The F150 EV Lightning thread

One of the cool hacks in the F-Series trucks has always been to get the XL model and add the STX package for a darn-near XLT at (usually) somewhat of a discount.  I'm wondering if they'll have a similar option for the Lightning Pro...although to be honest, that's a nice looking truck as is.

The extended range version would handle 99.5% of my DD requirements, including inducing apoplexy in unsuspecting passengers with 4.5 second runs to 60 mph.  I'd still keep the diesel dually for long haul heavy towing, as I would nearly max out the tow capacity and range wouldn't work great.  I think it would be a hoot to sell my winter beater and run the Lightning in winter TSD rallies too, but there aren't enough big honkin' chargers anywhere nearby that could shove miles into that thing fast enough.  A rally is 180-200 miles at an, ahem, "brisk" pace - between range degradation in the cold and going WFO on the, uh, electro-velocity potentiometer thing, it's probably not the right tool for the job.  Fringe/edge use case, and does not remotely reduce the overall awesomeness of the truck.

Electrify America map shown below....  

Don't restrict yourself to the Ford network. These things use CCS chargers, so here's what that area looks like in Plugshare when filtered for CCS. Still a bit of a hole in the middle but better. The wrench means it's "under repair" which also seems to include under construction. Also, good lord Ontario has a lot of chargers when you zoom out.

And this generation of the Lightning (and Mach-E) won't last but a few years:

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/25/ford-two-dedicated-ev-electric-platforms-2025/

In other words,  a model T Ford EV. 
 I love it when management looks beyond the quarterly return box.   

From another forum:

I was curious about the $39,974 starting price for Lightning Pro before the $7,500 tax credit. So I went on Ford's website to build the ICE equivalent... a F-150 XL crew cab with 5.5 ft bed and 4WD. Right off the bat, the MSRP is $42,500 with the standard 3.3 V6. But wait, Lightning has color matching bumpers, alloy wheels, copilot 360, larger screen and a bunch more standard equipment. So you have to add STX package, 101A equipment package, and copilot 360 to the list. So now I'm up to $45k. So comparatively equipped, Lightning Pro is about $5k cheaper than a regular XL, and the XL has a slow poke 3.3 V6 that won't rip 0-60 in 4 seconds, and no ProPower onboard generator, amongst other deficiencies.

So Ford not achieved EV and ICE price parity... they've blown right past it (at least based on MSRP) and made the EV a huge bargain relative to ICE:

• Lower starting MSRP
• More standard equipment
• More power
• More features (like ProPower which is not available on 3.3 V6, and secured frunk storage)
• Lower running cost
• $7,500 tax credit

The Lightning Pro after tax credit is roughly $12,500 cheaper on MSRP basis compare to 3.3 V6 XL 4WD. If you opt for any of the more powerful engine combo to get close to engine output parity, the difference becomes a huge gulf. Yes, I know some will chime in about discounts on ICE F-150... sure, no one should be paying MSRP on a XL but that's not the point... Even if you throw 20% off MSRP on that $45k STX I build, you still paying more after tax credit, and you end up with a XL with 3.3 V6, not a Lightning Pro that can do a lot more things, including drag racing a Ferrari.

Factor in running cost, if I'm a fleet buyer, there is no chance I would even consider a gas power F-150 XL when Lightning Pro is this cheap. So if can do the math, so can everyone with a fleet account at Ford. How is Ford going to meet the demand on this truck? How soon is that SK battery plant coming online?

m4ff3w said:

And this generation of the Lightning (and Mach-E) won't last but a few years:

 

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/25/ford-two-dedicated-ev-electric-platforms-2025/

Not surprising. Once the big automakers get on board, we'll start seeing a much more typical development cycle of distinct model years and frequent refreshes as opposed to Tesla's much more gradual approach. For one, they've got resources that Tesla can only dream of. And it's a different type of marketing.

Remember that the Lightning  and Mach E are the first generation, they'll go through a few rapid evolutions as they mature. Although the F150 sure looks like it's a few generations in already.

About that pesky towing recharge problem, this was spotted today in Frisco, CO.

Also, I wonder if the paint (or lack thereof) is an indication of what panels are unique to the Lightning?

Thank goodness they camouflaged the rear bumper! 

In reply to STM317 :

What rear bumper?

Chris_V said:

From another forum:

I was curious about the $39,974 starting price for Lightning Pro before the $7,500 tax credit. So I went on Ford's website to build the ICE equivalent... a F-150 XL crew cab with 5.5 ft bed and 4WD. Right off the bat, the MSRP is $42,500 with the standard 3.3 V6. But wait, Lightning has color matching bumpers, alloy wheels, copilot 360, larger screen and a bunch more standard equipment. So you have to add STX package, 101A equipment package, and copilot 360 to the list. So now I'm up to $45k. So comparatively equipped, Lightning Pro is about $5k cheaper than a regular XL, and the XL has a slow poke 3.3 V6 that won't rip 0-60 in 4 seconds, and no ProPower onboard generator, amongst other deficiencies.

So Ford not achieved EV and ICE price parity... they've blown right past it (at least based on MSRP) and made the EV a huge bargain relative to ICE:

• Lower starting MSRP
• More standard equipment
• More power
• More features (like ProPower which is not available on 3.3 V6, and secured frunk storage)
• Lower running cost
• $7,500 tax credit

The Lightning Pro after tax credit is roughly $12,500 cheaper on MSRP basis compare to 3.3 V6 XL 4WD. If you opt for any of the more powerful engine combo to get close to engine output parity, the difference becomes a huge gulf. Yes, I know some will chime in about discounts on ICE F-150... sure, no one should be paying MSRP on a XL but that's not the point... Even if you throw 20% off MSRP on that $45k STX I build, you still paying more after tax credit, and you end up with a XL with 3.3 V6, not a Lightning Pro that can do a lot more things, including drag racing a Ferrari.

