Ford has found some success with its EV lineup, selling tens of thousands of units in 2022 across the nostalgia-baiting Mustang Mach-E and the much-celebrated F-150 Lightning. As it established a beachhead, plans continued apace to expand production capacity for the bright future ahead. It appears rainclouds are now on the horizon, however, as Ford is now planning to slash production for its headliner EV truck just as the Cybertruck starts being delivered.
The root of the problem is that sales are not quite meeting the company’s original expectations. As the company stated in a planning memo quoted by Automotive News, it’s all because of “changing market demand.” The notification went out to suppliers that Ford was expecting F-150 Lightning production to sit at around 1,600 trucks a week from January onwards. That’s a long drop from Ford’s earlier forecasts, which had the Rogue Electric Vehicle Center in Michigan pumping out 3,200 Lightnings a week, with an annual goal of 150,000 units.
It bears noting that Ford’s EV sales are, overall, still on the up. Indeed, for November, year-on-year, Ford is up 43%. Mach-E sales hit 4,294, up from 3,539, while the F-150 Lightning hit 4,393 units sold versus just 2,062 last year. The E-Transit van has fared less well, sinking to 271 sales versus 654 sales last year, but proportionally, it’s not as important.
Regardless, while those sales are better, they’re not good enough. Do the math, and it’s clear—why would Ford build 3,200 Lightnings a week when it’s only selling just over 4,000 a month?
It’s not the first time Lightning production has hit a snag; October saw Ford put one of its three shifts on idle for a time. Indeed, the third shift was initially added late in 2022 as Ford aimed to push production to the max to meet expected demand. In pursuit of that goal, the entire line was shut down for six weeks so it could be expanded by over 70% in square footage to boost production to a higher rate.
Indeed, when Ford was taking reservations, the F-150 Lightning was red hot. The company had 200,000 reservations on the books before order banks opened fully. Everyone wanted a piece of the electric F-150, and Ford ramped its plans for annual production from 40,000 to 80,000, and then considered doubling that to 160,000 units. The double-doubling promised a bright future, but it’s not quite panning out at the current moment.
It’s not the only measure Ford is taking to reign in its short-term EV ambitions. Approximately $12 billion in EV investment has been pushed back, as announced in Ford’s Q3 earnings call earlier this year. The company will delay one of two battery plants it was pursuing with battery manufacturer SK On, and Mach-E production has similarly been tempered for the time being.
Amidst a raging cost of living crisis and with new competitors hitting the market all the time, the future could be rocky for the F-150 Lightning in the short term. However, Ford notes that production of the gasoline-powered F-150 is expected to be unperturbed, and the nameplate still holds more cache than almost any other in the U.S. market.
The big question is whether or not the F-150 Lightning will come back in the long term, or if the highly anticipated Ford T3 electric truck is what will eventually move the needle for the company.
Image credits: Ford
So production plans went from 40K/yr, to 80K, to 160K, and then backed off to 80K? Still double their original expectations before the pre-orders, so not that surprising. Especially for a high-end vehicle released right as interest rates skyrocketed.
I was totally going to buy one, but I couldn’t find a cat back exhaust and cold air intake to make it cool and match my lift kit no dice… I mean WTF
I think the Lightning shows a flaw in the classic design/engineering cycle and early EVs.
Ford is used to doing a ton of work on their F-series, then shipping it largely unchanged for the next 3-4 years then bump it on the mid-cycle, and finally done after 7-11 years.
That just doesn’t work here. They clearly need to rework and rethink quite a bit of how the truck (and mach-e) were engineered. They built an interesting, novel-featured, product, that was compelling its first year. Meanwhile everyone else keeps pushing on motor efficiency, drive train tweaks, etc etc etc.
At this point Ford has a major issue. The lightning as designed and built can never be an “everyman’s EV pickup” it’s just too expensive. BUT the lifestyle customer buying the 70-100k ICE Ford pickup hates EVs. The more coastal lifestyle customer who can buy an expensive EV is more likely to choose the Rivian.
If I was Ford I’d probably burn a lot of money working in the current truck to find and remove cost, manufacturing complexity, excess parts, and weight. I’d consider lowering the truck’s rated performance to get there too.
I’d also spin up a team to work on a unibody truck that is 100% EV, smaller than the f-series (the thing is just too big for most city streets and parking lots, at least out here in Seattle/Portland/etc). Something that fully captures the possibility of a truck with zero ICE concessions and something that targets a tow rating that normal people with a camp trailer or boat will actually use. Right size everything and focus on making it as small as you can. Aero is your enemy.
This is clearly a take from somebody who hasn’t used a Lightning, and also doesn’t use a pickup for work.
The Lightning pro with the extended range battery is almost the perfect truck.
