EREV F-150 Lightning Announced - new Terra competitor

[volswagn]

That survey wasn’t to learn the data, it was to see how owners feel about the data they already have. Big difference.

I don't know about you, but this "feeling" over "facts" is really depressing me. I can't wait to be done with my gas vehicles and move on to the more simplified BEV drivetrain. Trouble is, I maintain my vehicles well, so all of them are worth way more to me than they are to sell them for an EV, and with the price of everything right now, I really don't want to add a car payment to it.

 

[Taghkanic]

it was just a matter of time before this started happening. its too brilliant an idea for existing manufacturers to ignore when they are in need of innovation. guess Scout is onto something .

I think the idea is fine; don’t know about brilliant.

I think the Harvester option mainly serves to reassure some people who are first-time EV owners, who are nervous about taking the full leap.

Having owned both a PHEV and a full EV, I am not freaked out about the possibility of running out of juice. All it really requires is to pay attention, and keep an occasional eye on your charging state and how far you expect to travel that day. You can run out of gas in a regular vehicle, too. Plus they have a lot more potential issues which can lead to a breakdown, given the far larger number of engine components.

Meanwhile, the batteries on these EV trucks are getting big enough that it is really only a very small percentage of extreme off-roaders and long-distance travelers in remote areas that I think will truly need the Harvester. Of course, that depends on what final actual range Scout achieves for the non-Harvesters.

 

[joewilk45]

Are EREV's the bag phones of auto industry ?? And is Solid State battery technology the new Apple phone ?? I tend to think so.

 

[bababooey]

Yet, when I tow my 26' enclosed trailer with a gasoline truck I get 10 MPG. And when I tow the same trailer with the Lightning I get 0.6 mi/kWh which at current energy prices is equivalent to around 3.5 MPG.

So, charge speed is half of the problem. Efficiency is the other half.



True. When I got this truck, first thing I did was go to the LexisNexis website and fill out the form requesting that they suppress the collection of my personal information. That's the company that sells personal data, even to insurance companies who can then use it to rate your policy. I don't want any part of that invasion of privacy, so I requested that they STOP collecting data on me. I also turned off some privacy settings in the infotainment screen.

You’re mixing up efficiency with energy price.
0.6 mi/kWh is ~20 MPGe, which is more efficient than 10 MPG.
If it costs more, that just means you charged expensive electricity, not that the truck is inefficient.

 

[joewilk45]

Here's MG bringing solid state batteries to market this is why I feel theirs hope for Scout to bring a 500 mile EV to market by the time they are ready for production.

file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/ac/12/33F98416-55C3-43F6-A28A-3420B4F967AA/MG%20delivers%20first%20mass-produced%20EV%20with%20a%20semi-solid-state%20battery.pdf

 

[WXman]

You’re mixing up efficiency with energy price.
0.6 mi/kWh is ~20 MPGe, which is more efficient than 10 MPG.
If it costs more, that just means you charged expensive electricity, not that the truck is inefficient.

I don't follow what you're saying. COST is ultimately what matters to people.

What I ended up doing is I made a simple Excel spreadsheet to compare mi/kWh to MPG solely in terms of cost. I also divided it up by charging at home vs. charging on the road.

Charging on the road is a more fair comparison to MPG, and when I look at it from that angle the costs are worse for my F-150 Lightning. I see 2.5 mi/kWh average in summer which is $0.18 per mile. That’s equivalent to a 14 MPG gas truck at current fuel prices. Now that it’s winter I’m seeing 1.8 mi/kWh which is $0.25 per mile, equivalent to 10 MPG in a gas truck. And then when I tow my 26’ enclosed trailer I see 0.6 mi/kWh in perfect conditions, and less if the weather is poor, which is equivalent to <4 MPG in a gas truck. So, clearly ICE is less expensive to drive if we’re talking charging and fueling on the road.

So as everyone knows, to save any money with an EV you have to charge at home. At my current 1.8 mi/kWh average for winter, that’s $0.07 per mile charging at home which is equivalent to a 35 MPG gas truck (which doesn’t even exist).

So ultimately, the answer is that it's both. Inefficient AND uses expensive electricity on the road. But the inefficiency is the key component because that is what drives the COST since the cord on a home charger isn't 250 miles long.

 

[chopsui]

I don't follow what you're saying. COST is ultimately what matters to people.

What I ended up doing is I made a simple Excel spreadsheet to compare mi/kWh to MPG solely in terms of cost. I also divided it up by charging at home vs. charging on the road.

