By on September 17, 2020

Ford badge emblem logo

Ford has really been hyping the upcoming F-Series EV this week by assuring customers the new pickup will make the gas-powered one look like the unsightly substance you cough into the sink every morning. Not only with the electrified F-150 come with more power than your standard Ford truck, but it’ll also be cheaper to own and operate  once you get past the higher purchasing price, of course.

The automaker is spending a whopping $700 million to add EV production facilities at the Dearborn Truck Plant on top of the lofty cost of development, so it’s going to tell you whatever it takes to get you to buy one. It has to recoup those expenses somehow and, unless it’s a bald-faced lie, the automotive industry always seems willing to be “extremely optimistic” about a vehicle prior to launch. Unfortunately, Ford has to remain slightly more grounded than some of its peers because the electric F-150 isn’t so completely novel that the manufacturer can claim it will totally transform the driving experience or makes ludicrous suggestions about it driving itself.

We already have an F-150 and people seem to think it’s good enough to warrant nearly a million sales per year. The electric version is a spin-off Ford wants us to understand builds on those strengths.

On Thursday, Blue Oval announced the $700-million expansion of the River Rouge Complex. Kumar Galhotra, Ford’s president of the Americas and International Markets Group, also claimed the lifetime cost of ownership on the electric F-150 will be roughly half that of the current-generation vehicle. That’s a pretty bold claim and not one that seems to make sense when comparing most present-day EVs with their closest gas-driven analogs.

Take the Chevrolet Bolt, for example. While it’s going to save you tons in fuel (as it doesn’t require any) and possesses a fairly lax maintenance schedule, it costs substantially more than a similar-sized economy vehicle. That was true even when federal subsidies were helping take some of the pressure off. But the end result remains a car that only begins reaching financial parity with more traditional rivals after around 10 years of ownership  assuming you didn’t need to replace the battery in that time frame and failed to splurge on a home charging solutions.

Granted, the F-Series sucks down substantially more fuel than your average hatchback but Ford would still have to price the electric version quite competitively to make it cost half as much to live with. According to Automotive News, the company’s estimates are based on the e-pickup using zero gas and oil (naturally), consistently low electric charging rates, lower maintenance costs, and increased vehicle uptime.

From AN:

In addition, Galhotra said the F-150 EV, due to start production in mid-2022, will boast the fastest 0-to-60-mph time and produce the most torque and horsepower in the nameplate’s history. In the absence of an engine, Galhotra also promised a “giant” front trunk, which would mark the first time the F-150 offers significant enclosed storage space.

The new details are part of Ford’s effort to position the F-150 EV as a purpose-built work vehicle that can provide numerous benefits to fleet operators as well as traditional retail customers. The automaker has long been the leader in the lucrative full-size pickup market but will face increased competition from EV makers Tesla, Rivian, Nikola and others in the coming years.

“While other electric pickups are competing for lifestyle customers, the all-electric F-150 was designed and engineered for hardworking customers that need a truck to do a job,” Galhotra told reporters ahead of an event announcing a standalone assembly facility for the vehicle.

While we’re inclined to believe electrification can open new doors for work vehicles, Ford’s claims of increased vehicle uptime feel a little weak. Maintenance will undoubtedly be lessened but we don’t yet know what kind of range Blue Oval plans to deliver. If the electric F-Series is rocking 700 miles round trips, we’ll shut up. But if it’s closer to contemporary EVs, then we have to note that customers will need to manage their time a little more carefully around the truck’s charging schedule  something more easily handled by fleet managers than a person who might be using one as their only conveyance.

Upgrades at the Dearborn truck plant should be mostly completed by next summer, with production of the hybrid and all-electric F-Series following roughly a year later. Company bigwigs have said both versions would have distinct looks but be visually similar overall and use the same paint and body shops as gasoline-powered pickups. We’re much more interested in performance however and are dying to see how advanced Ford manages to make the new models. Maybe they really will put the internal combustion version to shame and save you a fortune, as suggested by the people who want you to buy one.