Aero improvements don’t matter AT ALL to a landscaper pulling a trailer with their truck. The aero is out the window the second you hook that trailer up, or throw some ladders on a rack. But the Lightning has all the range a landscaper, or carpenter, or painter, or – pick a trade – needs to tow their trailer or haul their ladders around town all day – probably all week – on one charge.
You know what won’t work for any of those people? A unibody.
They do need to get the price down though. Probably 25%.
My take:
It’s is all about cost. The rich early adopters have bought what they want, and this is what is left. OEM’s have run out of customers until the prices drop to reasonable levels for us poors. We want EV’s, but the rich customers are all driving new cars. This is going to crush OEM’s that built out too many EV’s, and was Elon’s plan the whole time. Clever SOB.
Yeah it’s funny because 5+yrs ago many/we thought once the traditional manufacturers got their shit together, Tesla would be in trouble. No one believed Tesla would produce a 25-35k EV and others would make it happen. We’ll they sure found a way to screw it all up.
They should lower the price then. It should be cheaper than the gas equivalents because it is less capable overall. Range and especially towing and cold weather range requires compromises for lots of typical F150 buyers.
It is especially a bad deal when you compare it against the F150 hybrid.
Seeing F150 Hybrid’s reliability ratings, I would take the Lightning.
It really doesn’t though. I can hook up a trailer and tow 150 miles in the cold no problem. Can’t go much farther than that, but you know what I’ve never done even once in 20+ years of truck ownership? Towed a big trailer more than 150 miles.
If you’ve got a camper or you tow long distances, by all means don’t buy a Lightning. But if you’re a landscaper with a big-ass trailer? It’s an awesome truck for you.
The problem isn’t when you compare it to the hybrid though. The problem is when you compare it to the V8. You can buy two V8 F-150s with the tow package for the price of one ER Lightning with the tow package.
The only thing holding the Lightning back is that it’s WAY WAY WAY too expensive.
That high price is also much harder to hand-wave away when interest rates for new car loans is triple was it was a year or two ago.
Doens’t the V6 Ecoboost have a better tow-rating than the V8?
Yeah but it doesn’t have a V8.
> It should be cheaper than the gas equivalents because it is less capable overall.
My cars are all gassers so what do I know, but I wonder how this same thread would go if we’d all been driving electric F-150s for the last 50 years and now Ford was trying to sell us on an ICE truck for the first time. I bet people would make this exact same argument in favor of the electric that they’re used to.
Yeah, buyers would reasonably complain that they have to go somewhere else to fuel their trucks (instead of at home), spend substantially more on fuel, lose the extra enclosed storage of the frunk, have way less torque, etc.
Both have substantial pros and cons. For some people, the EV is the obvious choice. For other people, gas is the obvious choice. And for the big chunk of people in the middle, they have to weigh the pros and cons vs their use case.
Ford doesn’t make enough of the “Pro” trim and then acts surprised when the people who want a Lightning but who can only afford the “Pro” trim won’t buy one because they literally can’t buy one.
If Ford made the damn Lightning a F-150 and actually sold it in more than one cab, seating, and bed length configuration businesses (you know, the ones who can actually afford BEVs) would buy them just like how they’re buying up every single e-Transit.
Ford built a vehicle for consumers who can’t afford said vehicle. If your target market can’t afford your product and you shoehorned your product for said target market then you’re SOL.
If Ford made a single cab F-150 Lightning with a 6.5ft bed and seating for 3 I’d buy one in a heartbeat, though I’d likely wait till the NACS ones come out before buying more than one.
The thing is regular cab sales are very small at this point. The crew cab 5.5′ configuration is far and away the most popular and I see many fleets that use them.
Yet they’re cutting future production due to the lack of demand…
Do you think those fleets would rather have 5 seat interiors than 6 seat interiors?
My guess is that one of the big reasons so many fleets use the crew cabs is resale value so they probably want the 5 passenger version for the same reason.
Not enough range to be competitive with the other incoming EV trucks. Real world range is not adding up to stated range. Towing range is abysmal, & cold weather experiences are exposing some shortcuts with heat pumps for the battery (they are making an improvement to this for 2024). In cold weather the truck will say it has 150 miles, then abruptly die after 60 miles. They raised the price. They didn’t make the low cost work truck series widely available, because auto companies like to sell the halo trims for all that extra money, which bites them in the ass when people have issues with their $80k trucks. They originally said BlueCruise would be available on every model level, then made it available only on Lariat or higher trim. The charging speed is a generation behind the market leaders, which is probably why they didn’t bother making the battery larger, because if you can’t fully charge it overnight, why bother with any more range?
…other than that, it’s a huge hit, I don’t understand why they aren’t expanding production
The big battery version has the fastest 240V charge rate of any EV in the US.
Doesn’t sound like a common situation that I’ve heard of, despite following the Lightning closely from the start.