Charging on the road is a more fair comparison to MPG, and when I look at it from that angle the costs are worse for my F-150 Lightning. I see 2.5 mi/kWh average in summer which is $0.18 per mile. That’s equivalent to a 14 MPG gas truck at current fuel prices. Now that it’s winter I’m seeing 1.8 mi/kWh which is $0.25 per mile, equivalent to 10 MPG in a gas truck. And then when I tow my 26’ enclosed trailer I see 0.6 mi/kWh in perfect conditions, and less if the weather is poor, which is equivalent to <4 MPG in a gas truck. So, clearly ICE is less expensive to drive if we’re talking charging and fueling on the road.

So as everyone knows, to save any money with an EV you have to charge at home. At my current 1.8 mi/kWh average for winter, that’s $0.07 per mile charging at home which is equivalent to a 35 MPG gas truck (which doesn’t even exist).

So ultimately, the answer is that it's both. Inefficient AND uses expensive electricity on the road. But the inefficiency is the key component because that is what drives the COST since the cord on a home charger isn't 250 miles long.

We understand what you're getting at but you really are using the word "inefficient" wrong. The lightning is more efficient than an equivalent ICE vehicle, full stop. The cost of electricity is a completely separate issue.

 

[bababooey]

We understand what you're getting at but you really are using the word "inefficient" wrong. The lightning is more efficient than an equivalent ICE vehicle, full stop. The cost of electricity is a completely separate issue.

Someone gets it!

 

[joewilk45]

Here's what I get real time data I drove from New Jersey to fort Myers Florida in a Tahoe gas was 325 in my 2026 Cadillac VISTIQ 165 in Tesla super chargers so to me that's half the cost and no oil changes

 

[Terra4Me]

We understand what you're getting at but you really are using the word "inefficient" wrong. The lightning is more efficient than an equivalent ICE vehicle, full stop. The cost of electricity is a completely separate issue.

Also the costs of both gas and electricity can vary widely changing the whole equation

 

[Mousehunter]

Towing with an EV is possible, but the range makes it a lot more of an annoyance. If you are towing for work (where time is money), or have other time constraints (such as towing livestock) - it becomes a deal killer.

 

[joewilk45]

Something to think about ??

Here's the issue with EREVs (formerly Serial Hybrids) that nobody (else) ever seems to talk about. If the battery in a full EV is expected to last 20 years (and they are!), then a car driven as though fully electric, but using a battery 1/4th or 1/5th the size is going to be cycled 4 or 5 times as often, and will therefore wear out in 4 or 5 years. Plus, Plug-In Hybrid batteries will always be charged to 100% - there's not even an option in those cars to limit it - though it would be impractical anyway given the battery's small size. So, while an EREV might be good for the first owner - I wouldn't buy a used one. The battery will have degraded significantly in 4 or 5 years

 

[chopsui]

Something to think about ??

Here's the issue with EREVs (formerly Serial Hybrids) that nobody (else) ever seems to talk about. If the battery in a full EV is expected to last 20 years (and they are!), then a car driven as though fully electric, but using a battery 1/4th or 1/5th the size is going to be cycled 4 or 5 times as often, and will therefore wear out in 4 or 5 years. Plus, Plug-In Hybrid batteries will always be charged to 100% - there's not even an option in those cars to limit it - though it would be impractical anyway given the battery's small size. So, while an EREV might be good for the first owner - I wouldn't buy a used one. The battery will have degraded significantly in 4 or 5 years

Firstly, the battery is closer to half the size (~150 vs ~350 miles) not 1/4 or 1/5. Second, the erev will have a different chemistry - likely LFP, that is less susceptible to degradation from 100% charge cycles. And finally, the typical use pattern for someone charging at home is to plug in every night no matter what size battery so they aren't in fact recharging more frequently for smaller batteries but rather recharging from a deeper state of discharge which in theory may have some effect but with a 150 mile range, it's still not going to be near a full discharge every day.

 

[Agatl1]

EREV's have been around Volvo plug in's etc. but once Battery technology reaches 500 mile range EREV's won't be the choice of many.

You can build a 500 mile vehicle today... just not at the price and weight we want. But I get your point. I think a consideration is also what happens with the price of recharging at public stations. Currently it is clearly priced at a slight discount to gasoline. If I have a home 50 amp/240V charger, then EREV looks less appealing with a big battery. But if I'm having to do most of my charging at public stations and can't always begin my trip fully charged, EREV still looks appealing.

 

[Hatman]

Looks like Scout Terra Harvester EREV just got a new rival -- the F-150 Lightning EREV

See Ford announcement:
https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...of-f-150-lightning-erev-next-gen-model.33426/

Not an F150 fan but I certainly wouldn’t mind if Scout improved the range to 700+. I think the 150 miles on the battery really needs to be more.