The USPS finally got its hands on the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle (NGDV) last summer after a decade of development. The mail truck was to be the harbinger of a new era, with over 75 percent of the new fleet slated to be fully electric. Since the election, however, political winds have been wafting in a strong smell of gasoline—which could upend those plans.
As reported by Reuters, the incoming Trump administration has made no bones about its attitude towards government subsidies for EVs. In particular, the Inflation Reduction Act has come under scrutiny, and the post office is deeply involved. The Act specifically allocated $1.3 billion to pay for the USPS’s new electric vans out to 2028, along with a further $1.7 billion to install charging infrastructure.
This could prove challenging for Oshkosh Corporation, the company which won the bid to provide the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle. However, as covered by Bloomberg, the manufacturer is confident it can roll with the punches and deliver more gasoline mail trucks if that’s what the new administration is after.
Interviewed at CES, Oshkosh CEO John Pfeifer stated that his company was ready to adapt to any changes coming down the line. “We’ll do what they want us to do — supplying either gas or electric,” said Pfeifer. “A new Congress could come in and repeal, I guess, part of the IRA that hasn’t been spent.”
For now, it’s a potential problem, rather than an actual one. Pfeifer stated that neither the USPS or the incoming government had made any approaches about changing the existing order for new mail trucks. Similarly, Postmaster General Louis Dejoy has indicated to Bloomberg that he hasn’t heard anything from the incoming administration about changing the USPS’s existing EV plans.
Officially, the USPS made its purchasing decision back in late 2023. It planned to order 60,000 Next Generation Delivery Vehicles built by Oshkosh, 45,000 of which would be electric. Beyond that, the USPS had also aimed to order 14,500 commercial off-the-shelf vehicles with ICE powertrains, with a further 31,980 vehicles to be either off-the-shelf or more NGDVs, 66% of which would be battery electric. In total, 62% of the full fleet of 106,480 vehicles would be fully electric.
Since Oshkosh always planned to build ICE and EV versions of the NGDV, a switch away from electric drive would not be a total disaster. As it stands, the gasoline-powered versions will run a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine sourced from Ford, which will deliver 250 horsepower and 206 pound-feet of torque. The electric version will run a Bosch traction motor good for up to 200 horsepower at peak, or 94 horsepower continuously. Estimated range of the EV version is 70 miles from a 94 kWh battery, which was deemed suitable for 95% of all USPS routes. Both versions will be available in two- or four-wheel-drive as needed.
While both designs are ready to go, it would nonetheless be a disruption to change the USPS order at this point. When the post office released its Record of Decision in 2023, the document was a full 1,207 pages long. As much as some might disagree with the decision to purchase so many EVs, it was a long and hard process to come to that point. Also, a mail route is about as ideal a use-case for an electric vehicle as one can imagine. Amazon has already shifted a lot of its Prime-delivery fleet to electric Rivian vans.
It’s likely only further waste could come by changing that decision now. Plans have been put in place to deliver a certain amount of electric vehicles, as well as to set up infrastructure to support them well into the future. The USPS has been in desperate need of new vehicles for some time—anything that gets in the way of their timely delivery will be unwelcome and unpopular to those who deliver the mail.
Plus, our Mercedes really wants to buy the outgoing mail truck.
Image credits: USPS
I understand the need to be flexible. Its a shame they can’t source a basic hybrid as easily as the turbo 4. Id almost rather them update the iron duke for another half century…(Not really)
Realistically I think Oshkosh’s main concern is failing to deliver the vehicles in the volumes necessary, not because they want to be efficient, but delivering ~60 vans since the order was placed out of the thousands ordered doesn’t scream Government efficiency, in fact it points to government corruption.
Considering combating Government inefficiency and Government corruption is the main stated goal of the upcoming administration, I think Oshkosh’s main concern is this upcoming administration cancelling the order for COTS vans, electric or otherwise. Since seemingly the upcoming administration doesn’t care whether they’re electric or not they’re trying to boost production enough to stave off the ire of DOGE and other cost and or inefficiency cutters in the Government, and they’re a lot better at producing ICE vehicles than BEVs.
That is a very expensive windshield.
“While both designs are ready to go, it would nonetheless be a disruption to change the USPS order at this point.”
