Chipsky

I've always been a 10+ year truck person... but having just purchased the 2021, I'm thinking this MIGHT be the time I break the cycle. I'd like to see some solar panels on the roof, some range in the 500+ area, and the ability to fast charge in an hour. This would make cross country trips viable when I need to do it.

bisonp

I highly doubt the Lightning will see any significant change by 2024. But the next gen will be well along in development.

Ram may be late and yeah talk is cheap, but they seem to have a more cohesive and ambitious plan than Ford with a very flexible platform. We'll see if they can survive long enough to see it through, it's all vaporware at this point. Right now Tesla's batteries are years ahead of everybody else and they control their own battery production as they have now gotten up to selling half a million vehicles per year. That's a big head start. Ford has only just now committed to invest in large scale battery production a couple months ago.

It's going to be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

dalola

Styling-wise, I would agree. But the EV aspect is a much quicker development time compared to ICE, when you have no emissions to worry about. Once you have the basic architecture, updates are quick & easy (relatively speaking...) as tech advances. I can guarantee you Ford protected the design for those rapid battery & related tech updates in the current layout.

And let's not forget, the actual range of the '22 is likely to be greater than currently indicated.

bisonp

Ford is only expecting to make 80K Lightnings per year, which is probably a limitation of battery supply. By the time the 2024 is revealed or set they may not have even filled preorders. Yeah they can push out some minor updates but any battery change is going to require retooling production of batteries, probably for all their EVs, which won't exactly be simple.

I still don't buy the story that the range is going to be much different than what they have stated. Again, Ford has not officially confirmed that rumor. The predictions I have heard being thrown out there of 450+ miles empty do not add up, even accounting for 1000 fewer pounds.

Pioneer74

iTrader: (3)

It's not just the battery supply. The plant Ford built to assemble the Lightning can only run so fast in its current form. I'm hearing about 14 an hour, and unless there is spare capacity in the Body and Paint buildings I don't know about, just about every Lightning will remove a truck that DTP Final can run.

For comparison, DTP Final can run 70 an hour. At some point, if demand keeps going up, Ford will either need to expand the BEV building to the south, build a whole new plant or completely changeover one of the ICE assembly plants to meet production.

Now, the range issue. I don't have any way of proving it, but talking to some of the engineers and the guys that have hand built a prototype, the stated 300 mile range on the extended battery is low. Expect it to be higher.

stainlessman

[F2C]MaDMaXX

Why did you post that?

Ptoughneigh

Do you often believe this kind of thing when it's going around the internet?

In an actual test that charger took 29 gallons to charge 10 luxury EVs in 8.5 hours, adding 1911 total miles of range. 66 MPG on average. It's a good illustration, as you say, that electricity comes from somewhere, but that EVs are an efficient way to get energy to the wheels.

https://thedriven.io/2018/12/14/dies...han-you-think/

[F2C]MaDMaXX

Yeah i hate those stupid memes with text over a picture, the article from which the original picture came from, not only was a private test of this stop-gap measure, but literally had the usage figures, showing about 3 gallons per hour, not 12.

blkZ28spt

RE: 50% of people with EV's in 10 years...I would absolutely bet money on the under even if we are only looking at brand new vehicle sales. As in, absolutely, less than 50% of new vehicles sold 10 years from now will be pure electric. And obviously quite a bit longer to get 50% of the vehicles on the road as EV.

This is all true. And hilarious

Why so many don't understand that large scale stationary power production facilities, even those that burn fossils, are more efficient and have more and better pollution control devices than the vehicle in their driveway is insane. Nobody thinks their EV isn't polluting at all, but most people realize the total output at the origin facility is less than diesel-trucking the gas to the station to put in the car to burn at the point of use

I think so.

Especially families with 2 or more vehicles. As long as you have one that is has an ICE and is suitable for the infrequent long haul, a 200+ mile actual range is more than enough to cover everything the non-roadtrip-vehicle is likely to ever be tasked with.

And if push really comes to shove and you have to drive hundreds or thousands of miles, it is possible to, you know, rent an ICE vehicle for that one time that comes up.




I think it's nearly guaranteed that my wife's next vehicle with be an EV for this reason. We travel in mine because it's bigger and has a longer range (has been that way and unlikely to change, in our household) so I am unlikely to get a Lightning (very likely to get a Powerboost), but hers? Not really sure why we didn't look at a Mach E instead of the Explorer, frankly.