Lucid CEO: It Is Not Possible To Make An Affordable Pickup Truck Without An Internal Combustion Engine

While at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, I had a great discussion with Lucid CEO Peter Rawlinson, an engineer of the highest caliber, and someone who — as far as I could tell — has no intentions of bullshitting you about the way cars work. I say this because, when I asked Rawlinson about how his company’s goal of reducing Vehicle Demand Energy (i.e. the amount of energy needed to propel a car down the road) aligns with America’s obsession with pickup trucks, he told me something I wasn’t expecting from the CEO of an Electric Vehicle company.

One thing I love about talking with engineers in the auto industry is that it is borderline impossible for them not to be truthful about science; it literally pains them (I say this as an engineer myself). I recall speaking with Porsche engineers about the Taycan just before it launched, and I remember them admitting that they had chosen to make the vehicle worse in certain areas in order to make it better in others. This idea of compromises is just how engineering works (I often say engineering is the art of compromise-making), but to some of the marketing and public relations professionals out there, the idea of saying their car isn’t perfect in every way is a nightmare. So speaking with engineers is refreshing.

I bring this up because it’s no surprise that the only CEO of an electric vehicle company who I’ve heard actually say something positive about internal combustion engines is none other than Peter Rawlinson, also the Chief Technology Officer of Lucid. He’s friends with Autopian contributor Huibert Mees, and he works with Friend Of The Site Cory Steuben (formerly with Munro and Associates).

Lucid’s Goal Is To Make Vehicles That Require Less Energy To Travel Down The Road

We had a nice chat at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, and while you’ll be able to watch the whole thing in an upcoming video, this little nugget I’m discussing now happened shortly after the cameras shut off. Rawlinson had just explained to Autopian publisher Matt and me how he believes it is critical for electric vehicle manufacturers to find a way to distinguish themselves technologically. He thinks automakesr have to do something beyond just offering some nice styling if they want to really succeed in the EV race, and more than anything Rawlinson thinks the key is range. But not just “Throw a bunch of kWh at the problem”-range; he’s talking about achieving range via a systems-level, “big picture” approach.

What this means is understanding how the various systems in the car are interwoven. Example: If you can use a vortex induction system to optimize airflow across a radiator, you can reduce that radiator’s size, which reduces the frontal area requirement, which reduces drag, which further increases the car’s overall efficiency, which further reduces powertrain heat rejection, which can allow for an even smaller radiator, and on and on.

Rawlinson and his team care about range, sure, but more specifically they are obsessed with miles per kilowatt hour — the number of miles a car can travel per kWh of electricity in its battery pack. Lucid’s goal is to crank out cars that will drive 6 miles per kWh, meaning a little 40 kWh battery will drive 240 miles, thus allowing more families to drive electric using a given number of battery resources.

That’s all well and good, but America loves big-ass trucks. A 6 kWh car is inherently going to be small, and this doesn’t align with Americans’ taste. So what’s the answer? Well, let’s get into that short part of the interview:

“So, is there a concern that Americans really love boxy, big inefficient machines?,” I ask. “And that goes counter to what you’re all about??

But What About America’s Love For Boxy Trucks?

Rawlinson replied: “I think they like big boxy machines, yes. But [the Lucid] Gravity is big, it’s got a lot of interior space, and it’s an SUV. It’s not that boxy, it’s more aerodynamic, I think it’s a compromise.”

A moment passed when Rawlinson seemingly realized that, as compelling as the Gravity is, it won’t satisfy every American’s desire for big trucks.

“But let me tell you the reality is, and it’s me saying this, that it is not possible today with today’s technology to make an affordable pickup truck with anything [other] than internal combustion.”

As the track was rather loud, I asked Rawlinson to repeat that.

“The only way you can make an affordable pickup truck today that works is internal combustion.”

Are Range-Extended EVs A Viable Option?