It would be, but that wouldn’t stop the incoming administration from doing so if it scored them points on Fox News and the like.
Heh, and there I was thinking this would be about Oshkosh considering an ice cream truck version of the post van.
This looks like it could easily be turned into the next Pope-Mobile
Either way they won’t be built in Oshkosh’s home state of Wisconsin. WI senator Ron Johnson basically encouraged them to build them out of state and have WI not get the jobs.
I get the impression that Oshkosh is one of the many legacy companies that doesn’t really want to build BEVs and they’re only doing it because they’re being forced to.
My opinion on this is that they just want a clear direction for what to build. Nobody is forcing them to build EVs; they competed for the contract.
I think individuals have opinions about what they want to or should build. Companies are generally of the opinion that they’ll build whatever you want, if the price is right.
Oah-kpsh already builds BEV heavy equipment.
I swear the NGDV has flip-flopped on ICE v. Electric multiple times. I read a few years ago that most were going to be gas powered, rather than electric. I think flexibility for these is really important. Lot’s of routes are in urban/suburban areas, where electric makes a ton of sense. However, out where I live, these trucks would have to travel hundreds of miles, where a gasser makes a lot more sense. Most of these rural routes are currently done by people in their own cars though, I wonder if that will change with the introduction of the new trucks.
A lot of people forget that the whole world isn’t one big city.
Most certainly. It’s especially prevalent in my state, where the majority of the population lives in one massive urban area, but a good 90% of the state is rural land. Vastly different needs than those in the City.
It’s covered in the article and by the project. The EV version covers 95% of their routes.
And that’s assuming only 70 miles of range from a 94kWh battery.
That’s equivalent to an F-150 Lightning towing a huge trailer in the winter.
It’s got to be based on the absolute worst possible scenario. Like -60F, 40mph headwind both directions, and the driver left the emergency brake on.
I don’t think they have heat pumps, so it’s based on a worst-case of a very cold day with lots of moving a short distance, opening a door and letting all the heat out, then warming it back up again over and over.
Yep, good point. They need an airlock on the back or something so they don’t let all the heat out! haha
Straight from the article, you can find the tidbit that the range for the BEV NGDVs is estimated at 70 miles, which covers 95% of all mail routes. Considering the original purchase agreement is for 2/3 BEV, I think that 5% is covered just fine.
Can someone explain how the windshield wipers on these things work? It looks like they’re top-mounted, but only large enough to sweep the top of that king-size bed of a windshield. Is there another set from below? 4 all together? If so, what does that dance look like?
It looks to me like the left one (driver’s side) gets the top half of the drivers side and the other one gets 2/3 of the other side plus the bottom of the driver’s side. I could be wrong. Just guestimating based on the relative lengths of the arms and positioning.
Edit: Looking at the two separate pictures in the article, the one in front of the post office shown wipers on the bottom, but not the top. The other picture (possibly a render) shows wipers on the top, not the bottom. So in real life, it looks pretty conventional.
Yeah I see that now. The render also tries to minimize that hideous bosuzoku battering ram of a front bumper.
I’ve been hoping for the EV’s to roll out sooner than later. Love when I walk my dog and have to breathe in the exhaust of the mail truck that just hangs in the air for a minute and absolutely chokes you out. Ditto for the jackasses still using oil heating.
You should get your lungs checked….
Probably filled with asbestos 🙁
Even the gas versions of these will be far superior in that regard to the LLVs. Probably won’t notice anything at all given they comply with modern emissions.
That is a positive. Good point.
And have AC for the carriers.
I was going to say this and add that the only reason to switch the order back to gas would be political, both to make a statement on doubling-down on 20th century tech and to offload the greater upfront costs of changeover to electric into the greater long-term running costs of gas. Since the GOP was the party that legislated USPS to use a weird accounting that frontloads its’ pension costs decades in advance to guarantee it’s always “losing money” on paper, yeah.
I think it really is regional/route dependent. Electricity where I live is bonkers cheap. Like .08 cents a kwh cheap. Gasoline is very expensive. HOWEVER, we have huge distances these vehicles would need to travel. It’s why I bought a Volt, rather than a pure BEV.
How on god’s earth is the choice not EV vs hybrid?