The lack of Pro trim availability was a big hit to the satisfaction of the early/enthusiastic reservation holders, though, for sure.
Okay, I’m taking the L on that battery range, which was my main complaint. I have absolutely no idea what I was misreading when I came to the conclusion that it required like 12 hours of charge… yeah early reservation holders mostly wanted dressed up trucks anyhow.
Man… now I want a Lightning, lol
Ford is slashing their GOAL production rate from 150k/yr to 75k/yr, not their CURRENT production rate, as there is no evidence/announcement that Ford ever made it to their ~3k/wk (150k/yr) goal rate.
Current sale rate is ~50k/yr, so 75k/yr would be a 50% increase from their current sale rate.
The original report is misleading, IMO.
Correct, while they did make changes to increase production capacity it does not appear that they ever reached that production rate.
I think this was the plan all along- lie about it being introduced for $40k and collect $2M in free loans in the form of reservations, knowing that it’ll be introduced for $60k+.
Well, they DID sell a relatively small number of the $40k trucks to retail buyers. But I agree that they knew from the beginning that they weren’t going to actually offer a lot of those at that price.
Ford Will Slash F150 Lightning EV Truck Production In Half Due To Their Inability to Accurately Model Costs Or Forecast Demand
It could be that the average F-150 buyer tends to lean conservative. And conservatives seem to think EVs are some sort of liberal conspiracy. And so the few who wanted an electric F-150 have already bought them and beyond fleet sales, the demand has fallen as a result.
I think it’s just because we’re too poor, liberal or conservative we can’t buy a car with no money.
Sounds like they bought into their own hype. Reality hits and they have to adjust.
I think truck EVs are a tough sell. They just keep playing commercials that show a Lightning powering a house. It’s a cool party trick that I can replicate with a $300 generator back fed into my dryer circuit.
They never show it towing a boat, or a horse trailer, or a 5th wheel with a tractor on it. That’s the image that I think resonates with truck buyers. Not powering your Christmas lights in that once-a-year blackout.
Then you drop higher cost on top and it’s a pass.
The second picture on the Lightning homepage is towing a boat.
Multiple versions are extremely competitive on price. After tax credit, the base Lightning is thousands cheaper than the cheapest, slowest, zero-option gas Supercrew 4×4, for instance. The Lightning has way more power, torque, enclosed storage (frunk), power outlets, etc. If your use case doesn’t involve long-distance towing, it’s a really good value.
The “Flash” trim, which has the big battery, is an XLT/Lariat combination, and after tax credit, it’s $63k, just like a similarly-equipped XLT Hybrid would be.
The second run of their homepage is not what they are running over and over again on primetime TV. That’s not the message they are getting out there.
You can’t price it with the tax rebate… What about people that don’t get the tax credit? especially with trucks. Around me 1/2 the trucks are personal use but are really owned by someone’s business/farm.
Even with the credit they are 10-15% higher cost then comparable standard ICE trims. Good luck finding a base Lightning.
I don’t watch live TV, so maybe that’s true, but they clearly do show it doing other things, like towing. There are other photos of it towing an airstream, as well.
Some people won’t get the tax credit, but many people will. If you can afford a new Lightning, you probably make enough to have the tax liability. A bigger risk would be that you make TOO much money ($150k single, $300k married). Business/farm can get the credit, too.
Nope. I just explained that some of them are equal or cheaper with the credit. Some are more, but not 10% more than a comparably-equipped gas truck. The base Lightning isn’t even 10-15% more WITHOUT the credit. It’s $50k before credit and the absolute cheapest, slowest, zero-option gas Supercrew 4×4 is $47k.
Found one. It’s in my garage. I paid many, MANY thousands less than a comparable gas truck. But regardless of that, the Pro is much more readily available now than it has been in the past.
I am always under the impression that Ford is trying to sell as many Lightnings as possible before Cybertruck comes to the market. Now that CT is supposedly coming, Ford is scaling back. But seeing Tesla’s track record, ramp up will take a while my bet is a couple of years. I am not suprised that Ford is reevaluating (or face lift?). Though I have been seeing the trucks often on the road now. It used to be pretty rare.
Why don’t we hear much about Chevy’s GMC EV offering?
I think for all practical purposes the silverado/GMC EV *still* does not exist in consumer hands. They’re trying to give the cyber truck a run for its money in market baiting.
GM is having Ultium battery issues. I think they are calling it production issues, but that might be quality issues as well. I see them field testing the Silverado EV on the freeways though, I believe they are talking mid Spring for deliveries
Demand is down because it was supposed to cost 40k and has been significantly more than that almost its entire lifetime.
Yeah, the continuing ratcheting up in price did the Lightning no favors. I had a friend who originally had a Lightning reservation for one of the base models supposedly in the $40k range. When their allocation came up, the price was pushing $60k and they, like so many others, passed on it.
