F-150 Lightning EV canceled. To be replaced with EREV Lightning (700+ miles range)

[COdogman]

I know Ford faced an uphill battle with their dealer network fighting them every step of the way on EVs, but they could have found a way around that if they had a spine (incentivize dealers and make a few truly great EVs that will pull customers to those locations). The truth is these legacy manufacturers are incapable of meaningful innovation at this point.

Sponsored

 

[Dark-Fx]

yet you can't evolve an EV product line. Oh, wait! That's all going on in China. Seems every 2 months, the Chinese are INTRODUCING a new, better range battery pack or battery technology

It is pretty insane that CATL has packs that will charge at 12C now. That's almost 8 times faster than Rivian.

 

[Fmc]

I think this is the right decision. A 10,000 lbs /$100k EV still cannot satisfy people who tow. It's clear that most truck buyers will not accept EVs with the current battery tech.

I am not sure an EREV will solve the towing problem. Maybe ford can figure it out

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...er-plug-in-hybrid-towing-ev-battery-chemistry

 

[Dark-Fx]

I am not sure an EREV will solve the towing problem. Maybe ford can figure it out

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...er-plug-in-hybrid-towing-ev-battery-chemistry

Scout's range extender doesn't seem like it's powerful enough for any real towing. Probably would be fine for anyone who lives in flatland, but as soon as you get into mountainous regions, it definitely doesn't have enough output.

 

[rjcrowder]

Honestly, I'm surprised the Lightning made it this long. What Ford doesn't seem to understand is that people don't just by EV's because they are electric. People buy EV's because they are arguably better than ICE vehicles for their primary use case. If you build a truck that is essentially the same thing as a regular F150 but electric, costs more and doesn't tow very far, what's the argument to buy it? At this point in EV maturity, EV's have enough downsides (towing range, charge time, cost, political bias, unfamiliarity) that you have to offer other things that make them seem better for a use case. Traditional automakers don't seem to get this, but it's differentiators like great software that can control anything in the car, full self driving, compelling looks or design elements (such as the Rivian and the gear tunnel, air suspension, etc.), targeting niche use cases (i.e. Rivian "adventure"), wicked fast acceleration, etc. This is where Tesla shines... their cars are arguably "better" than ICE vehicles for many use cases.

Bottom line - just making an electric F150 with a frunk was always destined to be a flop. Not sure why Ford didn't understand this.

 

[Nadus]

If only Ford had heeded the calls of nearly every EV enthusiast and built a Maverick-sized EV truck instead of an F-150 EV truck.

 

[savethemanual]

I think the EREVs are kind of silly. Now if they could have a piece of plutonium in there to charge the batteries that would be awesome

I hear they're working on a Flux Capacitor.....

 

[antimatter]

If only Ford had heeded the calls of nearly every EV enthusiast and built a Maverick-sized EV truck instead of an F-150 EV truck.

This. If Ford or Chevy had a compact truck that was an EV, I would probably have bought it. As it was, I was faced with a full-sized truck or the R1T. Ford would have been much better off leaving the F-150 for the coal-rollers and folks who might need to tow some day (maybe), and putting out a Maverick or Ranger EV. At this point, I say let the Chinese in and make the US manufactures compete on the merits of their products. China will be eating the Big Three's lunch, just as the Japanese did back in the 1970s.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised by this.

 

[Yossarian]

Ford's decision makes sense for a US-based enterprise driven primarily by quarterly results and that relies heavily on the North American market for the sale of its most profitable vehicles. Ford is also likely reacting to the changes in Federal policies that favor ICE vehicles over EV's, and that encourage greater fossil fuel extraction and use, with of couse, the promise of lower gasoline prices.

Ford needs to show profits each quarter, and the ICE F-150 is the company's breadwiner, so dropping the Lightning is understandable. Whether their overall decision on EV production will be a good one in the long-term is unclear however. It's hard to see much of a market for an ER LIghtning (or really any EREV or hybrid) but there may be future for vehicles based on the Ford Universal EV Platform, assuming that we're able to keep the Chinese at bay for a few more years.

