Ford reveals pricing for the F-150 Lightning Pro work truck
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I think people are missing the secondary use case for this vehicle (besides the low mileage, fleet primary users), and that is all the suburban men that just have to have a truck, even though they just commute back and forth to their white collar jobs. Honestly, that is probably the biggest use case for this truck.
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
Liberals take over and just a few weeks later we have gay trucks? Coincidence? /parody from:
Liberal Redneck - The Many Crimes of Joe Biden
Liberal Redneck - The Many Crimes of Joe Biden
Upvote
-5
(7
/
-12)
The Lightning’s trip computer adjusts range to reflect towing load and changes recommended charging stops to reflect that.
A planned update will allow the Lightning to use cloud-based data to modify range projections according to the topography — long uphill grades, for instance — temperature, altitude and other factors along a programmed route.
Lightning's towing capacity was tested to more rigorous standards, and over the same routes as a conventional F-150, including the 11.4-mile, 3,000-foot Davis Dam climb in Arizona and Nevada.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I don't think too many commuters will be buying the Lightning Pro (XL trim), that segment has never sold well outside of fleets.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The credit is against tax owed--so your fed tax owed at the end of the year becomes x - $7500. It's non-refundable so it can't bring your tax owed below $0. If you owed, say, $15,000 in taxes and had $14,500 already withheld from your paychecks it would work out like this: $15,000 owed - $7,500 credit = $7,500 owed, minus $14,500 paid = $7,000 refund.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Hmm, I wonder what they added beyond J2807, it's already fairly vigorous including the temp at Davis needing to be >100F for the results to be official. I know during development GM will double the incline percentage for the brake test to make sure that they're well within standard safety margin, perhaps Ford is doing something similar?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Ford gives the charge rate for 1 hour of charging at 32A/240V as 14 miles for the SR battery.
240V*32A*0.9efficiency=6.9kW
So, ~6.9kWh reach the truck in an hour. If that's 14 miles worth of capacity, then:
14mi/6.9kWh = 2.0 mi/kWh
230 miles / 2.0 mi/kWh = 115 kWh
Doing the same calls for the ER battery, which is rated a 13 miles/hr on 32A/240V:
13/6.9 = 1.88 mi/kWh
300 miles / 1.88mi/kWh = 160 kWh
So, those are my guesses based on the info Ford has provided.
Obviously, there's some rounding going on with the 13/14 miles per hour of charging numbers, and some assumptions on charging efficiency, etc., but it's probably in the ballpark.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Trucks tend to be driven at speed, though. I'd have to say the average F150 or 250 on my local freeways is driven at 20 or more mph over the speed limit. On more rural freeways, the large pickups are commonly running at or over 100 mph in the fast lane (I tend to stay in the slow lane with the Prius, because I don't exceed 80 mph). Assuming the Lightning can maintain 100 mph, it will be driven at such speeds, and the users who do that will complain to high heaven about only getting 1/2 of the EPA range.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I have no problem with electric vehicles. My question is this. After growing up in the northeast how long does it take for the batter to drain when you have the heater on,wiper blades going, headlights on. It must drain the battery down pretty quick. Any real world advice.
Upvote
-4
(3
/
-7)
This is not really accurate, I don’t know of any EV where the usable capacity is only 75% of the total capacity. Even this forum’s least favorite BEV the Audi e-tron lets you use >91% of the battery’s capacity, and you probably can expect that to increase as Audi learns from the cars in the field and gets less conservative via an OTA update.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
The heater can be a fairly big drain, which is one reason heated seats are so common in EVs. Everything else you could possibly run in an EV is completely inconsequential. The wipers don't use a damn thing. Think of it this way: would your wiper motor be able to drive the truck? Wipers and headlights and speakers use absolutely nothing compared to the amount of energy required to propel a multi-ton EV.
In the dead of winter, expect 15-20% range hit.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Google is your friend, but most EV drivers report a 10-20% hit to range in cold weather. Windshield wipers and headlights are negligible draws, but the heater really draws it down unless there's a heat pump installed.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
actually, even if you now WFH (I do) , I already have a car.
As a second vehicle, leasing a EV truck, seems a more more rational choice than buying *ANY* ICE.
