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

As for weather, my brother borrowed the maverick often for work, his drives are only about 2 miles, so the engine doesn't have much time to warm up. It almost never does. Hopefully that doesn't cause issues long term.    But as a result, in the winter, my maverick hybrid is doing like 18 mpg on some drives lol. Cold weather inefficiency isn't exclusive to EVs. 

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.    My explorer can go about 380 miles on a tank, so a range of 300 miles really isn't bad. I have a hard time believing your average gas vehicle can go 500 miles on a tank considering that's pretty close to what my maverick will do, and it's insanely fuel efficient. I'd say most gas vehicles are in the 200 to 400 range give or take unless you have a vehicle that has like a monster 40 gallon tank. 

If I'm remembering correctly, Alan Clark said that the team knew 300 miles of range was about the minimum that consumers would accept. Which is a very weird comment to make if their truck didn't have 300 miles of range or close to it. 

300 miles isn’t very good when buyers coming from ICE vehicles can typically run 400 to 500 miles between fill ups. Manufacturers say that running batteries below 20% will shorten battery life. 80% of 300 is 240. Subtract what, another 20% when temperatures are below freezing? 

I didn’t have this much trouble with the Subarus I had before this, but at least I can get the touch up paint for free using my Fordpass points.

The presentation they had earlier this year about the technology of the platform I don’t recall quoting a specific range number but they did say that they chose LFP as the base in part because it would make longer range options on any other chemistry easy to implement. Basically it should offer ~300 on base LFP and a lot more on NMC or sodium or whatever.

I can't find it but I think Ford recently said it would be 300 or close to it.  I'm sure that whatever the base range is there will be longer range options.

I would be very surprised if it doesn’t have 300 miles of range, since it seems that a lot of the design of this thing is an optimization problem of “how little LFP can we use to get 300?”. It just wouldn’t make sense for it to have less than that.

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.