F-150 Lighting EV Cancelled. To be Replaced by EREV Hybrid Lightning

[YDR37]

Interesting! A V6 seems like overkill! It seems like they’re planning to do more of a set up where it’s assisting all time rather than just doing EV and then recharging battery.

According to Car & Driver, the Ram 1500 REV has an estimated battery-only range of 145 miles. That seems possible, if the battery is 92 kWh (about 75% of 123 kWh Cybertruck battery).

Question is how adding such a large battery will affect cost, given that the vehicle also includes the same basic V6 engine as a gas-only RAM. Presumably there will be some cost savings by ditching the transmission etc. in favor of an EV drive system. The same source estimates that a basic Tradesman REV could start at $60,000 but I wouldn't put much stock in any price estimates until Ram makes it official.

Sponsored

 

[henchman24]

Tell me about all of your experience in Nevada. Because I’ve been on all over Wyoming. My former law partner owns a fishing lodge outside of Bozeman.

You tell me everything you’ve done in Ely and I’ll tell you everything I’ve done in Wyoming and we’ll see who actually has experience and who’s just fucking running their mouth.

How’d that be? Or better yet … click.

Oh lord... this is especially hilarious.

 

[dalton108]

Remember these?

Hard for me to trust in ford’s management team when they are basically saying, “this device is the future “

Take a look and see how much those (and similar devices) are going for on eBay these days. I won’t even tell you how much I’ve paid recently for a mini-disc player to get some very precious recordings from the 90s and early 2000s back.

And here’s the thing what ultimately won was pure digital formats (mp3) however at the time they were just like EV’s today: hardware too expensive, too expensive to store, too few options for storage not the best quality of audio compression.

But just like gas vehicles analog audio will be here forever (niche and hipster/petrol head territory but …) ice isn’t going anywhere. Hybrids definitely have a role to play. Despite my strong desire for it to be otherwise it is what it is.

 

[hemiarch]

Take a look and see how much those (and similar devices) are going for on eBay these days. I won’t even tell you how much I’ve paid recently for a mini-disc player to get some very precious recordings from the 90s and early 2000s back.

I believe it but is it the future of the mass market?

 

[dalton108]

I believe it but is it the future of the mass market?

I was still editing so there’s more that I said that’s relevant, however; the answer to your query is no. But neither is current EV technology.

The only question I have is will it be reasonable to retrofit our existing EV’s or are they going to make it impossible for us, forcing obsolescence.

 

[mongo]

My result

With settings, pulled from ABRP. You've likely adjusted your consumption based upon your setup.

You are showing 245Wh/mile @ 65MPH
That's not a Beast, nor any other Cybertruck, more like a Model 3.

ABRP default is 462 and doesn't allow that route unless going 55, can make it with 9% at 400Wh/mile though

 

[henchman24]

You are showing 245Wh/mile @ 65MPH
That's not a Beast, nor any other Cybertruck, more like a Model 3.

ABRP default is 462 and doesn't allow that route, can make it with 9% at 400Wh/mile though

I just went with the settings it gave as the default and I wasn't logged in (I don't have one for them), possible it makes a difference. As a reference 462 seems really high to me at 65.

 

[mongo]

I just went with the settings it gave as the default and I wasn't logged in (I don't have one for them), possible it makes a difference. As a reference 462 seems really high to me at 65.

ABRP did show 245 one time when I accidentally clicked the A next to it, but that hasn't reoccurred

462 isn't terribly out of line with my data, AT tires, no wheel covers, front aero fairing.

 

[henchman24]

ABRP did show 245 one time when I accidentally clicked the A next to it, but that hasn't reoccurred

462 isn't terribly out of line with my data, AT tires, no wheel covers, front aero fairing.

Fair, that's your data. No aero likely has an impact, but in the 3-5% range... so minor. I can say my AWD gets FAR better than that on more aggressive than factory AT and no front aero fairing (core aero caps). 462 is worse than my 80mph efficiency...

 

[hemiarch]

Fair, that's your data. No aero likely has an impact, but in the 3-5% range... so minor. I can say my AWD gets FAR better than that on more aggressive than factory AT and no front aero fairing (core aero caps). 462 is worse than my 80mph efficiency...

Between 400 and 450 is where I end if I do absolutely everything right towards minimizing consumption.
I’ve read about several mythical 300’s cars but have yet to see one amongst my Cybertruck friends.
maybe with core wheels?