The wall-plug charger is probably sufficient if you are not commuting...
Long on TSLA. Good move Ford!
S
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
You can see actual numbers in our Ford Mustang Mach-E review. https://meincmagazine.com/cars/2021/02/fo ... -electric/
On short journeys it’s possible to use about 20-25% of your energy on the climate and accessories. Although you’d need to leave your headlights on for several days to run the battery down.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
You sure did; the constant done of "lol, smol penis" from people without useful contributions has gotten on my nerves.Every time someone insults someone else' penis, I can't help but speculate why the person offering the insult is so sensitive about relative genital size.Damn.
$10k for:
1. 70-miles of range
2. faster charging
3. ???
Doesn't sound like a "no-brainer" upgrade to me.
It probably also increases some performance aspects, and since most people don't buy trucks to do work, but instead to make them forget about the size of their manhood for a while, such things can't be overlooked. With the 300 mile version it will probably be a bit more performant than the lowest end Teslas.
Sounds like I struck a nerve. Also, truck nuts don't help anyone's case if you're trying to argue there isn't a bizarre machismo aspect to the market.
Upvote
-5
(3
/
-8)
Personal observation with a Chevy Bolt in California (not on the coast), that parks in the driveway not the garage: midwinter with nights dropping slightly below freezing (minimum ambient temps this winter were in the high 20s F) around dawn, using the heater and defroster (though certainly not at Midwest or Northeast levels), colder temps invoking some battery management heating, higher rolling resistance due to cold tires and everything else, and the other hotel loads (radio, lights, etc.) result in loss of 30-40 miles of range (from the 200 observed during the spring and fall optimum periods, with the battery-recall-related capacity reduction in place). Summer with a/c use and pack cooling results in 25-30 miles range loss. I have the basic Bolt LT with no heated seats etc. - so probably worst case for heating needs.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Most people won't be maxed out unless they are in a home older than about the 1970s when 200 amp service became standard/part of NEC for a typical American home.
Prior to that, a 100A service was considered acceptable (this transition was largely because residential A/C became fairly standard in to the 1970s where it wasn't in the 1960s and earlier).
Generally a lot of utility companies will happily upgrade your service for free. They are in the balancing act of WANTING people to use more power, but also wanting people to conserve.
If they won't for free, usually you are only looking at between $800-2000 for the utility company to upgrade your service or install a 2nd service. Electrician cost though might be high depending on what you need. For dual service keeping the existing 100/200A service in place and adding a 2nd 200A service on a new panel is probably going to run you in the range of $1200-2000 depending on where you are. If you are replacing an existing 100A panel and upgrading it to 200A it may be in the similar price range or might end up being significantly more depending on what the local code authority wants done (for instance, they might be fine with just replacing the panel. They might however, require all existing circuits be upgraded with AFC/GFCI breakers as appropriate to meet current code, which could end up tacking on $1000-2000 of breakers for an entire panel).
But the majority of panels I've looked at in renovations work and inspection should have the space for another double pole breaker and TYPICALLY, would have the head room for a 50 amp or even 80 amp breaker in there if it is a 200 amp service. Most homes aren't even close to the VA loads a 200 amp service is spec'd for in NEC (you don't add up the breaker ratings, you have to do a whole house load calculation using NEC's worksheet. And it is STILL based on incandescent lighting, not CFL or LED lighting for the load calculations.
I did a quick calculation based on the AVERAGE 3000sq-ft finished space US home in my zone, running a single 5T air conditioner (which is a bit large, despite what I am seeing for how it should be sized for my zone. I see more like 4T single units, only occasionally 5T or a pair of 2-2.5T units with dual zone for 3000-4000sq-ft houses in my zone.
Anyway, I am up at about 30,000VA total load calculation for a typical 3,000sq-ft house. That is 125 amps. An 80 amp charger is actually only going to pull a MAXIUM of 64 amps (fixed load, so it is limited to 80% of rating by NEC). So you'd be at 191 amps. Pushing it, but still within the maximum per NEC.
