EREV F-150 Lightning to replace EV model [ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[GreaseMonkey]

I don’t have any comment on your numbers other than the last ones about the Silverado - I highly doubt that range estimate is anywhere close to accurate when doing actual “truck stuff.” Which is the entire point of shifting to an EREV.

700+ range is also not with doing your “truck stuff”. No one measures range with a vehicle doing “truck stuff”.

Sponsored

 

[dalola]

I asked ChatGPT yesterday how the EREV could be configured to provide 700+ range while reducing overall cost. It did the analysis using existing F-150 Ice and BEV performance figures and industry cost estimates.

What it came up with was an F-150 configuration of a 80 kWh battery good for 160 mile range coupled with a 2.0L turbocharged generator that provides 75-100 kW charging. The generator is small because it would only run at one, maybe two rpms that are the most efficient. This is possible because the generator is shielded from having to change pace with normal driving and is only responsible to charge the battery. The generator will have to provide 600 miles worth of range, effectively charging the battery four times during a long trip. So it needs a 18-20 gallon fuel tank and needs to run at an approx efficiency of 38-42 mpg equivalent.

The above takes into account the weight of the additional components, netted against the reduction from losing 50 kWh compared to current Lightning.

Overall cost is a net reduction of $4,000 relative to existing Lightning, taking into account current cost of battery pack of around $110/ kWh.

Does the above sound reasonable? Is this a better solution than the Silverado real EV with 205 kWh and 490 miles of range?

Seems pretty reasonable to me. I see it as an interesting choice, but I just can't believe we are talking about a significant amount of customers for such a thing. Unless Ford can really pull off something beyond expectations, I think this would sell at a lower volume than the current Lighting. I guess we'll just have to wait & see what the actual product ends up being, if it ever actually gets produced.

 

[GreaseMonkey]

Seems pretty reasonable to me. I see it as an interesting choice, but I just can't believe we are talking about a significant amount of customers for such a thing. Unless Ford can really pull off something beyond expectations, I think this would sell at a lower volume than the current Lighting. I guess we'll just have to wait & see what the actual product ends up being, if it ever actually gets produced.

There was another option of going with a 180 kWh battery. But that carries a hefty cost penalty vs the smaller battery EREV as well as the current Lightning.

And I agree that these configurations will likely be unpopular and compromised at best. Like I said last week: lipstick on a pig.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Like I said last week: lipstick on a pig.

The real question, then, is what color lipstick?

 

[dalola]

The real question, then, is what color lipstick?

Never underestimate a pretty paint job!

 

[GreaseMonkey]

The real question, then, is what color lipstick?

Grabber Fuchsia would be my vote

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Grabber Fuchsia would be my vote

Thanks for the idea.

 

[ponEpwr]

I asked ChatGPT yesterday how the EREV could be configured to provide 700+ range while reducing overall cost. It did the analysis using existing F-150 Ice and BEV performance figures and industry cost estimates.

What it came up with was an F-150 configuration of a 80 kWh battery good for 160 mile range coupled with a 2.0L turbocharged generator that provides 75-100 kW charging. The generator is small because it would only run at one, maybe two rpms that are the most efficient. This is possible because the generator is shielded from having to change pace with normal driving and is only responsible to charge the battery. The generator will have to provide 600 miles worth of range, effectively charging the battery four times during a long trip. So it needs a 18-20 gallon fuel tank and needs to run at an approx efficiency of 38-42 mpg equivalent.

The above takes into account the weight of the additional components, netted against the reduction from losing 50 kWh compared to current Lightning.

Overall cost is a net reduction of $4,000 relative to existing Lightning, taking into account current cost of battery pack of around $110/ kWh.

Does the above sound reasonable? Is this a better solution than the Silverado real EV with 205 kWh and 490 miles of range?