 

[PungoteagueDave]

If anyone bought any EV as a tow vehicle then they didn’t do their research very well. I would never tow out of town with my CyberTruck. It’s just not practical with the range and charger set ups.
When I sold my Ram 1500 for the Last Toyota V8 the old GX, my 4Runner became my Towing Car.
I’m thinking about a new trailer cause I’m about to outgrow my current one. The 4Runner won’t be able to handle said new trailer whenever it happens. So now I’m looking at Ford Super Duty’s for Towing. A heavy duty is overkill perhaps but it’s literally almost the same price, after incentives as a F150.
The Cybertruck is staying. I’d never give up FSD for commuting in town. The cyber truck adds days of charging time towing across country for example. That’s not desirable nor feasible.
I’ve yet to meet a person who has driven a cyber truck and didn’t like the ride. It’s smooth. I think it’s staying. People like big cars. Especially females for some reason; I’ve noticed that recently. Could be just my area. People are more outdoorsy these days. Beach’s. Hiking. Snow sports. If you live next to these areas, the truck is useful for hauling gear for said activities. It’s also useful for home owners for a trip to the hardware store, or electronic store for a new tv, or a furniture store for a small piece that’s too big for a suv or car but small enough where you can manage it and not pay $200 for delivery.

I did plenty of research. I have no issue towing, including a boat that maxes out the CT’s capability. In my case it replaced an F-350 turbo diesel. And it is doing fine. I don’t tow the big boat long distance, but have towed a 4,000+ pound trailer 1,500 miles with no issue. I have nine trailers. The CT is fine for all.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

You really need ~200mi of range when towing long distances at a minimum (I'd argue 250+) and combine that with fast and convenient charging. Anybody who tows long distances isn't going to want to stop every 60-80 minutes to wait 30 minutes on a charge. Even cut that to 20 minutes (which we are not close to that yet), and it is still too much. You can't get around it. Physics is undefeated and we can bend everything we can, but there is simply a significant amount of energy needed to tow. Towing any real distance consistently will simply need a lot of energy capacity AND a way to replenish that capacity quickly.

If people tow once in a while, none of that is needed. It is a minor inconvenience. If there is frequent towing... the answer is capacity and charging. Exactly what Tesla is doing with the Semi.

I have towed a heavy trailer with both the CT and the MY numerous times. It works just fine - here’s the fallacy in the big battery argument - whether you have 150, 300 or 500 miles range is almost irrelevant to how fast you get there.

The only thing that matters is how long the trip takes. If you have a large battery, you will go further on every leg between chargers, BUT you will spend far longer at each charger because the battery is bigger. It works out to about the same as long as you don’t have to unhitch, to stop every 75-100 miles. You simply charge-and-go in 15 minutes instead of 45 minutes - yes, you do it more often but the time works out close to the same. A big battery simply isn’t going to save much travel time.

Last month I towed a 4,500-pound 32’ trailer from Maryland to south Florida. It would do maximum 150 miles at 75 mph, but the trip planner had me stopping roughly every 90 miles. It turned out the trip planner was better at it than me - because the CT trip planner now (1) optimizes automatically for trailer-friendly Superchargers, and (2) forces (encourages) me to stay in the bottom 60% of the battery, so charges were 15 minutes instead of an hour, which would have been my predilection. If I ignored the planner and filled the battery to 90-100% every time it would have been due only to range anxiety - and the fact the CT burns 800-1,100 kWh mileage when under tow.

How much added time vs the F-350 that I did this tow with last year? I charged 12 times in 1,100 miles in addition to beginning with 100%, spent about 25 minutes per charge including on-off highway time, so roughly 5 hours charging vs under an hour refilling the big turbo diesel. That’s not for some people, but not a big deal for me in retirement. My wife actually enjoys it more because there are more stops and she likes to walk. My issue is calling her back because she overestimates charging time and walks too far. This picture is the latest Supercharger standard along I-95 from Virginia southward. There are enough that northbound with the MY in May I never had to unhitch. With the Ct last month I had to unhitch twice, adding ten minutes total to the trip.

 

[henchman24]

Between 400 and 450 is where I end if I do absolutely everything right towards minimizing consumption.
I’ve read about several mythical 300’s cars but have yet to see one amongst my Cybertruck friends.
maybe with core wheels?

All relative on speed really. If we're talking 65, I'm certain that I'd easily be in the 300s with ATs (I'm under 430 lifetime with most of my driving 75-80+ or through dirt roads/snow... in generally a pretty cold climate). I had one really good trip coming down from the mountains and up I25 through Colorado where I was at 355ish (I think it was slightly less, but around there)... but that was perfect conditions and I haven't replicated since. At a steady state 80mph with no major decline in elevation, I don't see it with core wheels/tires. At 65 though, I could easily see it. Speed is simply the #1 factor on range... towing or not. If the speed is kept down, I find the CT to be remarkably efficient. Even the difference from 65 to 70 is in the realm of 5-7% impact. The second that you push up, physics is just too strong... and any boxy trailer makes it far worse.