And to be frank, NEC there would still be conservative still as I don't think they ever adjusted down on the lighting load. They still use 3VA per sq-ft (to get complicated you also then add in the small appliance circuits, the laundry circuits each at 1500VA, subtract 3000, multiply by 35% and then add back in the 3000 to get the general lighting calculated load). But NEC is still effectively basing things off of incandescent lighting as they still recommend 20lm per sq-ft for illumination. Which even using incandescent lights is actually only about 1.5VA. You can see where this is going, CFL and LED are significantly more efficient than that. And code assumes a higher 30lm per sq-ft light level for work oriented areas such as kitchens.
Anyway, that is a LONG winded way of saying your average American house (which is only 1920sq-ft IIRC) with a 200A service is going to have TONs of room for a 50A EV charger and likely could fit in an 80A vehicle charger just fine and still be well within the headroom of its electrical load with a 200A service. Even a larger house is probably fine. Now a BIG house probably won't be unless it already has dual service. My 2600sq-ft rancher, 5600 with basement, already has dual 200A service (though you'd do the total load calculation for 360A, as that is what the service is, split 200A to each panel. Don't ask). And the actual calculated load for my house is about 140 amps (~34,000VA) based on the NEC worksheet (I don't have an electric water heater which helps). Realistically the way the general lighting calculations are done (even taking in to account some of that load is because you like to do things like plug in TVs, stereos, etc.) it would be more like 120 amps (also of note, My basement isn't air/conditioned. I have a pair of 2T A/C. No heat pump/electric heat. My head is wood/oil).
So I've got plenty of head room for a COUPLE of 80A EV chargers.
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
Damn.
$10k for:
1. 70-miles of range
2. faster charging
3. ???
Doesn't sound like a "no-brainer" upgrade to me.
I think that depends on who's signing the check. For a fleet manager, maybe not. For an individual, it may very well fall into no-brainer territory.
True,
There is the FOMO aspect to those features - and kicking oneself for not upgrading it if/when those edge cases come up.
Someone planning on towing frequently and/or worried about cold weather affecting range would have a much easier decision to make.
While I just like the idea of a bed and a large frunk, with room for 4 adults.
Not sure yet if that frunk holds 4 adults.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I continue to be completely baffled how the automakers get away with moving so many vehicle controls to touchscreens. Forcing users to use non-haptic controls (that is: forcing them to take their eyes off the road) seems like it should fall under the "too dumb for words, of course we will not allow that" rule of thumb. So... why do we allow that?
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
Because when a car has subsystems that have several pages of menus and submenus for settings, you can't really accomplish that if you have to have an individual physical button for each function.
And if you're poking around in a submenu you shouldn't also be driving, obviously.
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
No, an 80A EVSE can pull 80A continuous from a 100A circuit. I'd expect very few homes to have a spare 240V, 100A circuit. But most people would have such an EVSE installed by an electrician anyway who could upgrade your panel at the same time. Most people who care about saving $2k would charge at a lower rate (or burn their house down on accident).
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Damn.
$10k for:
1. 70-miles of range
2. faster charging
3. ???
Doesn't sound like a "no-brainer" upgrade to me.
I think that depends on who's signing the check. For a fleet manager, maybe not. For an individual, it may very well fall into no-brainer territory.
True,
There is the FOMO aspect to those features - and kicking oneself for not upgrading it if/when those edge cases come up.
Someone planning on towing frequently and/or worried about cold weather affecting range would have a much easier decision to make.
While I just like the idea of a bed and a large frunk, with room for 4 adults.
Not sure yet if that frunk holds 4 adults.
If they're dead, they can't complain about the cramped accomodations, amiright?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Damn.
$10k for:
1. 70-miles of range
2. faster charging
3. ???
Doesn't sound like a "no-brainer" upgrade to me.
I think that depends on who's signing the check. For a fleet manager, maybe not. For an individual, it may very well fall into no-brainer territory.
True,
There is the FOMO aspect to those features - and kicking oneself for not upgrading it if/when those edge cases come up.
Someone planning on towing frequently and/or worried about cold weather affecting range would have a much easier decision to make.
While I just like the idea of a bed and a large frunk, with room for 4 adults.
Not sure yet if that frunk holds 4 adults.
If they're dead, they can't complain about the cramped accomodations, amiright?