I think Ford wouldn’t have alienated so many buyers if they just announced a reasonable price instead of $40k.
$40k ($32,500 after tax credit) is a ridiculous price that obviously won’t last when the absolute cheapest, slowest, zero-option, gas-powered Supercrew 4×4 is $47k, now.
Demand is down because the payment on $70k trucks is a lot tougher when interest rates are up.
The “we can charge a zillion dollars for cars through clever financing, thus EVs make sense” era is ending. Make ’em cheap or they won’t sell.
Also, if you’re paying 70k for an electric truck, that’s Rivian territory, which seems to be a much nicer package overall. At least I’ve seen a lot more of them than lightnings, and the owners I’ve talked to are very satisfied.
I shopped both and bought the Lightning.
The Rivian is a more attractive truck (subjective) and a better size for me. But it was missing features (carplay!) and the quality was lacking, and the Ford had massive aftermarket support already.
The Rivian is just as overpriced as the Lightning.
The Lightning is a well-executed first attempt by Ford. In order to cover the extra design and production expense, they are loaded up and quite expensive. Along with limitations in range when working, that makes it an image purchase for most buyers.
Over the past year, culture wars have given EVs the stigma of a liberal scam among many people. I believe this has restricted the number of truck buyers who would consider the Lightning because that’s not the image that they are comfortable projecting.
Truthfully, the only impact to range when “working” is towing. A load, even a heavy one, in the bed, has almost no impact on range.
EV political stigma is a real thing, though I was able to make some inroads with my the pretty conservative side of my family with a few joyrides in my Model S. They were also sad to hear I had sold the Lightning before they could check it out.
I like EVs (have owned three) and I consider myself pretty centered politically, but I have some big concerns about their lifespan. I don’t like replacing vehicles when they are only 8 years old, but current repair costs for EVs that are over 8 years old (mostly Tesla data at this point) can be prohibitively expensive and a big risk to carry. The fact that major components can fail with zero warning, even when exercising proper care is not particularly encouraging.
Like many political narratives, EV disinformation is built on some real information. I am surprised to hear that battery pack longevity and random drivetrain failures are a serious concern for an experienced EV owner. My perception was that this was overblown rhetoric extrapolated from isolated incidents or abused vehicles.
I’ve owned and driven EVs since 2017 and I can’t say it’s overblown, but it is a concern. My ’19 Bolt seems to be holding up just fine in terms of degradation, but the ’17 Leaf has a battery that just barely won’t qualify for a warranty replacement this year. It’s this sort of thing that drives that long term concern. The Leaf is a fine car, comfortable, easy to drive and maintain, great for city driving, but the range is dropping to the point that it’s usefulness is becoming more limited and with the scarcity of CHADEMO fast charging it’s more inconvenient to push that usefulness. It’s a shame that everything about the car is in excellent condition except the motive system and to replace that battery is more than the car is worth, assuming I can even get that work done. Right now my daughter uses it to commute to school, but even just hauling her friends around town requires some planning.
I’d guess that as the tech improves the longevity of the cars will improve as well, but right now I wouldn’t buy a used EV because the remaining useful life is likely very short.
I guess I mentally excluded Leaf drivetrain longevity from my perception because their design shortcuts have been known for some time. I am very interested in Tesla historic data because they are well designed, plentiful, and have been charged across the spectrum of slow home charging to fast supercharging.
The reason the Leaf has such a dramatically lower lifespan when it comes to batteries is that Nissan chose to take an easier route and not use a liquid coolant system and opted for an air cooled design instead. Heat and cold are bad for batteries. They like to be in the room temperature range and a liquid cooling/heating system is by far better.
Well, that’s just like, my opinion, man. I don’t want to say all EVs will explode on their 8th birthday as there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, but it’s also true that we haven’t had a lot of longterm data on EVs beyond the Leaf and the Model S. Those cars haven’t been out of warranty long enough to know the true repair costs, but we’re getting a peek now.
The Model S performance cars have a design fault in the seal that keeps coolant from flooding the motor. It fails and eventually nukes the motor and inverter. $7k.
The battery packs on the 2012-2015 Model S are not “designed to fail” but there are some flaws that cause them issue, such as draining the AC on top of the battery where the condensate can sit for an extended period of time and eventually make its way into the pack, ruining it. Replacement batteries from Tesla are $15-$22k. Mileage also doesn’t seem to impact the battery in the same way as time does.
Unfortunately there is no way to track the percentage of failures outside of the manufacturer, and they’re not telling.
I am hopeful since EV technology is rapidly evolving that the issues I mentioned will be early adopter problems, and that many of them have already been addressed, though non-Tesla manufacturers are just now getting their feet wet in the sector. Hopefully they don’t all go through the same teething issues that are only exposed 6-8 years later.