OBVIOUSLY it’s because this is Satan’s Earth, not God’s. That’s why Criminal Trump is President.
Because it’s a hybrid fleet! Hybrids excel when you want to combine the attributes of EV and ICE into one vehicle, but when you have multiple vehicles, then you can simply use a mix of types (EVs and ICE).
I always wanted to hot rod a Grumman LLV. Don’t care if it’s been done before.
Hell yeah, i want to see these rat rodded, drifted, dragged and maybe even a spec racing series. Maybe one day.
FORMULA LLV, I’m all in.
What’s with the lower torque figures here? Usually it’s the other way around. 200hp and 250 lb-ft.
I’m guessing that is a misprint. for example in Ford applications it is rated at 250/277 or 250/280. So my guess is it should be 250/260 or maybe 250/266.
My office has Metris vans that we can’t keep on the road and those are new, mainstream vans with under 5k on the odometer. Everything is shitting the bed in them, fast.
Can’t wait to see what a new platform with more tech will bring.
Yeah and it is Mercedes that was NOT designed for multi-stop service.
Don’t worry, at least they’re made by a defense company that has no experience with road vehicles
Worked for a defense contractor that was desperate for new long-term work so they were looking into contracts for batteries for underwater drones. We knew jack shit about batteries.
They’re a company that builds equipment that has to be tough as nails and with as little downtime as possible in the long term. They’re perfectly suited to this.
No, they’re a company that bids the lowest (or bribes the best) to make a product that meets a set of specifications and don’t have to deal with customer satisfaction because the person writing the check doesn’t have to drive it or maintain it.
Go ahead and ask any military member what they think of military equipment being “tough as nails” and having “little downtime”
I see a lot of Oshkosh crane trucks and cement trucks in my area, so whatever your vitriol is towards their military stuff is, the do have a history of making heavy duty work equipment.
Interestingly enough, this is one of the few use cases where EVs make sense for both potential cost savings, and EV development. Neighborhood mail trucks typically have short routes (maybe 50 miles a day) full of stop a day go city traffic that allows for a lot of stop and go city traffic. They have dedicated parking spots where they can be charged at night and they are out every day, rain, shine, cold and hot weather. At the scale of the entire country, if you partnered with multiple companies, you can try different battery chemistry, different battery sizes, monitor real world Drainage rates and power consumption. The lower rate of maintenance will provide some cost savings to put towards the increase power bills and could show what type of infrastructure on a national level would be required. I actually believe the same to be true for city bus routes as well. Obviously you would need to keep some of the gas powered fleets for supplemental support but having a USPS fleet of EVs as a developmental demonstrator would provide a lot of opportunity for the sector and allow the country to ease into EVs (if that is in fact the solution – i still believe in hydrogen) instead of firing off half baked mandates of ev sales.
But what do I know?
Last I saw the average daily route was under 20mi.
My rural route delivery person says they do about 75 miles per day. Their old 3800 Buick is just hanging in there year after year.
Yeah I messed that up it should have said the average daily LLV route is under 20mi. Most rural and even semi rural areas are contract carriers who are responsible for owning and maintaining their own vehicle. In urban areas post offices are often only a few miles apart so they typically operate in a very limited radius. Here is a great info graphic detailing the state of LLV’s when they were starting to think about replacements a decade ago. https://www.greatbusinessschools.org/usps-long-life-vehicle/
Whoops. Should have read all the way down before posting (the same study).
It’s 21 miles daily according to this analysis: https://www.greatbusinessschools.org/usps-long-life-vehicle/ Average speed touches 14 mph. BEV all the way. As others have posted, many rural letter carriers use their own vehicle (and then there is that guy in the Dakotas delivering mail in his Model S).
I can’t see any reason to continue with ICE mail vehicles in markets where it makes no sense, which is nearly all of them. I get there will be some places where ICE makes more sense, but those are probably few and far between.
I just don’t get what the “why” would be against EV mailtrucks. Can anyone explain a reason that is NOT politically motivated, please?
My guess (and it is just a guess, I have no inside info) is that it comes down to initial cost. The EV will cost more than the ICE version, and especially so if you add in the installation of the chargers required to charge them all at once all night.