[Image: Ford Motor Co.]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

91 Comments on “Electric F-150 Will Be Far Cheaper to Own Than Gas Model, Claims Ford...”


  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    “the unsightly substance you cough into the sink every morning”
    Uhhh . . . Not telling you what to do, but please get that horquage looked into by your medical doctor.

  • avatar
    forward_look

    Will the payback time be less than the rust-out time?

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    Right now a Tesla Model S weighs more than an entry level F150 – 5000 lbs – and that very slippery car has a 100kWh battery. To move a brick and give it the same range you’re going to need a much bigger battery.
    7000 lbs?
    8000 lbs?
    Plus payload.
    Then everything else gets bigger to support it. Brakes, tires, chassis, suspension, etc., and that makes it heavier still. It’s not going to be cheap.
    You might end up with a log book!

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      What is the purpose of electric cars? – to get rid of CO2 right? CEO of Polestar said that Polestar 2 creates so much CO2 during production that it only breaks even with XC40 @50K miles. Battery is main culprit.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        “What is the purpose of electric cars? – to get rid of CO2 right?”

        So says the Left. That’s not why I have one.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        “What is the purpose of electric cars? – to get rid of CO2 right? ”

        They perform better than ICE. Also, I wouldn’t go by what a Chinese Auto Company exec says. Their process and sources of materials might be different. Battery manufacturing processes and materials are changing all the time and they are proprietary. You can’t go by what a single company does.

        For those of us that buy EVs for the performance, quiet, and smoothness, CO2 reduction isn’t at the top of our lists.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @slavuta: Not CO2 but rather emissions of ALL types, including CO (poisonous) and everything else.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Well… Outdoors CO is not very poisonous.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @slavuta: And what of all the other oxides and nitrogen compounds and carbon compounds that are also released. There’s a reason city skylines turn yellow with traffic congestion. Los Angeles is a prime example here in the US, along with Denver, New York City, Chicago and so many others. The emissions from an ICE are NOT just CO2.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @slavuta: “CEO of Polestar said that Polestar 2 creates so much CO2 during production that it only breaks even with XC40 @50K miles.”

        That particular statement and the “study” that spawned it was proven in error. It makes the assumption that there will be no change in the energy market over the lifetime of the vehicle, which we all know isn’t true.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Vulpine

          what about energy market? If you think that solar will be replacing fossil fuel… only if human race collectively decides that we don’t need to use computers, go to work, mow the lawn, have a nice house…

          And then what catalytic converters are for? Listening to your proposition, we should stop making medicines. Those pharma puts out nasty emissions. I remember Wyeth factory in the area. Many cars that were parked next to it used to have paint deteriorating.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Oh, stop with the dramatics…

            Vulpine didn’t say solar is going to replace fossil fuels anytime soon. But alternative energies – and solar is one of them – are going to comprise a far greater share of the energy market going forward. Why? Same reason why natural gas is putting coal out of business: it’s a better, cleaner product that technology has made far cheaper to produce. Same will happen with alternative energy sources.

            Sorry, but fossil fuels suck. They’re difficult and expensive to produce, they create pollution that has nothing to do with climate change, they’re finite, and they tend to come from places that we’d rather not send our money to. Enough already. Wouldn’t you rather see us home-grow energy that doesn’t screw up the environment? I would.

            As far as the “pharma” thing is concerned…you don’t think there’s a way to produce that stuff more without environmental damage? Yeah, right.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Wouldn’t you rather see us home-grow energy that doesn’t screw up the environment?”

            There is no currently available energy source I know of that can accomplish that.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            FreedMike,

            there is only one way I know – reduce number of people. Do that and life will be great for those who remain. Anything other than that is not feasible. And globalists wouldn’t like the reduction either. Who is going to support their lavish life?

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            ajla

            Putin said this best – “you don’t want russian gas? what are you going to burn? wood? Then you still need to go Siberia”

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @ajla: “There is no currently available energy source I know of that can accomplish that.”