As an actual EV owner, your opinion is better informed than my impressions. Those are definitely some serious flaws and are going to happen somewhat randomly to the vehicle population. The question is how long and what percentage. These could be the equivalent of Porsche Intermediate Shaft Bearings where it is time bomb, or Triumph Stag cooling systems where fastidious service would prevent leaks and eventually engine failure.
Exactly. With no warning and no real way to know the likelihood, I opted out of that risk by selling my car.
I guess I’m kind of in the dark for expensive car maintenance. My 07 Ridgeline was my most expensive vehicle prior to my first Model S. In a way, some of these repair bills may not be that far off from a P car, M car, or AMG car, but without any real metrics to indicate an impending failure, the failure boogeyman feels a lot scarier. I could at least hear the tick from the bottom end when my Miata was close to spinning a bearing so I could take care of it before it stranded me. Pretty much no warning with an EV.
I am struck by the political projection and posturing around EV trucks. It’s like nobody is willing to actually talk to somebody who’s conservative, so all we can do on the internet is make up what they must think and argue against that.
And of course, if they don’t see the world the same way it must be due to some failing on their part.
I’m a Lightning owner. I come from an extremely conservative family (though I would consider myself moderate and they consider me a “liberal”).
EVs – every single one of them on the market right now – come with real, significant limitations when used as anything but a sub-urban/urban commuter vehicle. It’s not that conservatives see EVs as a “liberal scam”. It’s that they see them for what they are, and think that the liberals are all into them because they drank too much of the kool-aid.
All my conservative family members like my truck very much (as do I), and none of them will buy one, because the cost-benefit analysis is terrible. Whereas I didn’t care because 700HP sleeper truck. If the ER Lightning cost $40k, they’d all have one (except for my stepdad ’cause he’s a Chevy guy).
And one of the best things about it is that it doesn’t “project an image” at all. Most people don’t even notice it unless you open the frunk. It looks like an F-150.
Finally, someone else with common sense on this topic! I was scrolling down to see if I was going to make a redundant point.
I get that this is a site for enthusiasts that are very passionate about everything autos, and it’s hard to detach from the passion, but the red/blue “OH, MY HEAVENS! WHAT WILL PEOPLE THINK OF ME? DOES THIS CAR ALIGN WITH MY MORALS AND ETHICS?” angle of reasoning to buy a piece of equipment is super-duper hyper-focused on the most minute of possible scenarios, and is solely rooted in the purchaser’s own self-identity and not based on brass tacks facts.
The majority of the populace doesn’t draw any conclusion about the owner’s values or political worldview. It’s only a matter of “That’s a cool car.” or “I don’t like that car.” And, that’s if they even notice the brand/make in the first place. Shit tons of people in the world couldn’t care less about anything other than the effect on their budget.
So, trying to rationalize why or why not EVs are a positive by angling it as a conservative/liberal issue is trying to rationalize an answer to a question that almost no one is asking.
The only actual question is, “Does this EV appliance meet my needs in this area better than any other option available in the market?” That’s it. As it stands today, it seems many more people than projected are answering “No” or “Not Now”, particularly when addressing trucks. The industry got this one wrong. It’s not that complicated.
THANK YOU.
The “political narrative” about EVs is ignoring the very real urban-rural split in politics, and the fact is that in North America EVs are a terrible, no-good very bad option for many people. Range anxiety is a real thing when you live 200 miles from the nearest city, especially when it gets cold, or you have to tow, or both. Outside of developed urban areas, charging stations are few and far between, often broken down, and often incompatible with your particular vehicle. The cost issue has been beaten to death, but I’ll just point out rural household incomes are usually less than urban ones. And finally, modern EVs are a goddamn right-to-repair nightmare- you virtually always have to take them to a dealer or specialty shop (who is probably in a city, possibly hundreds of miles away) whereas most farm towns will have a shop that stocks parts and is capable of repairing most ICE trucks, because everyone there has one and uses them for truck stuff.
So it’s really not surprising at all that people aren’t buying a truck that’s a terrible fit for their situation. The only surprising thing was that Ford dropped the ball so hard on this and failed to see the obvious actual market: fleet customers.
I just came back from all automotive tradeshow where I spoke with hundreds of blue collar creative people. As practical working folks I’m sure they would consider an EV if it met their needs. However I heard more than one comment about the death of ICE vehicles and EVs being pushed down out throats by the government. If they are making statements like that publicly, it might take some convincing for them to buy an EV.
Oh the other hand my neighbor the fireman, drag racing enthusiast, and hard-core conservative, leased a first gen Nissan Leaf when they were really cheap. He said it was just too good to pass up. Of course that was long before the EV demonization campaign got into full swing. I bet he no longer drinks Bud Lite.