This led me ponder what Rawlinson’s take is on range-extended EVs like my BMW i3 and the upcoming Ram Ramcharger — this type of vehicle is the reason why I defend PHEVs regularly on this site. Here’s me posing the question in the longest-winded, least elegant way possible:

“I have a question for you then. I have wondered for a while whether it may actually be better for the environment or, you know, if the climate change implications might be improved, if you were to offer —you would never do this, you’re Lucid — But I want to talk about range extended EVs because the concept is great.

I rambled on:

“You can put a 22 kilowatt hour battery in a car that will work for 95% of people. I know that from an optics standpoint, Lucid would never do it. Tesla would never do it. But if the average person can have a battery that’s, you know, a quarter the size — look, the reality is in your Lucid air, people are carrying around 80 kilowatts of extra battery capacity that they’re not using 95% of the time. That’s wasteful. But a small gasoline engine is cleaner.”

Rawlinson responded, thoughtfully:

“I take the point, I take your point, and the reality is, the way I see it is — we’re not gonna do that — we’re gonna move to future EVs that need much less range because we only need—”

I butted in: “You need 80 miles maybe.”

“Yeah, I think you need maybe a bit more than that because regularly you might do a little bit more, but like, you forget to charge it one night.”

He addressed my question about range-extended EVs.

“There’s a great argument for saying that, just have a really small, like a generator onboard generator…just like a 20 horsepower, 30 horsepower thing, like a little suitcase and it’s got a few gallons of gas and it’s just there for occasion. There is an argument.”

Lucid Is Going To Focus On Small Battery-EVs That Still Offer Good Range

“But I, what I wanna do is go to the shorter range EVs, ultra efficient six miles per kilowatt hour, 240 miles range. That is a 40 kilowatt hour pack. And then you put that [battery] underneath the front seat and you’ve got a super affordable family car. The battery doesn’t weigh 650 kg. It weighs 200 kg and then battery chemistry advances [can improve that range even more at a later point].” I’ll describe in a later article some specific mechanisms Lucid is using to reduce Vehicle Demand Energy to get towards that magical 6mi/kWh.

It was a great, frank conversation about what Americans want, what technology will get them what they want, and what Lucid wants to do in the future. Lucid wants to drastically reduce Vehicle Demand Energy — the brand wants to get vehicles to 6 mi/kWh so that a smaller battery can allow farther travel. This, fundamentally, is the best thing anyone can do for reducing overall vehicle emissions, and it’s a way for Lucid to stand out in the crowd.

But What If We Made A Small And Slippery Pickup Truck; Wouldn’t That Be Cheap?

Before I conclude this post, I want to be clear about what Rawlinson is and isn’t saying when he states the quote in the headline: “The only way you can make an affordable pickup truck today that works is internal combustion.” Because obviously some Rivian and F-150 Lightning fans might want to have a word. What Rawlison is saying is that the manufacturing costs — independent of government subsidies, though currently even including them likely wouldn’t change this fact — of building a pickup truck with similar capabilities as a modern gasoline pickup truck are too high to compete, price wise, with those gasoline pickup trucks. I implore you to check out my article “EVs Are Just The Wrong Tool For Serious Towing In 2024” to read a bit more about just how the expected use-cases for pickup trucks increases their Vehicle Demand Energy to such a point that they necessitate humongous, pricy battery packs. (The ~215 kWh Chevy Silverado EV, which is the EV pickup truck that comes closest to ICE trucks in towing range, is gets described a “All Battery, No Luxury” for a reason).

Obviously, if we look past use cases like SAE J2807 Davis Dam and instead design a smaller truck to be an around-town cruiser with a softer, slipperier fascia like a Ford Maverick, then maybe you could build a cheap-ish pickup truck, but that’s not what Rawlinson is taking about. If we’re talking about America’s bread-and-butter, the half-ton pickup truck that has to remain competitive with the F-150 and Chevy Silverado and Ram 1500? No, an affordable EV truck in that category just isn’t feasible right now. If you throw the $/kWh into an equation with mi/kWh in strenuous use case, along with customers’ desired range, the math just doesn’t work out.

It’s a bit obvious, especially to the engineer-readers among you. But just wait for the rest of our interview, because it gets really, really geeky.