            — Then you must be intentionally blinding yourself to what is already happening. There are multiple energy sources already accomplishing that and over time will eliminate all but a very few fossil-fuel energy sources as new technologies improve on the existing ones. Even now, you can buy a portable hydroelectric generator that can charge your smartphone in less than an hour. Hydro-, wind, solar, geo, tidal, so many ways to generate electricity without needing to burn ANYTHING as fuel are available and more are coming online on a daily basis. The change won’t be instant but the change is practically inevitable. It’s only a matter of time.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            You think there is no negative environmental impact to hydro or solar power?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Ajla: “You think there is no environmental impact to hydro or solar power?”

            — Compared to fossil fuels, the environmental impact by hydro is minimal and already being corrected, where necessary. The environmental impact by solar is effectively nonexistent. Oh, sure, I’ve read of some supposed issues from both solar and wind but those are also being resolved surprisingly easily. In one case it’s simply a matter of making one blade of the windmill a different color from the other two.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “The environmental impact by solar is effectively nonexistent”

            What do you consider “effectively nonexistent”?

            grist.org/energy/solar-panels-are-starting-to-
            die-what-will-we-do-with-the-megatons-of-toxic-trash/

            solareis.anl.gov/guide/environment/

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Ajla: Your own argument carries the answer. I hate to say this but recycling of electronics is a real thing; the problem isn’t that we can’t do it but rather that we WON’T do it, which makes it a social problem, not a physical one.

            For that matter, think of the megatons of electronics that already occupies our landfills. Can you imagine strip-mining those old landfills for recyclable materials? Clean up our land as well as our air that way… and even help restore some of our water table as a result. And by using mining techniques, more cost effective than any other form of recovery.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Vulpine,

          German farmers found first hand impact of wind farms on most precious resource today – drinking water, when their well dried out due to change in wind

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Windmills magically kill wells, eh? Fascinating. With all the “facts” you pull out of your ass, I’m amazed you can still poop. Perhaps next you’d like to warn us about windmill cancer.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Selling an electric F-150 based upon its cost savings will be a mistake.

    Selling an electric F-150 based upon its ‘carbon footprint’ will be a mistake.

    That’s what Nissan tried with the Leaf, and they won over… a niche.

    One reason Teslas sell so well is that they don’t produce polarizing ads – or ads of any kind, even though Mr Musk has made his personal tree-hugging opinions clear. A wide variety of people drive them. Saving money on gas is a benefit, but not a justifiable reason to get an EV – or any car.

    Ford should sell the electric F-150 based upon its cool factor, quietness, acceleration, torque, and ease of ownership.

    Easy ownership is a crucial obstacle for most car buyers, especially for an electric vehicle. This why dealers routinely toss in free oil changes, inspections, and tire rotations with a new car purchase. Conversely, the biggest complaint by Tesla owners with troublesome cars is the hassle of repeatedly returning to the shop for various repairs. That’s not easy ownership, and it’s what turned me off to Honda and VW back when I owned their products.

    • 0 avatar
      Imagefont

      I think everyone can appreciate the advantages of an EV but it’s the downsides they think and worry about. Charging time will always be an issue, and easy access to a charger. Even if you drive your car less than 100 miles 99% of the time you’ll worry about the 1% where you drive 600 miles, park for the night and then head out in the morning. You don’t worry about finding gas but the charger is another matter. And what if the one you do find is occupied or out of order? You’re screwed.
      And what about the battery? What about the resale? Batteries do, in fact, have a calendar life as well as a cycle life. This is why EV’s are usually not a persons primary or only transportation. Also, paying more up front in order to recoup some of that money down the road makes everyone suspicious, for good reason. I’m sure Ford will find buyers and I’m sure they’ll build these trucks in exceptionally low volumes.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Charger reliability is a Big Deal. At the moment, there seems to be the Supercharger (very good), vs everyone else (spotty).

        I don’t travel more than a 50-mile radius in my short-range EV, but I keep an eye on a charger a couple hours from here that has enjoyed reliable function in only 1 of its 4 stations. That’s the shameful state of EV charging, not to mention the lack of protocol harmonization among the EV mfrs.

