11k lbs needs a Super Duty, no matter what Ford says the tow rating is for an F150.

We had gotten as low as $2.51 87 E10,  and as low as $3.09 91 E0  up until Sunday 12/28. Monday afternoon it jumped to $2.79 87 -$3.09-3.99/gal 91. on another forum I'm on, one poster put up a photo of $1.89 85oct. in Denver. I wouldn't run that low octane in my vehicles, but it's widely available there.

F-Series is on 2 different platform, the F-150 and SuperDuty only share the F-Series name and are developed separately as two unique platforms so let's just look at it on apples to apples basis. By my estimate, the F-150 sales volume is roughly 500K a year. We can be charitable and add Expedition and Navigator which are on older version of the F-150 platform (even though the platforms have diverged, there is still lot of synergy like common drivetrain) so let's call it 600K volume a year. Compare to TNGA-F worldwide volume at around 1M a year (Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Prado, 4Runner, LX, GX etc). So on the platform economy of scale basis, I would estimate TGNA-F is equal if not more cost efficient than F-150. Yes, F-150 is important and I'm not saying it is wrong to prioritize it. What I'm pointing out is Ford only prioritize F-150.   Toyota also has TNGA-B, TNGA-C, and TNGA-K. Each of them hosting about 3 million sales last year. Compare to Ford C2 which barely registered about 750K last year. This is what I was pointing out... Ford is so small now it doesn't have the scale to compete. Ford may not have worried about small cars but by not competing, it also doomed its small and midsize CUVs which needs the sales volume to contribute to the C2 economy of scale to be cost competitive.      I agree. A lot of short term thinking... if you outsource something for quick cost cutting, it is now forever a cost item in your BOM. You lose the ability to improve the design and reap the cost saving across different vehicle programs. The supplier now reap the saving...    Same concept applies on Ford selling cars in different markets. Sure, it seems easy to just close up shop and leave India but now you don't have a low cost production base so it limits your ability to compete in the future in Europe and other APAC markets.    Ford and Hyundai entered the Indian market around the same time... Ford actually raced ahead first with Ikon and Figo but Ford is down and out while Hyundai has achieved 20% market share (including its Kia brand). How these companies approach competition is very different and Hyundai more so than Toyota has been the one eating Ford's lunch around the world.     

I'm expecting a range of 700 miles unladen and 350 miles towing 8000 lbs.  Doesn't need to tow 11k lbs more than 350 miles.  If you need that get an ICE f150 or superduty.

The fun comes when the battery runs down to less than about 25%, on the Shark 6, power is then limited to what the ICE generator can supply. ….so this is why I hope that the F150 EREV has enough ICE power to tow even with completely discharged battery…  

It won't be underpowered.  It's still a BEV powered by electric motors just with a smaller capacity battery.  

I'll keep an open mind, but I'm betting the F-150 EREV's Achilles heel will be long distance towing (under-powered and inefficient). Something like what @jpd80 is proposing sounds more promising in my opinion.  Can't wait to see what Ford comes up with.

I just paid $2.07/gal for E10/87 at a QT in west Broken Arrow. 

Just as a reality check, Toyota’s annual net profit for FY2025 was $31 billion While it has commercial vehicles, Thers no comparison to F Series as Tundra is stuck behind much better products from Ford, GM and Stellantis.   your point on optimisation of smaller passenger vehicles and commercials for Asia, Europe North America and ROW markets puts them way out in front. Toyota is effectively the  21st century GM at its height.   Conversely, I wonder whether the thing that brings them undone (Chinese BEVs) will affect their income way earlier than North American brands like Ford and GM maybe throw Stellantis in there too…thanks to Ram and Jeep.

Ford was never worried about cost on small cars because of high union labor and CAFE offsets and the preference Americans have for trucks and suvs.   F series is very close to corolla and tesla model y as the worldwide best seller and it's only sold in North America.  It also produces twice as much revenue and probably 2-3 times the profit margin.  It would be stupid not to prioritize it.   The Asians optimized small cars because that was their F series in their home markets so that's where they invested.  I bet F series has a similar cost advantage over Tundra.   My point on C2 was it took them too long to get there and now they have other things to invest in.  Toyota has been optimizing costs for decades.  Ford needs a jump start and ce1 has the potential to provide it because it's a clean sheet  and it was developed by outsiders not Ford lifers.  And I do think it can be applied to ICE vehicles.