Google tells me that a human body is 1.76 cubic feet and the frunk is 14 cubic feet so you could actually fit almost exactly but not quite eight adults.
I don't think this is why there is a drain plug in the frunk.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Because human interface design rarely is taken seriously outside aircraft cockpits and computer gaming.
For example fighters use MFDs because touchscreens are so imprecise especially when operated with gloves. Touchscreens are cheap and software is cheaper than hardware. This will not change and vehicle controls will not improve because all five people who understand what I just typed have zero influence on vehicle design nor did they during the manual control era (see entertainment and climate controls for some of the worst).
Nothing is "too dumb for words" to non-technical people. Wheeled vehicle customers are excited by trifles and indifferent to much else. (Working at a used car lot was HIGHLY educational in that respect!) The solution will be self-driving tech because humans cannot be made reliably competent vehicle operators except in niche cases like trucking (and much of that is a clown show behind the scenes). Humans are as poor at wanting and choosing tech as they are using it.
Wise design accounts for real not ideal users.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
It's not just the circuit, it's also the service. I live in a late-1990s subdivision where the utility provisioned the houses for 200A. Most only got 100 or 125A originally, because most use gas for heat and cooking, so upgrading to 200 isn't horribly expensive (adding a 40 or 50A circuit for a normal Level 2 charger, at worst, requires a panel replacement). But the service limit is 200A. If the house has already been upgraded to a 200A panel, say, to power a pool pump or a spa, or has an electric kitchen, there's not enough service capacity for another 100. Adding actual service capacity means having the utility pull new cables, which can get a bit pricey in an area with underground utilities ...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
That's nice and all, but it doesn't change how you're stopping for a half hour every 2 hours to charge.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The volume savings they get across all f series on every other non-electrics car component is how they do it.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
If you were in the market for a car, what would be your pick for
(NO supercars)
1. Gas car
2. EV
I think most people already know you have an affinity for hatchbacks
Also any preference for an electric bike ? (not a motorbike)
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Yeah, towing anything that adds significant drag is going to be absolute murder on the range. I watched this video about towing a 4500 lb utility trailer with a Model X, which showed just how bad it can be. TL;DW they had to resort to extreme measures like reducing speed to the highway minimum and drafting to make a 66 mile round trip starting with a ~70% initial charge. The Model X was consuming energy at over 900 Wh/mile.
Now, I suspect the F-150 would do quite a bit better than the Model X since it's less aerodynamic to begin with and has a bigger footprint which might help wind resistance, but it's still going to hurt range a lot.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The F-150 should have ~ 112kWh battery at the standard range & ~ 150kWh on the extended range
The F-150 will tow better, but & this is a big if, it will come down to a few things
1. BMS - Battery Management System, cooling etc
2. Motor efficiency
3. Heat pump etc. I expect every other car maker to tear open the Model Y & see how they did this
I think 300 miles is too low for that battery size & real world testing will be a better indicator.
Maybe Ford has a few things under wraps on the actual mileage & it may be better than we know at the moment
Long Way Up showed the Rivian's being extremely capable & tough, but even those had spots of trouble getting charged. It was still a very good series that showcased ev's
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Wow, that's an absolutely massive battery, but I guess I'm not surprised given the large size and (apparent) lack of aerodynamic optimizations. Even given the economy of scale for the F-150 that others point out I'm amazed that they can sell it at these prices.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I really dislike when they say “a truck owner only drives an average xxx many miles.” Yes but the average is pretty meaningless because it could be 0, 0, 300, 300, 300, 300 and 300 miles in a week but be “average” of ~215 miles per day. Perfect for a 230 mile pack!
Nope!
I do think 230 miles will be fine for most contractors but the way they throw around “averages” can be disingenuous.
Nope!
I do think 230 miles will be fine for most contractors but the way they throw around “averages” can be disingenuous.
Upvote
-4
(2
/
-6)
On that note, I wonder if the larger E-/F-450 and 550 series vehicles would ever include an optional SAE J3068/IEC 62196 Type 2 connector and 3Φ480VAC onboard charger that could tap into industrial AC power feeds. It might be cheaper and more versatile than rolling out DC Level 2 chargers for the fleet.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)