        • 0 avatar
          Imagefont

          EV chargers are like restaurants. If a restaurant has 10 tables and the average stay is 30 minutes you can calculate how many people you can serve in a day. One problem with public EV chargers is that your “stay” is a lot longer than it takes to fill your tank with gas. True, charging takes less time under optimal circumstances, but in general a person will spend at least 30 minutes and perhaps more than an hour (or two) at an EV charger, and that limits the maximum number of cars that can access the charger in a day. I’d hate to find a working charger, only to find that I have to wait in line for an hour while someone else is using it. If everyone drove an EV you’d need ten times as many chargers as gas pumps.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @Imagefont: “but in general a person will spend at least 30 minutes and perhaps more than an hour (or two) at an EV charger,”

            In six years of EV ownership and driving, for the most part, that isn’t true.

            A destination charger at level 2vwhere you might need a longer charge, one place I frequent that is 50 miles from home has 53 chargers. With the new EV I won’t need that anymore anyway. A hotel I stay at in Vermont 120 miles away has a couple of level 2’s and a quick charger. I rarely use the chargers and instead plug into one of the numerous 120v outlets they have in the parking lot and get a good charge overight. Again, with the new EV, I probably don’t need that either. Sometimes coming home from a long trip, I might stop and charge on the way home. I’ll usually just get enough for some padding and that’s only 14 to 20 minutes maybe. Yeah, again, with the new car I could skip that.

            Remember, in the ICE world, almost no one fuels at home. In the EV world, I don’t know the actual number, but many of us can exclusively fuel at home.

            Charging stations are getting bigger and charging is getting quicker. Tesla is now building one with 56 stalls.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Imagefont: The problem with your argument is that you’re thinking like an ICEV driver, who NEEDS to stop at a dedicated recharging station even for everyday usage. With a BEV’s ability to be charged at the driver’s home (and increasingly at apartment complexes and other parking areas) such dedicated stations are simply unnecessary outside of road trips; which is why almost all of the available high-speed chargers (by whatever brand) tend to be placed accessible to the Interstate Highway System in the US and other similar highways in other countries.

            Throughput such as you portend isn’t as critical in urban and suburban environments because the drivers have no need for those ‘range anxiety’ moments; they’re only a few miles from home where they can start every day with a full charge if they choose. And with so many cars today offering well over 200 miles of range on a single charge, many of those drivers could go three or four days without needing to plug in and still have sufficient for typical daily travel.

            Who cares if your car needs as much as four or five hours to charge–when you’re at home watching TV or asleep in bed? Who cares if your car needs a full recharge over even as much as 8 hours on the road–if the hotel/lodge you stop at for the night has an available charger? (And many have more than one already.) 50 years ago, drivers needed to plan out their routes to select when and where they would refuel, eat and sleep. Today we have NAV systems in our cars and GPS in our pockets (with our smartphones) that can tell us where a compatible charger is available and even help us reserve a room at an EV-friendly lodging.

            You honestly need to look at how easy it is already to do everything you think is so difficult. And things will only get easier with time, not more difficult.

      • 0 avatar

        Imagefont,
        Fleet sales,fleet sales,fleet sales. Especially Gov’t fleets.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Selling the EV-150 on the cost savings is exactly the right thing to do. That is what fleets care about and fleet sales are the key to making it profitable.

      Selling it on its carbon foot print is also good because gov’t fleets will eat that up and again fleet sales are key to success in this segment.

      For retail buyers yeah you want to focus on other aspects in the advertising.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        And what happens when you sell something on its cost savings (like they did Egobust) and the reality is, everything thy sold you is wrong?

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “Everything they sold you is wrong”?

          Reminds me of a certain resident of Washington, DC.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Yeah but he has his 8 years as number 2. We don’t want him as a number 2 again.

            Thankfully he’s a corpse of a candidate and doesn’t stand a chance of getting in there. There will not be a Biden-Harris….oops, almost messed that up…there won’t be a HARRIS-BIDEN admin. This country is not ready for complete destruction.

  • avatar
    ajla

    It’ll be interesting to see the final product. I think most of us are expecting Ford to sacrifice range (getting a rating of 150 miles or less) in exchange for a price and weight advantage. Then market heavily towards government and larger commercial fleets.