I doubt it is because of too many routes that are unsuitable for EV ranges; while some rural routes may be unsuitable for an EV mail truck, in my experience living in the country those are mostly covered by carriers that run their own cars rather than a USPS supplied vehicle – I rarely if ever saw an LLV deliver my mail in rural PA.
That said, if cost is the reason it is probably short-sighted. Total lifecycle costs of EV’s will usually end up lower than an ICE vehicle given enough vehicle lifetime, and history shows that the USPS uses their trucks for *many* years. I don’t think the post office runs their vehicles 3 shifts a day, so charging time doesn’t matter too much as long as the charge will last for a full day’s work, and that charge can be replenished overnight.
There may be valid arguments to be made about the pace of adoption – the biggest barrier right now to EV adoption in commercial fleets where the business case otherwise closes is the rate of charging infrastructure roll-out. The power companies can’t add capacity fast enough at so many sites.
In my opinion a rational procurement plan would match EV truck procurements to planned completion of charging capacity, prioritizing the most urban and centralized offices first. At the same time, order ICE versions to replace the LLV’s in most urgent need of retirement that aren’t covered already by the first tranche of EV’s, prioritizing those in the hottest climates – mail carriers in Arizona (for instance) shouldn’t be required to work in a truck with no air conditioning in the year 2025.
This. The all-in upfront cost for the EV versions is almost 50% higher than ICE.
So, long term planning is no longer an option? I get it, up front cost is higher, but long term cost is way more. I still don’t get it.
It’s the government, every choice they make is some political bullshit and never just the logical choice.
Besides, sourcing that many batteries is probably a lot harder that sourcing an engine Ford has already made millions of
One of the first things I was told when I started working for the government was that the criteria for decision making are political, then fiscal, then technical, in that order, and with technical being a VERY distant third.
The USPS analysis I reviewed for putting in charging stations in the back of post offices appeared to be overkill (to be polite)/have fingers on the scale (to be impolite) in terms of the estimated costs. The mail vans drive 21 miles a day*; they don’t need much charging.
But what do I know? I’m just a random guy on the internet who’s been working on EVs and EV charging for 15+ years.
*https://www.greatbusinessschools.org/usps-long-life-vehicle/
“…2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine sourced from Ford, which will deliver 250 horsepower and 206 pound-feet of torque.”
I’m surprised these numbers aren’t flipped with more torque than HP given the usage.
I have the same question. Hopefully one of the engineers on staff can chime in!
Why not look to add a range extender and have the best of both worlds for these vehicles? Seems dumb to just switch them back to full gas.
heavy redesign needed for that. ICE and EV have matured designs and production lines are built & mostly installed, with no provision for a REV model.
I would like to see the post office choose whichever platform most effectively gets the job done at the lowest overall cost.
The Department of Government Efficiency has determined the answer is the Cybertruck and recommends the Postal Service purchase 857 million Cybertrucks immediately.
The only thing dumber than this would be buying mostly/all gas vehicles again for USPS.
The incoming kakistocracy views that phrase as a challenge.
Did they account for all of the worker’s comp claims when people get cut by the razor sharp edges on their delivery vehicles? 😉
Defining “lowest overall cost” is a really fuzzy concept. What timescale? What type of externalities should be factored in, e.g. how much is it worth to avoid ICE emissions, or foreign-sourced battery manufacturing aspects?
The NGDV was designed for a minimum life of 12 years and target of 20 – start there. Keep the calculations in term of cold, hard dollars and the math is not hard.
..with a nod to the environmental cost long term…
Can they make it look less like a platypus? What about more?
Seriously though, I hope there’s not too much meddling here. USPS vehicles see so much stop and go that I’m surprised there are any ICE-only variants. I’d think it would be well worth the cost of a hybrid system for even the longest rural routes.
It’s a vehicle design driven purely by function. Honestly, I think it’s great that styling isn’t getting in the way of utility. It’s unique visibility requirements, loads, and step-in height that dictates this look. I just wish its powertrain was also purely a functional choice, and not a political directive.
We have plenty of electric Amazon & UPS or FedEx trucks rolling around here in Southern California, those look ‘normal’ proportionally speaking. That USPS thing is one heck of an ugly ducking. Even if they just raised the hood line up to normal dashboard height and didn’t have a massive glass greenhouse to cool in summer it would be way nicer.