I have towed a heavy trailer with both the CT and the MY numerous times. It works just fine - here’s the fallacy in the big battery argument - whether you have 150, 300 or 500 miles range is almost irrelevant to how fast you get there.

The only thing that matters is how long the trip takes. If you have a large battery, you will go further on every leg between chargers, BUT you will spend far longer at each charger because the battery is bigger. It works out to about the same as long as you don’t have to unhitch, to stop every 75-100 miles. You simply charge-and-go in 15 minutes instead of 45 minutes - yes, you do it more often but the time works out close to the same. A big battery simply isn’t going to save much travel time.

Last month I towed a 4,500-pound 32’ trailer from Maryland to south Florida. It would do maximum 150 miles at 75 mph, but the trip planner had me stopping roughly every 90 miles. It turned out the trip planner was better at it than me - because the CT trip planner now (1) optimizes automatically for trailer-friendly Superchargers, and (2) forces (encourages) me to stay in the bottom 60% of the battery, so charges were 15 minutes instead of an hour, which would have been my predilection. If I ignored the planner and filled the battery to 90-100% every time it would have been due only to range anxiety - and the fact the CT burns 800-1,100 kWh mileage when under tow.

How much added time vs the F-350 that I did this tow with last year? I charged 12 times in 1,100 miles in addition to beginning with 100%, spent about 25 minutes per charge including on-off highway time, so roughly 5 hours charging vs under an hour refilling the big turbo diesel. That’s not for some people, but not a big deal for me in retirement. My wife actually enjoys it more because there are more stops and she likes to walk. My issue is calling her back because she overestimates charging time and walks too far. This picture is the latest Supercharger standard along I-95 from Virginia southward. There are enough that northbound with the MY in May I never had to unhitch. With the Ct last month I had to unhitch twice, adding ten minutes total to the trip.

To a point the bigger battery takes longer to charge, but with doubling of the battery the effective C rate on the battery is halved at the same power being delivered. So a truck can take a higher amount of power, for longer with a bigger battery. We see this play out directly with the GM trucks. They don't take the initial 500kW the CT now takes at a few stations, but they start at 325kW and hold 260kW charging out to ~60% where CT is in the 120 range (maybe slightly less). Given the large pack GM are ~225kWh gross, the C rate here is roughly the same (in favor of GM)... but the total energy delivered in the same timeframe is vastly different. The efficiency difference in towing is rather minimal because trailers end up being the real aerodynamic drag. Where the big batteries shine is how much longer they can take high power, more than their initial capacity.

A couple to few times a month in the summer I'll take my enclosed car trailer on 150-200mi one way trips. It certainly is more inconvenient during those times to have to stop and charge... not a huge deal but it exists. That's probably less than 10 times all year for me... and might only be 7 or 8. If I was doing that every week though or multiple times a week... I simply wouldn't have the CT. Just wouldn't be the right tool for the job. The roughly 3% a year like that isn't nearly the inconvenience to me, to outweigh the massive conveniences it offers me 97% of the time. If the split was even 25/75, I'd have a different truck.

 

[hemiarch]

Yes. It is all speed related. No doubt.

 

[mongo]

I have towed a heavy trailer with both the CT and the MY numerous times. It works just fine - here’s the fallacy in the big battery argument - whether you have 150, 300 or 500 miles range is almost irrelevant to how fast you get there.

The only thing that matters is how long the trip takes. If you have a large battery, you will go further on every leg between chargers, BUT you will spend far longer at each charger because the battery is bigger. It works out to about the same as long as you don’t have to unhitch, to stop every 75-100 miles. You simply charge-and-go in 15 minutes instead of 45 minutes - yes, you do it more often but the time works out close to the same. A big battery simply isn’t going to save much travel time.

Big batteries do charge faster (in terms of kW, not SOC), up to the limits of the charger. Charge limit is proportional to pack size, double the pack and you double the charge curve. That means nearly double the miles of range added per minute of charging. Followed by being able to go twice as far and cut charge stops in half. It also means you can travel at a higher speed and still make it to the charging stop.

Here is the Cybertruck charge curve on a 500kW post:

Only in the sub 7% zone would a double sized pack not charge at twice the power.

Sponsored