    I’m surprised they are going for a “lowest” 0-60 time here but maybe a slower BEV doesn’t give much advantage offset elsewhere.

  • avatar
    MoparRocker74

    Ive heard that before! Kinda like if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, huh? Yes, you’ll save $100/week in gas but you get the privilege of paying $30K more for a truck that’ll need to be re-batteried in 10 years at the cost of $15-20K plus the joy of all the glitches that even bill gates wont be able to fix. Wanna lift or hotrod it? Sorry, that aint gonna happen. Yeah, no. ICE is where it’s at. Electric is inferior tech. If it wasn’t absolute overpriced trash then there wouldn’t be a need to force it on the market.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @MoparRocker74: “… you get the privilege of paying $30K more for a truck that’ll need to be re-batteried in 10 years at the cost of $15-20K…”

      — On what evidence do you base that conclusion?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Regardless, it’ll be a huge advantage that it’s an F-150, as far as repairs and replacement parts go, plus normal aftermarket. Including battery packs.

      The only reason Rivian and other startups saw an opportunity is The Big 3 have been extremely
      slow or not interested in producing full EV fullsize pickups.

      The startups can’t really compete with the EV F-150, so this should give them something to think about.

  • avatar
    Matt51

    Both Henry Fords were always very concerned about making vehicles that the mass market could afford. Current GM and Ford management are looney tunes thinking people can afford their overpriced electric wares. Initial pricing, if kept low, translates to losses. Priced according to manufacturing costs, they won’t sell very much, and will have big losses. Lose-lose. According to Lynn Tilton, former CEO of MD Helicopters, the First Universal Lie of Business is we are losing money on every sale, but will make it up on volume.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    I read in another article that the plant expansion was also going to produce the batteries for the EV version of the truck. If so this represents another level of commitment here since Ford typically outsources the battery production and would indicate they are anticipating moving a significant number of these.

    The economies of scale in sharing a significant number of parts with the number 1 selling vehicle on the planet, combined with non-niche production volumes could make for good pricing.

    Love Ford, hate Ford…they typically don’t mess around with the F-Series so this looks interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ with the number 1 selling vehicle on the planet, ”

      Show me the monthly/quarterly sales numbers from Ford that support that statement.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Im sorry…It was only the second best for 2019. My point stands with respect to the economies of scale in sharing components with a vehicle that sells 1 million plus globally.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          Again just show me the official Ford sales numbers to prove it.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            30 seconds of google there cool guy. This ain’t college and you ain’t my professor so if you want me to do your research my hourly rate is 84 bucks plus expenses/travel with a minimum of 4 hours.

            But it is pretty much common knowledge available from all manner of sources. Of course you know this already.

            The North American numbers can be found on this very site though. Global from various industry websites. It’s basically common knowledge…the Corolla and the F Series go back and forth globally (the Toyota was number 1 in 2019 by a couple hundred thousand.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Got it. You can’t back up your assertion with sales numbers directly from for that the F-150 is the number one selling vehicle on the planet.

            Why? Because Ford includes the F-150 under the F-Series umbrella which includes many vehicles.

            The F-Series is NOT a vehicle.

            But it’s hysterical you conflate the entire F-Series with just the F-150. Such a simple concept that so many people cannot get right.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            EBFlex, The Silverado, Sierra and Ram pickups are each “umbrellas” too, covering 1/2 tons to big duallys. You can call them each a “series” if it makes you feel better.

            Anyway it’s F-series not F-Series. Nowhere in Ford literature will you find the “series” capitalized. Ford marketing does in page headings, but they capitalize every word.

          • 0 avatar
            ToolGuy

            This wording (straight from Ford) is interesting [*emphasis mine*]:

            “Combined sales of F-Series *and Ranger* totaled almost 1 million pickups at 986,097 vehicles for the year – an increase of 8.4 percent.”

