach.

[twintornados]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

....This would be stupid, IMO.

 

Of course it is, thats why Ford would likely do it.

[Texasota]

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

I don't know, quite a few people tow with their F150, and having the ability to tow with pure electric while having the gas engine to provide extra range would be a huge selling point. 

It will be fascinating to watch this unfold. I suspect/fear the scenario you describe is where an EREV is going to reveal itself as a flawed compromise (at least with large/heavy trailers). I think this issue is a big reason behind the long and repeated delays for the Ram REV (formerly called RamCharger).

[fordmantpw]

32 minutes ago, Texasota said:

It will be fascinating to watch this unfold. I suspect/fear the scenario you describe is where an EREV is going to reveal itself as a flawed compromise (at least with large/heavy trailers). I think this issue is a big reason behind the long and repeated delays for the Ram REV (formerly called RamCharger).

 

Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how the EREV world works out for tow vehicles.  To be able to have the driving experience of a BEV while towing would be amazing. Then, if you are taking your RV off-grid with that EREV, you've got your built-in battery bank and generator right there.  Our next RV is likely going to be a truck camper on an F550 that will see quite a bit of time off-grid.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, and if the EREV is available in that configuration in 5 years or so.  Whether an EREV will be viable in that configuration, I don't know.  At any rate, I think we're going to see some major technological advances in the next 5-10 years.

[morgan20]

8 hours ago, Texasota said:

EREV is going to reveal itself as a flawed compromise (at least with large/heavy trailers)

 

EREV is a flawed compromise by definition, tow vehicles or not. For a next gen Ford F-100 or F-150 Lightning to be introduced in the late 2020s, the proper approach would be to take advantage of continuous improvement in pure EV design and engineering so that a single propulsion element, the electric motor, is tightly integrated with more efficient utilization of battery cells, which extends electric range, which obviates the need for a Plan B, an internal-combustion engine range extender. As costs for batteries continue going down and EV charging infrastructure continues to expand, the case for EREV keeps gettin' weaker and weaker.

 

Even in China, the only market where EREV ever came close to being considered a "success" thanks to government incentives from them Commies, the direction is clear:

 

In 2024, EREV sales [in China] exceeded one million units, with 23 brands offering models. However, in 2025, growth has slowed. Li Auto, the brand largely credited with popularising the EREV approach in China, has seen its sales fall sharply for five consecutive months and has now shifted focus toward pure electric vehicles. 

 

The decline in EREV sales is closely tied to improvements in pure electric vehicles (EVs). Three main factors are contributing to this trend:

•     Longer EV range – The average range of newly launched EVs in 2025 exceeds 500 km, with some models surpassing 600–700 km, approaching the range of conventional fuel vehicles.
•     Expanded charging infrastructure – By the end of 2024, China had 12.82 million charging units, representing a 49.1% year-over-year increase, with fast-charging stations of 120–180 kW becoming increasingly common.
•     Lower battery costs – Goldman Sachs projects that battery costs will fall to 99 USD/kWh in 2025, 40% lower than in 2022, allowing EVs to reach cost parity with fuel vehicles without subsidies.

As a result, the core advantage of EREVs, mitigating range and refuelling concerns, is diminishing. While EREVs may continue to serve areas with limited charging infrastructure or users who prioritise “absolute range freedom,” their role may increasingly become a niche choice. Future developments in solid-state or sodium-based batteries could further reduce the relevance of fuel-based range extenders.

 

 

Edited July 3 by morgan20

[Texasota]

2 hours ago, morgan20 said:

EREV is a flawed compromise by definition, tow vehicles or not.

I am not a BEV advocate or proponent at this point. I'm not against BEVs (I'm diggin the Skunk Truck), but I think it is going to be a very long time before BEVs displace ICE and hybrids in the USA. I count on my vehicles to tow my boat 600 miles (round trip) and transport me to my snowbird location without inconvenience and frustration. 

 

You and I likely differ greatly on BEVs at this point in their development, but what is really interesting to me is that we both agree that EREVs are a flawed compromise. 

[morgan20]

55 minutes ago, Texasota said:

I am not a BEV advocate or proponent at this point. I'm not against BEVs (I'm diggin the Skunk Truck), but I think it is going to be a very long time before BEVs displace ICE and hybrids in the USA. I count on my vehicles to tow my boat 600 miles (round trip) and transport me to my snowbird location without inconvenience and frustration. 

 

You and I likely differ greatly on BEVs at this point in their development, but what is really interesting to me is that we both agree that EREVs are a flawed compromise. 

 

Thanks Texasota my friend, we're also in agreement that it is going to be a very long time before BEVs displace ICE and hybrids in the USA.

 

Even without EREV, multi energy powertrain offerings encompassing gasoline + diesel (for Super Duty) + hybrid + battery electric should serve Ford trucks well into the next decade, if that's what the Ford big shots decide to pursue.

[akirby]

I thnk EREVs are perfect - for a few hundred drivers.  I think most would prefer a HEV or BEV.