I think the use case is a bit different for those vans. In my neighborhood (sample size = 1), the Amazon and Fedex drivers stop almost in the middle of the street and jump out with a package. The high seating position in those trucks makes for easy ingress/egress, and more normal proportions.
The mail truck on the other hand drives the entire length of the street literally in the gutter, dodging trash cans, soccer balls, and overhanging tree limbs to reach out and shove mail into a 3’ tall mailbox without exiting the vehicle. I think that’s why these vans look so funny – it’s a car-height seating position with van-height storage and visibility requirements.
You Sir, or Madam, are a genius and 100% correct. It is car height seating with van height storage. I completely forgot about that, my city has cluster (community) mail boxes. I haven’t seen where the mail person drives up to your personal mail box outside your house in over 20 years. I forgot that would have been part of the design brief.
You’re also right about about the Amazon & Fedex drivers stopping in the middle of the street… 🙂
That reminds me I need to get to work on my business idea to design a curbside mailbox with a built-in chute that attaches directly to the curbside recycling bin. If I wait until the next administration privatizes the post office, there won’t be any more curbside delivery and my business model will be obsolete!
The problem with the USPS design is that talked to every internal stakeholder when designing the next mail van… but didn’t cull the list.
Otherwise, they could just buy the Rivian electric van and move on.
That is some terrible electric efficiency, especially for something that should be doing almost all stop and go city miles. I wonder if that’s down to climate control, or what?
To be fair, the efficiency on the gas models is pretty terrible as well.
That’s more or less expected, though, since stop and go city driving is the worst-case for an ICE powertrain.
…
You would think 30+ years of technological advances could have come up with something better than essentially unchanged efficiency from the LLV. At least the delivery drivers get air conditioning.
These things are significantly bigger than LLVs. They’re closer to UPS trucks or Rivian vans.
Probably an overworked A/C thanks to the windscreen making the cabin 200 degrees.
There’s a ton of idle time with these vehicles. Drive stop, drive stop, drive stop, these things are rarely going to be riding down the highway.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a Grumman or Jeep mail truck on an interstate highway, no kidding. I’m not even sure they’re geared for it.
I can. It was an LLV, and it was laying on its roof on the side of the Schuylkill Expressway by King of Prussia. I think it hit a snow bank and flipped, but who knows. Either way, it wasn’t cut out to be on the interstate apparently.
I’ve heard the LLVs are absolutely dreadful on the highway and struggle to keep pace with traffic. They have three speed automatics and I guess top gear isn’t optimized for highway travel.
If I recall correctly, the LLV’s get around 7mpg during typical use. They probably don’t have that much more range.
That may well be true, and probably is. But my point is that 70 miles of city driving out of a 94kWh pack seems like it’s leaving a lot of efficiency on the table.
With the ICE version of the new postal van, I remember reading something like 9MPG. Still pretty bad, but a significant improvement, especially since it’s also going to be running HVAC, and probably producing cleaner tailpipe emissions. Still not great, and I think neglecting to lift Ford’s hybrid drivetrain wholesale was also not a winning call.
That 70 miles is probably the range in Alaska in a snow storm, with the heater going full blast.
https://www.greatbusinessschools.org/usps-long-life-vehicle/
It’s basically what one would expect driving an F-150 Lightning in a blizzard with a big travel trailer.
Not a joke. 0.7 miles/kWh is about right for that.
They’re probably calculating that 70 miles from 94kWh as an absolute worst case scenario.
“N…NG…Not Gonna Do Voltage anymore, anyway, hehehehe”
Thanks, Bobs.
The big key of any commercial vehicle builder is the ability to pivot to market demands. I’m glad to see they’ve built in that contingency.
I know the incoming administration is a LARGE concern for Transit Bus manufacturers, as they’ve largely switched to EV builds. That being said, all the current builds are still using retrofitted diesel chassis, so the switch back is still potentially an option.
Tens of millions in lost R&D if that happens, though.
That’s the irony of the whole “America First” thing — it kind of punches our domestic companies in the face to change direction this quickly after they’ve been encouraged for so many years (multiple administrations) to gear up for EV production. I love the free market, but large-scale manufacturing can’t turn on a dime.