I know a number of people who will never drink Bud Lite again because they realized just how shit of a beer it is, and how easy better alternatives are to find.
The only thing I can say in Bud Lite’s defense, is that drinking it all day will get you neither drunk nor dehydrated. But then you’ve spent all day drinking Bud Lite, and should probably reconsider your life choices.
Lots of people are willing to talk, nobody is willing to listen.
You have to put on a crazy number of miles to make the cost/benefit equation work on an EV. I’d wager that a lot of people don’t select their truck by using an equation though, or most people would drive a Ridgeline.
A Ridgeline isn’t a truck, it’s a ute.
Not that there’s anything wrong with utes, but a Ridgeline isn’t a truck. Trucks have frames and cabs.
I know people think that nobody uses their truck as a truck, but really most trucks are used as trucks.
And people absolutely use their payment as a major factor in selecting their truck.
The “liberal scam” theory is helped by automakers jacking up the price immediately after production starts, craptastic charging networks (NACS couldn’t come any sooner), politicians trying to institute change through mandates (it rarely ever works out well), etc.
I like BEVs but mandating them by X date hoping they’ll be practical for all use cases by then is idiotic at best. You cannot mandate innovation, nor can you mandate technology into existence.
I think a ton of truck buyers even if they could afford the Lightning and its range worked for them would not buy it because it’s only available as a 5 seat crew cab short bed pickup which is arguably the least practical F-150 configuration for anyone using their truck as a truck, hell even as a lifted minivan with a short bed the 6 seat interior is more practical.
You cannot put a regular F-150 snow plow on it either due to the unique front end.
In truth the Lightning is LARPing as a F-150, the F-150 is a platform, not a single 5 seat crew cab short bed pickup.
You cannot mandate innovation, nor can you mandate technology into existence.
Sure you can!
“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
When that speech was given most of our rockets were blowing up on their pads and we had just followed the Russians into dipping our toes into low earth orbit.
Yeah, but space exploration and going to the moon is slightly different from going to work or the local Publix.
Oh I dunno, sometimes my commute feels like a moonshot.
JFK is a type of leader we don’t have in this country anymore – and a type we could use.
He didn’t mandate landing a man on the moon. He inspired the nation to do it. And provided the necessary support.
We could learn a lot.
“JFK is a type of leader we don’t have in this country anymore – and a type we could use.”
Given what happened to him and his brother are you suprised?
“He didn’t mandate landing a man on the moon. He inspired the nation to do it. And provided the necessary support.”
So did Hitler, posthumously:
https://slate.com/technology/2023/08/nasa-nazi-history-von-braun.html
That’s a goal with a big-ass budget allocation, not a mandate. JFK didn’t forbid Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas from selling jet airliners in favor of rocket planes and tell people that in the 1970’s they were only allowed to fly to Europe via lunar rocket.
The problem with mandates is you are removing choices from people, and they get justifiably upset with that.
I dunno, its not like any average Joe could have chosen NOT to pay the taxes to fund it.
“The problem with mandates is you are removing choices from people, and they get justifiably upset with that.”
Maybe the problem is that it’s a “mandate” and not a “law”.
https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/mandate-vs-law
Are you angry about not being able to spew lead from your tailpipe? Are you justifiably upset other folks are no longer allowed to buy smelly, smoky, 8 mpg cars with no seat belts and chest spearing steering columns? I for one am not. I think those are good things.
As for the EV one a point a lot of people seem to miss is the carve out for PHEVs. I expect as the deadlines get closer and if battery tech isn’t up to snuff PHEVs will be the norm rather than BEVs.
In the US at least, you can replace “mandate” with “regulation” and get the same legal basis. Mandates/regulations are directives from the executive branch of government about how they will enforce the laws, which come from the legislative branch. Allegedly, these two things should be closely and obviously linked to one another, but in practice they are not because the legislative branch moves slightly slower than a glacier, and with considerably less flexibility. The executive branch of the government makes up whatever rules it thinks are appropriate for a given situation, and the end result for the average citizen is the same as a law, the little gals and guys Must Comply, or else pony up for a legal battle they may not win, and even if they win it might not actually be a win.
In my field of engineering, we would call these gradiated regulations. They are the product of incremental, continuous improvement. Very few people object to them for very long, and they are almost always the preferred mechanism for implementing social/political policies via technical means. There is also a sound and rational basis for all of these regulations. I don’t mind this type of regulation, but EV mandates/regulations/laws (in some states) are not gradiated.
