Is ford lightening a winner for ford?

[Earl]

To be fair most other current EVs vendors get their listed range (or actually noticeably higher in the case of Porche). Tesla seems to be the only current EV vendor with “optimistic” range statements.

Tesla's "problem" is that they are so efficient to begin with that any little deviation from nominal can appear to greatly reduce the range. It is actually not the Tesla that is missing the 'listed' range ('listed' range is actually the EPA range as calculated/measured against a US Government standard). It is actually the deviation or inability of the driver to drive within the parameters of the standard that reduce the range.
This issue came up when the Prius came out. Drivers who were meticulous about their MPG would grouse about how running the Air Conditioner on their Prius cost them 10 MPG while on their previous car, it only cost them 2 or 3 MPG. The Prius still got better MPG than their previous gas guzzler, it just looked worse if you only focus on the effect of the deviation from 'normal'. When you think about it: If the Prius used zero gasoline to drive then all of the fuel used would be to run the Air Conditioner so it would look like the Air Conditioner would cost infinite MPG with the Prius.
Essentially if normal driving doesn't use much energy, other things will look like they take a lot.
Inefficient EVs such as the Porsche, will not be affected as much be deviations.
For towing, one is going to need some amount of battery KWh for the towed vehicle. This will vary with the aerodynamic efficiency (Cd), size, and weight of the towed vehicle and is pretty much independent of the tow vehicle's needs. It should be possible to compute the KWh/mile of a trailer and compute its range compared to the battery in the tow vehicle but, of course, trailer vendors don't provide this info.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Agreed, you have to read the fine print to calculate the actual price.

Ford launches F-150 Lightning online configurator, starts at $40,000 but $74,000 for bigger battery

Ford has launched the F-150 Lightning’s online configurator and revealed all prices and options in the process. It starts at...

electrek.co

"The first important thing that you should notice is that the Pro version is only available with the “Standard Range Battery” and the Platinum only comes with the “Extended Range Battery.” This leads us to the most important information that the configurator confirms: how much you have to pay to get the bigger battery pack. Ford grabbed a lot of headlines by announcing that the Ford F-150 Lightning would start at $40,000 and has a range of up to 300 miles.
But now we learn that to get the 300 miles of range, you need to buy a $74,000 version of the electric pickup truck."

"Ford has done some chicanery that ramps up the price significantly for the bigger pack. As you can see above, the bigger battery pack is $10,000, and as we previously mentioned, you need to select the $53,000 XLT trim to be able to select the Extended Range pack. That brings you up to a reasonable $63,000, but Ford also locks in a $9,500 equipment group if you choose the bigger pack on the XLT, which brings the price up to $74,000."

<image>

Clearly all of those forced options are necessary.

Does that imply that if you want heated front seats you have a $64k MSRP? Only mentions power seat driver's seat otherwise.

 

[BooMan]

Lol what??? The reason people rarely (never?) get the stated Tesla’s range has to do with what cycles Tesla quotes from the standard EPA tests. While Teslas are generally the most efficient EVs, they do not get the best range vs contemporary EVs in real world conditions. Long story short they use the EPA test numbers that happen to provide the most optimistic range estimate. Most of the other OEMs use the EPA cycle numbers that tends to understate true range. Hence why in real world use you will see a 350mi EPA range Tesla get the same range as a stated 220mi range Ford or Porsche. What Tesla does isn’t wrong or even dishonest just using the options EPA provides. Would be better if EPA forced all OEMs to use the same test vs given them options.

 

[Earl]

Lol what??? The reason people rarely (never?) get the stated Tesla’s range has to do with what cycles Tesla quotes from the standard EPA tests. While Teslas are generally the most efficient EVs, they do not get the best range vs contemporary EVs in real world conditions. Long story short they use the EPA test numbers that happen to provide the most optimistic range estimate. Most of the other OEMs use the EPA cycle numbers that tends to understate true range. Hence why in real world use you will see a 350mi EPA range Tesla get the same range as a stated 220mi range Ford or Porsche. What Tesla does isn’t wrong or even dishonest just using the options EPA provides. Would be better if EPA forced all OEMs to use the same test vs given them options.