Pretty much sums it up. For trucks it’s obviously a larger battery but for passenger cars it could be like a 40kw or smaller battery. Basically the idea is to do 90%+ of what most people do on a smaller battery and plug it in every day or every other day. Then have the onboard generator to bridge the gap between having to take a 100% ice vehicle to accomplish the task. Takes half the amount of minerals compared to an equivalent BEV yet operates and drives just like a BEV for 90+% of the time.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Pretty much sums it up. For trucks it’s obviously a larger battery but for passenger cars it could be like a 40kw or smaller battery. Basically the idea is to do 90%+ of what most people do on a smaller battery and plug it in ever day or every other day. Then have the onboard generator to bridge the gap between having to take a 100% ice vehicle to accomplish the task. Takes half the amount of minerals compared to an equivalent BEV yet operates and drives just like a BEV for 90+% of the time.

The vast majority of folks will stop plugging it in after the first month.

 

[ponEpwr]

The vast majority of folks will stop plugging it in after the first month.

When gas is cheap I’m sure that could be a thing much like I’m sure that’s the way a lot of people treat a PHEV with 20 miles of range. These are also people that were never in the market for a BEV either though.

 

[Snakebitten]

I'm the target audience of an EREV truck.

I have a Powerboost F150 and I tow an RV on as many as 1/2 the weekends a year.
I also have the Mach-E, so I absolutely know what is so amazing about EV's.

I would love to have a Lightning as my tow vehicle, rather than the Powerboost. And if the Lightning could actually replace the Powerboost, I wouldn't need the Mach-E for my daily beater!

An EREV Lightning could do just that! Replace both my Powerboost and my daily EV. My daily driving would still be 100% EV, and my weekend towing and boondocking would still be a ProPower onboard truck.

Still, I agree that my needs/requirements are a bit niche by mass production standards. But I'm far from the only Powerboost owner who wants a Powerboost with a larger HV battery and more powerful electric drive motor.

Recently I saw somewhere where the Powerboost was as much as 30% of F150 sales. I don't know how true that is but at 10% it would be far more than the Lightning sales turned out to be.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

my needs/requirements are a bit niche by mass production standards

That niche is smaller than the current Lightning market.

 

[Snakebitten]

That niche is smaller than the current Lightning market.

I don't know if the number of Powerboost F150's being used for camping would number much less than the total number of Lightnings sold?

Obviously I run in the Powerboost crowd. So I automatically get the feeling that there's a lot of us. I certainly SEE more Powerboost than Lightnings. And I definitely live in truck world. 25% of pickup trucks sold in the US are registered in Texas. An F150 is a Texas Camry

 

[ponEpwr]

I'm the target audience of an EREV truck.

I have a Powerboost F150 and I tow an RV on as many as 1/2 the weekends a year.
I also have the Mach-E, so I absolutely know what is so amazing about EV's.

I would love to have a Lightning as my tow vehicle, rather than the Powerboost. And if the Lightning could actually replace the Powerboost, I wouldn't need the Mach-E for my daily beater!

An EREV Lightning could do just that! Replace both my Powerboost and my daily EV. My daily driving would still be 100% EV, and my weekend towing and boondocking would still be a ProPower onboard truck.

Still, I agree that my needs/requirements are a bit niche by mass production standards. But I'm far from the only Powerboost owner who wants a Powerboost with a larger HV battery and more powerful electric drive motor.

Recently I saw somewhere where the Powerboost was as much as 30% of F150 sales. I don't know how true that is but at 10% it would be far more than the Lightning sales turned out to be.

I know with Scout, they’ve stated 130k pre orders and 80% of those preorders selected the harvester option which is the EREV vs the BEV version. So not sure it’s as niche as you might be thinking.

Price can certainly be a tipping point though.

 

[Snakebitten]

I only used the word niche in the spirit of the definition.

I personally feel like an EREV truck will attract far more customers than the already converted to EV crowd might predict.

By the way, it could be argued that the US EV market is barely beyond niche.

Sponsored