EV mandates are virtually all categorical in nature. Lets take a look at the utterly shit California mandate, because CARB seems to be the guidestar for a lot of vehicle regulations. This is a categorical regulation because there is a hard differentiation in categories before and after- starting Jan 1 2035 your new ICE-only vehicle is outright illegal to sell in CA. No credit for efficiency, no recognition of the limitations of EVs, just a flat ZEV or nothing. Generally speaking, categorical regulations are controversial, guaranteed to produce social kickback, and seldom based on a sound technical basis (but usually the product of some lobbying). (Also, that’s the most hilarious FAQ I’ve seen in a while- “I need a pick-up truck, what do I do? A: F-150 lightning (unobtanium $50k trim, realistic $58k trim base costs) or R1T ($75k trim base cost), don’t be fucking poor.” “Will I have to spend a lot of money to buy a zero emission vehicle? A: As the cost of batteries continues to drop, the price of a battery-electric vehicle will eventually become the same as a combustion engine vehicle. [source: our fucking ass]”. The entire thing is a giant fuck you to anyone who happens to make less than the median income.)
PHEVs are a great option, and I’m definitely buying one for my next car. But they are more complex than either a pure ICE or pure BEV car, and definitely result in a price premium. So again, it’s a “fuck the poors” deal, and relying on the corrupt dipshits in government to realize their corrupt dipshittery is going to result in a disaster in time to walk back their corrupt dipshit regulations and not completely fuck over the poor and working class again (this is becoming a theme) is not my idea of a good plan. If CA actually was interested in cutting emissions in a socially conscious and sustainable manner, they would focus on making it possible for most people to live their lives without needing a car (light rail everywhere for everyone, and oh btw enforce laws so grannies aren’t getting mugged by “rowdies” on the daily (looking at you BART)).
“CA actually was interested in cutting emissions in a socially conscious and sustainable manner, they would focus on making it possible for most people to live their lives without needing a car (light rail everywhere for everyone, and oh btw enforce laws so grannies aren’t getting mugged by “rowdies” on the daily (looking at you BART)).”
Some progress is being made. My city is putting in a lot more bike lanes and I for one am using them to the point I fill up once every 4-6 weeks now instead of every 7-10 days. If I had a PHEV I’d probably need to siphon out the gas and burn it in a lawnmower to keep it from gumming up the car. That’s why I want CNG and propane powered PHEVs, those fuels don’t have a shelf life.
I use our light rail when it’s the best public option which is very infrequent. Pretty much all routes take the long way through downtown to wherever I need to go. Express buses and Caltrain are great. I used them when I worked on the peninsula. Caltrain is scheduled to go electric next year so that progress too:
https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification/electric-trains/electric-train-tour
BART is being extended to San Jose, bringing more “rowdies” to the south bay so yeah, maybe that’s not such a great thing.
When I bought my PHEV with the tax credit and local incentives it was cheaper than a standard non-hybrid version at that same trim level.
While I haven’t tried, because putting a snow plow on a $70,000 vehicle is not a wise financial decision, having installed plows, and having been under my truck, I’m 99% sure that several of the common F-150 plow options would work just fine on the Lightning with only a couple minor issues. One is that the wiring would be custom, and the other is that you would disable the active air dam and significantly decrease highway range.
However any reasonable person would just go buy a beater F-350 to plow with for significantly less than the instant depreciation hit a Lightning would take by having a plow mounted on it.
There was supposed to be a $40K Lightning. Nope, Now You Know did a video on it, it would require either relocating the radiator or a bunch of custom fab work. The only snow plow they can fit is one on the rear hitch.
Also if it was so easy for one to get a snowplow on the Lightning why wouldn’t Ford offer a snowplow prep package like they do on the F-150?
Like I said… to mount a plow you have to remove the active aero… and from what I’ve read that’s as much as a 15% highway range hit. I can’t see Ford doing that when they can let the aftermarket do it.
I didn’t actually try to mount a plow, I just eyeballed mine. You might be right about having to move the radiator, but that doesn’t seem like it would be a huge deal.
I think the automakers would have found more success with PHEV trucks to start with. That said, I’ve found the work truck trims of the Lightning to be pretty competitive in price to the gas versions, so I’m surprised more fleets aren’t changing to these. If they are driving within their range every day these can save fleets some considerable cost over the life of the vehicle in fuel costs, maintenance (longer brake life, no oil changes), and warranty costs (since the EV’s come with 8 year warranties on the powertrain). Think of all the municipal support vehicles, like code enforcement, public works, and inspectors who never leave city limits. Construction fleets too. The people I know who have a Lightning do love their trucks. I can’t consider an EV truck because the reason I have a truck is to tow my camper (often 300-400 miles in a day, which would require at least 1 charge during the trip), but I would buy a PHEV truck without much hesitation, except that I hope to keep my current truck for another 8 years.
You’d think there would be adoption if the Fleets saw the math working. Lots of pickup trucks out there that cover 100 miles a day and tow nothing. They might have a couple hundred pounds of gear/materials in the bed, but far from maxing the thing out.