Sorry if the math is obscure - I don't have time to write it all out. I just provided the limits in case that illustrated the problem easily. Maybe someone else can bring it down to be easier to understand.
Keep in mind that the Porsche uses 94 KWh of battery to get ~210 miles of EPA range while the Tesla Model 3 uses 80 KWh to get ~358 miles of EPA range. Even if the Porsche and the Tesla got the same 'real world' range on a test, I'd say the shame is on the Porsche for requiring 94 kWh batteries to get it than Tesla who can get it with only 80 KWh.
Clearly, the Porsche is wasting a lot of energy in the EPA test and all the time so it isn't surprising that its range performance won't vary much if you deviate from the EPA test. It is interesting how it exceeds EPA tests even on driving regimens that exceed the parameters that one would expect would increase its energy consumption. Maybe their diesel emissions software folks got involved.

 

[BooMan]

Not sure if you are tracking. So let me make this easy for you.
A) I agree, Tesla’s are more efficient, generally - Lucid and Mercedes may disagree. Thus yes a Tesla with a given battery size should get more “EPA” range vs a similar car with a similar battery size. BUT

B) above is irrelevant for users as EPA range is not what matters when you are actually driving. Sure it may (should) impact price (more batter = more dollars) but as a driver that doesn’t really factor into your experience. ie when you are driving and your 350mi “EPA” Model S gets the same range as a 220mi Taycan when driven under any real world conditions you will start to say wtf.

C) the above happens as EPA allows multiple cycles types for OEMs to use. Tesla uses a process that leads to grossly (as in impossible to achieve in any real world scenario) range numbers. While many (not all - Kia?) other OEMs use the more restrictive test approach thus their “EPA” range is far less than what you actually receive. I have a theory as to why but that’s not the point. The point is if the test are not consistent the result (“EPA” range) is a useless number for comparison. You simply can’t use it unless you confirm if the OEM uses the same cycles. If you don’t then in effect you are comparing Apples to Bananas.
The issue is not Tesla. The issue is the EPA, IMHO. They should force 100% consistency in testing.

Sorry if the math is obscure - I don't have time to write it all out. I just provided the limits in case that illustrated the problem easily. Maybe someone else can bring it down to be easier to understand.
Keep in mind that the Porsche uses 94 KWh of battery to get ~210 miles of EPA range while the Tesla Model 3 uses 80 KWh to get ~358 miles of EPA range. Even if the Porsche and the Tesla got the same 'real world' range on a test, I'd say the shame is on the Porsche for requiring 94 kWh batteries to get it than Tesla who can get it with only 80 KWh.
Clearly, the Porsche is wasting a lot of energy in the EPA test and all the time so it isn't surprising that its range performance won't vary much if you deviate from the EPA test. It is interesting how it exceeds EPA tests even on driving regimens that exceed the parameters that one would expect would increase its energy consumption. Maybe their diesel emissions software folks got involved.

 

[DblOSmith]

I am surprised that utilities haven't jumped all over the DCFC business.

Same here. Makes no sense to me.

 

[DblOSmith]

300 mile EV truck just doesn’t work. It’s 400+ for me or an ICE. Learned my lessons.

Same. I wouldn't even consider a truck without close to 500 miles. Cold kills 20%. Driving at highway speeds kill another 25-30%. Towing will cut that in half again. 500miles is a minimum.

 

[Earl]

I am surprised that utilities haven't jumped all over the DCFC business.

I've wondered this for a long time as I watched EVs progress. DCFC certainly isn't a big money maker but I think the real issue is more the conservative nature of the regulated monopoly or public power companies. That their biggest accounts are the oil industry probably doesn't motivate them to push DCFC either.
I've been at a couple of planning meetings for DCFC and the electric company had a hatchet man there ready to apply the brakes.

 

[Barklikeadog]

Ford F150 Lightning prices are out. Not cheap.

Figured this discussion was going on. I was messing around with the build and price stuff.
The price is nuts. Absurd. I'm driving a 60k+ Platinum with virtually every luxury and 700 miles of range.
A similarly equipped Platinum Lightning will run about 95k. Why the bleep would I pay 35k more for less?

Is it for the badge of honor where I can say no exhaust? (despite the exhaust simply being moved to a power plant)
Or is it that I can brag that I don't spend 1k on gas every year and that means I am somehow 'saving money' like my friend with the 120k Model X's brag?

 

[Zorg]

Is it for the badge of honor where I can say no exhaust? (despite the exhaust simply being moved to a power plant)
Or is it that I can brag that I don't spend 1k on gas every year and that means I am somehow 'saving money' like my friend with the 120k Model X's brag?

Long tailpipe argument isn't valid. If you spend enough time here, you should know. Now, EVs don't pay for themselves in terms of gas savings, but they retain their value better than their ICE counterparts, so they may not be more expensive over 3-5 years

 

[meomyo]

300 mile EV truck just doesn’t work. It’s 400+ for me or an ICE. Learned my lessons.