            (I’ve never seen Ranger thrown in with “F-Series” before.)

            https://tinyurl.com/y3jlsdmu

            Anyway, no denying that Ford sells a lot of pickups in the world’s #2 automotive market. [The Wuling Sunshine is cleaning up in the largest automotive market, huh?]

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            That’s Ford marketing. But all makes combine the sales of their pickups so I’m not sure why folks make a big stink about Ford doing it too.

          • 0 avatar
            ToolGuy

            It is interesting (to me) to compare the similar press releases from other years.

            Here’s 2018 full-year:
            https://tinyurl.com/y6btcsuk

            And the chest-thumping narrative to accompany it [read this link if nothing else]:
            https://tinyurl.com/yxugwaxg

            … with this key line:
            “Ford sold more than 1.075 million F-Series trucks globally in 2018…”

            (Once you’ve hit that magic number, contrived though it may be, now we’re emotionally invested and hey let’s throw in ‘F-Series Junior’ if that’s what it takes to get close and oh hey, sorry we still didn’t make it to “a million” can I still keep my job for another year?)

            That last link [2018 full-year text narrative] might be Peak LaNeve. A reminder of Mark LaNeve’s background:
            https://tinyurl.com/y3byygrd

            Extra credit: Who is the primary audience for self-congratulatory press releases like this?
            a) Current customers
            b) Potential customers
            c) Company management
            d) Ford family
            e) Other

  • avatar
    Tele Vision

    Were Ford to pay me enough for my 2010 F-150 to get it off of the road in favour of an EF-150/iF-150/elecFron-150 I daresay that I’d think about it – but they won’t. So I won’t. I have 138,00 Kms on my 11 year-old truck and it’s running as sweet as a nut.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Tele Vision: That’s extremely low mileage (kilometerage?) for an 11-year-old vehicle. I’m impressed. Not saying I want it, mind you, but so many people boast about having twice that much or more in that age of vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        Tele Vision

        @Vulpine

        You wouldn’t want it at the moment: the next item on the agenda is cam phasers! After they’re sorted ( completely blocked off, that is ) it’ll be a reliable truck with an unstressed engine that should run for decades more which is, in and of itself, environmentally-friendly. The low miles are because I drive my 2007 CTS-V whenever possible. I realize that they comprise 11.4L of displacement but my commute is just 20Kms round-trip and I only use one at a time…

  • avatar
    randyinrocklin

    All of you guys hung up electric are fools.

    • 0 avatar
      shipping96

      Yes and those people living in houses are fools too. Cave dwelling + hunting and gathering is the best.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Fools? Why?

      I think mouth breathers that think electric vehicles are the future are fools. They are just as harmful to the earth if not more, they’re range is nowhere near what it needs to be, the most annoying EV manufacturer in the world has a lower level of quality than a Mitsubishi Mirage and has to build them in a tent, recharging takes forever, heat is an issue, severe loss of range in the cold, etc.

      They are fashion accessories. They are not legitimate replacements for ICE vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @EBF: Looks like we need to disagree. Because to me the fools are the ones who oppose change. They’d rather destroy the world as we know it than accept that there’s something better than fossil fuel for energy available.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I think it’s time to move away from “fossil fuels will destroy the world” – maybe so, maybe not (and for the record, I side with “maybe so”).

          How about “they’re becoming increasingly unworkable” or “there’s stuff out there that just works better”? That way, it’s about progress, not challenging someone’s political belief.

          Besides, ICE vehicles aren’t going away anytime soon – millions of them are owned worldwide.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @FreedMike: “That way, it’s about progress, not challenging someone’s political belief.”

            — You just put your finger on a major part of the problem; for many it’s a political belief (no matter which side you look at) and not a scientific fact. Tell me this: When is the last time we saw ‘named’ Atlantic/Gulf storms exceed that year’s numbered names? Yet we’ve just had a storm in the Atlantic get named “Alpha” in the Greek alphabet because we have overlapped our traditional naming methods. We’re getting more storms, hitting more frequently and as of right now we still have roughly six weeks of hurricane season remaining.