Factor in running cost, if I'm a fleet buyer, there is no chance I would even consider a gas power F-150 XL when Lightning Pro is this cheap. So if can do the math, so can everyone with a fleet account at Ford. How is Ford going to meet the demand on this truck? How soon is that SK battery plant coming online?

That's incredible. I have not priced a full size truck, so I did not know this and it was helpful. Better than price parity on an F150. The future is here, folks.

This reviewer was told by Ford that the 300 mile range rating was done with an extra 1000lbs of payload. When he got his hands on an empty truck it showed 367 miles of range with the battery at approximately 80% capacity. So this thing could have 450+ miles of range when empty and fully charged, which makes the lengthy charge times Ford released seem a lot more reasonable:

I would want independent verification of that 1000 lb claim - I have a healthy skepticism of random YouTubers for information.

Keith Tanner said:

I would want independent verification of that 1000 lb claim - I have a healthy skepticism of random YouTubers for information.

I would too, but Marques is a pretty well-respected guy in electronics circles.

Since this conversation is happening in two places, I'll repeat my comment:

The 1000lbs in the bed thing sounds suspect, but I could see it. Ford has gotten in trouble before for inflating ICE fuel mileage figures, and pretty much everyone in the EV market has had some amount of accusation of inflating range figures. Maybe they've finally decided to play it safe, while also showing how the trucks function in their intended use, not just best case conditions. Losing a third of its range with half of its payload capacity seems rough though. If that is accurate it's a really bad sign for towing range.

dps214 said:

Since this conversation is happening in two places, I'll repeat my comment:

The 1000lbs in the bed thing sounds suspect, but I could see it. Ford has gotten in trouble before for inflating ICE fuel mileage figures, and pretty much everyone in the EV market has had some amount of accusation of inflating range figures. Maybe they've finally decided to play it safe, while also showing how the trucks function in their intended use, not just best case conditions. Losing a third of its range with half of its payload capacity seems rough though. If that is accurate it's a really bad sign for towing range.

like most companies except tesla understate their ev range it seems, most exceed the epa range.

For gas-powered cars, manufacturers have to advertise the EPA rating. They don't get to pick and choose. Why is it different for EVs? Or are the EV ratings flawed?

Keith Tanner said:

For gas-powered cars, manufacturers have to advertise the EPA rating. They don't get to pick and choose. Why is it different for EVs? Or are the EV ratings flawed?

Do the EPA EV ratings take into account the effects of regen? Not sure they do.

So it looks like the EPA rating is a dyno cycle, which means that payload is not much of a factor. I can't find anything easily from the EPA that discusses regen, but here's what Edmunds says:

In EPA tests, a vehicle is run in the default settings at startup. If there are more efficient drive modes available, or if you can increase the level of regenerative braking, but the vehicle doesn't default to these settings, they won't be utilized.

Keith Tanner said:

I would want independent verification of that 1000 lb claim - I have a healthy skepticism of random YouTubers for information.

Agreed. He's a tech guy, not a car guy. I think there's been a miscommunication somewhere. This article covers the basics of the EPA range test for EVs.

Payload doesn't factor into EPA tests. Regen can, depending on how the manufacturer implements it, and how aggressive they are.

The Youtuber put out a tweet in response to the range claims that doesn't really clear much up (other than the fact he's not much of a car guy), but may have a theory for why the specific truck he had showed 367 miles of available range with 80% battery capacity:

Anyway, it will be interesting to see some real world range results when this truck is more available. It would be a mistake to make it hard to hit the estimated range. Truck owners take their specs seriously, and it's far better to under promise and over deliver than the opposite.

https://news.yahoo.com/fords-head-evs-explains-f-125200166.html

In that article Ford's head of EVs says "The company is targeting an EPA-estimated range of 300 miles for its extended-range model, and, according to Palmer, it achieved that with 1,000 pounds in the bed and without a bed cover. So drivers may end up surprised by how much range they're getting rather than disappointed by it, especially if they add a drag-reducing tonneau cover and don't haul very much."

Right, but it could have had a giant inflatable duck on the roof if that test was done on a dyno. We'll just have to wait for real-world results. It could be that payload in the bed doesn't really affect range very much (my suspicion) so they're basically just taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge of the testing regimen or assuaging their fears, depending on how you view it.

For a $100 refundable reservation fee, I'm in. We're using an MDX to tow our small (~16') camper trailer right now, and we're planning to upsize next year, so this will go right along with that. We also really like the idea of the house-power backup as our utilities are above ground and we have at least one power outage a year.

The subject of charging comes, and yesterday I drove out to Ucuclet Highway 4 through Port Alberni I stooped at a rest stop in the middle of nowhere and found this

three stations and that's the view and there is a rushing river the other side of the chargers. Interesting historical side note that's the Taylor River Rest Stop and in August 1967 there was a massive fire that pretty much consumed everything so that's all second growth.

That's awesome. We love Vancouver Island but haven't had a chance to camp up there yet. Our trips up there have all been either to Victoria or to smaller Inns up-island. We're itching to spend some time up there once CA decides to let us back in.

Confirmed today that I have the first reservation at the dealership in town. The new blue color for 2020 is antimatter blue. It's already preloaded in the computer for PPG. We shot up a spray out to see what it would look like.

excitied to see how this all goes once configuration opens up