300 is plenty even 200 is for commuters who charge at home and even take a trip if they want(tesla). The whole range worry is overblown

 

[meomyo]

Lol what??? The reason people rarely (never?) get the stated Tesla’s range has to do with what cycles Tesla quotes from the standard EPA tests. While Teslas are generally the most efficient EVs, they do not get the best range vs contemporary EVs in real world conditions. Long story short they use the EPA test numbers that happen to provide the most optimistic range estimate. Most of the other OEMs use the EPA cycle numbers that tends to understate true range. Hence why in real world use you will see a 350mi EPA range Tesla get the same range as a stated 220mi range Ford or Porsche. What Tesla does isn’t wrong or even dishonest just using the options EPA provides. Would be better if EPA forced all OEMs to use the same test vs given them options.

lets face it....ev's are not great at high speeds for exnded periods and weather affects them very very much. thats the downside of these cars in general.

 

[TessP100D]

300 is plenty even 200 is for commuters who charge at home and even take a trip if they want(tesla). The whole range worry is overblown

Wow. You have it all wrong. Your gonna get schooled.

 

[DblOSmith]

lets face it....ev's are not great at high speeds for exnded periods and weather affects them very very much. thats the downside of these cars in general.

Yeah, I got my first long distance trip in single digit weather. I'll definitely make it, but can't wait to see my usage. Also, today I learned that it takes 4% battery to warm my interior from 9 degrees to 77 degrees. lol

 

[Barklikeadog]

Long tailpipe argument isn't valid. If you spend enough time here, you should know. Now, EVs don't pay for themselves in terms of gas savings, but they retain their value better than their ICE counterparts, so they may not be more expensive over 3-5 years

Ive been in enough of those. My home is 'not a good candidate for solar', so my option is the grid.
If you are trading in an EV after 3-5 years, then you are making a much bigger carbon footprint than someone buying a gas guzzler and driving the wheels off it

 

[DblOSmith]

Ive been in enough of those. My home is 'not a good candidate for solar', so my option is the grid.
If you are trading in an EV after 3-5 years, then you are making a much bigger carbon footprint than someone buying a gas guzzler and driving the wheels off it

That might be true if the vehicle is not used ever again. ...but if I junk my 20 year old gas guzzler for a used 2018 Model 3 that was just made affordable, and drive that to the wheels fall off...

 

[Zorg]

Ive been in enough of those. My home is 'not a good candidate for solar', so my option is the grid.
If you are trading in an EV after 3-5 years, then you are making a much bigger carbon footprint than someone buying a gas guzzler and driving the wheels off it

On average an EV is 3 times more efficient than an ICE car. So, even if your power is all coming from coal, you still consume less energy overall. Add to this that the grid keeps getting cleaner all the time, hence my scoffing at the long tailpipe argument. But to your point, an ICE car is probably cheaper to operate overall than the equivalent EV. I don't think they're as fun though.

I'm lucky enough to have the right exposure on my roof. I like the fact that I produce enough energy to power my cars.

 

[Barklikeadog]

On average an EV is 3 times more efficient than an ICE car. So, even if your power is all coming from coal, you still consume less energy overall. Add to this that the grid keeps getting cleaner all the time, hence my scoffing at the long tailpipe argument. But to your point, an ICE car is probably cheaper to operate overall than the equivalent EV. I don't think they're as fun though.

I'm lucky enough to have the right exposure on my roof. I like the fact that I produce enough energy to power my cars.

Thanks for the lecture. I didn't know that, it's my first day here.

also, no comment on the carbon footprint of ordering a new vehicle every 3-5 years?

 

[Zorg]

Thanks for the lecture. I didn't know that, it's my first day here.

also, no comment on the carbon footprint of ordering a new vehicle every 3-5 years?

I can only only assume that consuming less is good for the planet and bad for the economy

 

[Earl]

carbon footprint of ordering a new vehicle every 3-5 years

While we, personally, feel like we're being fiscally irresponsible if we sell a car that we've put less than 100K miles on, trading for a new car really isn't that bad ecologically or altruistically. After the original buyer eats the steep depreciation, it will undoubtedly be sold, used, to subsequent buyers. Many of whom couldn't afford new, and who will undoubtedly eek every possible mile out of the energy that went into producing it. Then, of course, it will mostly be recycled (sorry Pennsylvania) into new cars.