            Look again at everything that’s been happening environmentally over just our recent lifetimes. For me that’s over 60 years and the changes are obvious to me, even though we have managed to make some minor improvements in air pollution. It used to be you couldn’t see more than about 5-10 miles across any decent-sized city and now my “home town” of Chattanooga, TN is so clear you can see from one side to the other with almost no haze on any given, sunny, day. Even Los Angeles is much, much cleaner than it used to be but the smog is still visible most days.

            One problem is that our current energy supplies not only generate heat, which is a part of the issue, but generates tons of pollutants–and no, I’m not talking about CO2 which is an indicator of the pollution levels even if not a true pollutant in its own right. The exhaust from our tailpipes carries a number of different carbon compound and even nitrogen compounds that in many cases are toxic at high enough concentrations. Not just carbon monoxide but also nitrogen oxides and even, with diesels in particular, sulphur oxides which led to the Acid Rain that was so in the news back in the ’70s and ’80s. A look at some of our oldest edifices (buildings) will show you what Sulphuric Acid can do, even at highly diluted levels.

            Change is needed and moving to non-fossil energy is only a part of that change. Sure, there are hundreds of millions–we could even say Billions–of ICE vehicles on the roads today. But while the process of shifting over to electric vehicles–whether battery powered or hydrogen powered–will be slow, it will be inevitable, if given the chance. BEVs already hold about a 3% global sales market for new vehicles, which means about a 0.3% global share of all transportation assets or less. But BEV sales are rising because ONE company showed that BEVs don’t have to be “glorified golf carts” and actually be fun to drive as well as efficient and clean. Because of that ONE company, many of the major OEMs are committing to adding BEVs to their lineup and one of those OEMs is already committing to an annual production of 1.5 MILLION BEVs by 2025 (and I’m talking about a legacy OEM, not the one that “started it all.”) For that company, that production level represents nearly 10% of its annual global sales right now. That also means they expect global sales of BEVs to double, not once but at least twice, in five years.

            And that, too, is a major factor. The more BEVs that sell new, the more old ICEVs will be scrapped and recycled in to raw materials for new BEVs and other consumer items. There may be billions of ICEVs on the roads today but one day will arrive where the only operating (if that) ICEVs will sit in museum as a legacy of how far we’ve advanced. Oh, I probably won’t see that day but I’m quite sure today’s children will–barring some form of global disaster destroying our society to the point of ‘hunter-gatherer’ lifestyles again. (A possible, if not pretty, future.)

            Mankind is proven to be adaptable, though in all honesty our civilization is only a few thousand years old. We’ve managed to adapt our world to our lifestyles but it’s time now to adapt our lifestyles to our world. That doesn’t mean we have to lose our civilization, only that we need to adapt it to protect ourselves FROM ourselves. Can we do it? Yes. Will we do it? I can’t answer. For now the answer appears to be, “No!” But I could be wrong and maybe we will figure out how to save our species from the effects of our excesses.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “@EBF: Looks like we need to disagree. Because to me the fools are the ones who oppose change. They’d rather destroy the world as we know it than accept that there’s something better than fossil fuel for energy available.”

          How is electricity better when it’s just as dirty to produce, batteries do FAR more damage in their manufacturing than just about any other component of a vehicle, the range is awful, there is a tiny amount of charging stations, charging takes forever, etc?

          Or are you saying that the internal combustion hasn’t changed at all since it’s inception?

          It’s great to have all of these euphoric thoughts about electricity being the savior of the world but here in the real world, electric vehicles present major deficiencies when compared to anything electric.

          And stop with the hysterics. We’ve been hearing since the 70-s that cars are going to “destroy the world” and yet here we are 50 years later and the air has never been cleaner despite having millions of more vehicles on the roads.

          If you really gave a damn about the environment and noty “destroying the planet” you would be advocating for laws that force people to keep vehicles longer or incentivize people for keeping vehicles longer. Nothing is better for the environment than using what’s already built.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @EBF:
            • How is electricity better when it’s just as dirty to produce,
            — Answer: It isn’t. Even if we assume no other differences and in the dirtiest coal-burning generation region of the US, a full-sized BEV is a full 50% cleaner than a Fiat 500. That argument was disproven over five years ago and the modern numbers have the BEV even cleaner than that, at close to 75% cleaner than the Fiat. Yes, five years have made that much difference.