 

[Largo72]

By the time they get their EREV to market, it will likely be made obsolete by improved battery and charging tech available to pure EV's.

I'll also say that the Lightning is a great truck, but had an uphill battle against their dealer network and the political landscape.

 

[pricedm]

Does BMW actually make net profit on EV’s? ...

"AI Overview

Yes, BMW states they make a profit on their current electric vehicles,
, matching the profitability of their combustion engine cars, a success attributed to designing EVs for profit from the start, not as loss-leaders, with future models like the "Neue Klasse" expected to boost this even further. While some competitors struggled, BMW's strategy of offering electric options on existing platforms and focusing on high-margin premium models helps maintain profitability as the EV market grows. Key Points on BMW's EV Profitability Designed for Profit: Unlike early EV efforts by some rivals, BMW designed its current electric models (like the iX3) to be profitable from the outset, not just to gain market share.CEO's Stance: CEO Oliver Zipse has repeatedly stated that the idea of combustion engines always being more profitable than EVs is "simply wrong," and all current BMW EVs are making money."

...the BMW customer base is willing to pay a premium price that the Ford customer base is not. Ford is probably making the right decision here. That’s why Porsche was killing it with the Taycan for a couple years - they have buyers that will pay for it.

Ford does not make a profit on most Mach Es. Meanwhile, Tesla makes a significant profit on similar size Model Y. BMW is priced competitively--sort of--for what they're selling. So much for Ford's operational efficiencies.

 

[Captblue]

I hope

 

[skyguyscott]

Man, I miss the era when America, when faced with a challenge, rolled up it's sleeves and went to work innovating -- the WPA, the TVA, the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program...all of these were government-led enterprises when we had real leadership who could clearly explain the problems and marshal the strong support of the public, effectively corral US business, and get the politicians to fall in lock step to pass effective legislation and pay for it all, under a democratic framework. How we have fallen -- this is how civilizations crumble.

So, sad to see Ford following rather than leading, but not at all surprised; I knew there were many at Ford who were not on-board with BEVs, and would not be surprised to read about efforts internal to sabotage the Lightning. It's why I avoided the Big 3 when selecting a BEV -- their hearts just aren't into it.

Paradigm shifts are hard, especially for those who make money and earn livelihoods on the current paradigm. The rail road companies may not have been capable of starting the aviation industry, but could easily have taken it over early on, but everyone one involved thought that they were in the "train business"

I have news for Ford -- if you are so involved with ICE, if you think your customers are addicted to ICE, why would they buy your hybrid if you are still selling ICE? Sadly, those who fear the future are gonna take a victory lap, using this as evidence that BEVs are universally doomed.

IF VW were smart, they would just outright buy Rivian right now while they still can, at whatever price it would take, then let the Rivian leadership in place and alone to keep innovating away.

 

[Spork8]

Ford is struggling to find engineers with Li-Ion manufacturing experience for their battery plant in Marshall, MI. I believe they are calling it "Blue Oval Battery Park".
Source: I get contacted 3-4 times per week on positions there.

 

[CrazyOne]

I am not sure an EREV will solve the towing problem. Maybe ford can figure it out

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...er-plug-in-hybrid-towing-ev-battery-chemistry

Scout uses an NA 4 cylinder. Had they used their corporate 2.0 turbo, it likely would solve power issues.
https://www.audizine.com/forum/show...I-amp-2-0T-FSI-DYNO-GRAPHS-Comparisons-Inside!

AI thinks the approximate horsepower required for towing a 10000lbs trailer with bad aero is below. The NA 4 cylinder would have to rev too high and risk imploding.
65 mph

Rolling resistance: ~26 hp
Aerodynamic drag: ~80–95 hp
Total at wheels: 105–120 hp
At engine: 125–140 hp

75 mph (not recommended, but common)

Rolling resistance: ~30 hp
Aerodynamic drag: ~135–160 hp
Total at wheels: 165–190 hp
At engine: 195–225 hp

I am sure that the added weight of engine was also a factor for Scout. Weight can be overcome, but it will make ride worse, increase tire+wheel weight, will increase costs etc.

Sponsored