I do notice that some construction/trades people take their truck home at night, so maybe that limits the potential when you don’t have all the trucks coming back to a charging station at your lot.
I’m working with a few municipalities that are starting it. I think the challenge is getting the infrastructure installed at their facilities. The payback seems to be there if they can get past the costs to install the charging systems (because that can be $5,000-$10,000 per level 2 on the commercial side, depending on how far the power is, and if the capacity is there). I tell many clients that they may need nothing more than a dedicated receptacle, since level 1 charging is enough for many of these cars that only travel 30-40 miles in a day and are available to charge 12-16 hours. Another problem is that municipal fleets typically keep cars for 8-10 years, so the churn rate is really slow. Municipalities usually wait for government grants to fund things like chargers, so that slows the process too.
Why go with dedicated L2 chargers when a 240V outlet, necessary hardware, installation, and a charging cable cost a fraction of the price? Then if the charging standard changes (like it has with CCS to NACS) you just change the charging cable, you don’t have to replace the whole damn charger.
The charging “cable” costs the same as a charging “station” ’cause they have the same electronics in them. The most expensive part by a long margin is the wire.
Regular 50A 240V outlets really were not designed to be plugged and unplugged multiple times per day, and have zero consideration for weather resistance.
When somebody says a commercial L2 charger costs $5-10k, most of that money is going to getting the power out by the parking space, setting a pole in concrete to hold the equipment, paying the electrician and contractor, and running a fairly heavy gauge wire dozens of feet. The actual box with the plug and protocol are rounding error.
Who says they have to be plugged in and unplugged multiple times a day? And there’s no reason why a 240V outlet could not be made as weather resistant as a L2 charging station.
I think they do make a weather resistant 240V outlet. It’s called a L2 charging station.
If you did that it would look a lot like one of the current EV charging connectors.
You’re trying to solve an already solved problem by half-assing something for no tangible benefit.
The sad thing is that Ford was originally intending to offer a PHEV F-150 and then decided not to offer it and focus on the Lightning instead.
What fleets are using a majority of 5 seat full size crew cab short bed pickups?
With a regular ICE F-150 even if you’re stuck with a crew cab configuration you can get a 6 seat interior and or a 6.5ft bed.
Kiewet Construction one of the lead contractors for Sound Transit’s Light Rail line uses Crew Cab 5.5′ bed F-150s for the majority of their pickup fleet.
Are they 5 seat variants?
Can’t say I’ve ever looked inside of one, just pass large groups of them on the side of the road where the workers are working, or when driving by them on the road. Most seem to be XLs but apparently the bosses or just a lucky few get XLTs
Ford offered a non-plug-in hybrid F-150 and it was crushed in sales by the shitty version over a few thousand dollars price difference.
All the municipal workers – health inspector, building inspector, parks and rec, DPW head, around here are already driving Lightning Pros.
Ford has dropped the retail Explorer Hybrid and the Aviator PHEV to free up the components to increase F-150 Hybrid production to meet the demand.
Both of these things can be true at the same time!
Could be that the 90% of truck buyers, who actually needs a large hatchback or a wagon, have started purchasing large hatchbacks or wagons?
Could also be explained with a venn diagram displaying the overlap between consumers clever enough to purchase an EV and therfore also clever enough to realize they actually have zero use for a pick up truck.
Unlikely, I think either the Lightning doesn’t quite meet the consumers’ wants/needs, or my personal theory that Ford is hobbling EV (and hybrid) sales to keep pumping out more profitable ICE vehicles.
Ford actually dropped the retail Explorer and Aviator Hybrids to free up the components to increase F-150 hybrid production.
Sadly, no. But it could be that many truck purchasers who could get real value from a Lightning have been socially conditioned that they will be scorned for purchasing an EV.
It’s literally just the sticker price. Really.
If interest rates were still zero they could have leased a zillion Lightnings. But if you want one at current rates you’re looking at a $1200+/month payment.
That’s kind of what happened to me. I bought one of the first Lightnings in July of last year. It was to replace my 07 Ridgeline and Model S. I drove it for 6 weeks and sold it. The ability to pocket a few stacks was part of the equation, but the bigger part was that I just didn’t like driving a full size truck, especially living in the DC area. The power was nice, but despite the “best handling F150 ever” fact, it still handles worse than my Ridgeline.
I bought a newer Model S later last year, and I will probably replace my Ridgeline with another Ridgeline as well unless there is a compelling PHEV midsize pickup on the horizon. The ol’ Ridgeline is reliable, but maybe not reliable enough to wait that long (forever) though. The Ridgeline will tow my Miata to the track just fine.
A “large hatchback” in the US is a Tahoe sized vehicle, and people who make statements opining on others’ need for a truck (or perceived lack thereof) usually get mad when they buy Tahoes as well.
Mad?, could not care less how other people spend their own money.