            • batteries do FAR more damage in their manufacturing than just about any other component of a vehicle,
            — And take on average less than three years to balance that battery production without producing any of its own emissions. Over its lifetime, the BEV is STILL more than 60% cleaner than an equivalent ICEV over the same period of time.

            • the range is awful,
            — The range is only marginally less than an ICEV driven in the same environment, shorter in city traffic and longer on the highway. The typical ICEV gets refueled at about 300-350 miles while the BEV can travel almost the same distance on a single charge, if not more when the new BEV trucks hit the road. AND the BEV truck can be recharged at its home garage where the ICEV truck has to be driven to a purpose-built refueling station EVERY TIME.

            • there is a tiny amount of charging stations,
            — There are thousands of charging stations across the US, when considering Tesla’s Superchargers, Tesla’s Destination Chargers and the several billion dollars worth of Electrify America charging stations already in place at places like freeway-accessible Walmart* locations, convenience stores and other places. MOST are within easy range for almost any BEV currently on the market.

            I can go farther on refuting each of your arguments but I honestly don’t need to; all of your arguments are hopelessly out of date.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            Making cars last longer would sure help. But, that desperately needs to be extended to a lot of other consumer goods. In recent years the average lifespan of small appliances has dropped like a rock. Billions of small appliances in landfills every year can’t be helping much. The shame of it is that it wouldn’t cost much more to make appliances last much longer. But, in the modern business environment every fraction of a cent of cost is shaved.

            Modern cars seem to be moving towards shorter lifespans. This is, at least in part, caused by the ridiculous level of complexity of all the endless doohickies cars just have to have these days. With all this complexity, maintaining older cars will become even more impractical.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “I can go farther on refuting each of your arguments but I honestly don’t need to; all of your arguments are hopelessly out of date.”

            You didn’t actually refute anything because you didn’t provide facts. Just opinion.

            None of what you stated is true. You can parrot talking points that rely on raw numbers to somehow show that EVs are the savior of us all, but here in the real world, they are just not up to the task for the reasons I listed. If ANY of what you posted was true we would see FAR more EVs on the road. Instead they represent a tiny portion of the market. People do not want them.

            Another HUGE issue with EVs is they are nothing more than fashion accessories or niche vehicles. They don’t make money which is a problem. Hybrids are the answer. EVs are pipe dreams.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @EBFlex: “If ANY of what you posted was true we would see FAR more EVs on the road. Instead they represent a tiny portion of the market. People do not want them.”

            — Problem is, people DO want them… but they want the ones that are better than mere “city cars”, which is what the majority of the smaller ones are. Tesla can’t build theirs fast enough and very few others are even properly available. The Chevy Bolt, for example, is only good AS a city car because of its size and the simple fact that it can’t charge at a rate higher than about 50kWh, which means hours to charge even to a mere 235 miles. I’ll agree that people don’t want THAT kind of BEV.

            Almost as bad is the fact that what few decent non-Tesla BEVs are available have very limited production schedules–even the Porsche only produces about 20K units per year (but is also twice the price of the Tesla it hopes to supplant.) Meanwhile, Volkswagen is planning for sales of 1.5million I.D. series BEVs per year by 2025.

            People want the good ones and the good ones are the ones I’ve been describing.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Most interesting thing about EV is that when we dump China as rare earth supplier, it will cost way more. We’ll see who will want to buy it and how much earth we’ll need to move. I would concentrate on better recycling, so we don’t have to dig more earth

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    If any manufacturer can make an affordable EV it will be Ford. Besides the EV charging and charge time the dealers would be the only obstacle to success of Ford producing and selling EVs. Dealers are already marking up the price of the Mustang Mach E to be higher than the price of Teslas which will hurt their EV sales. Ford needs to reign in the greed of the dealers marking up the price above MSRP.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Ford also said Egobust would cost $700 bucks when it came out and get 20% better fuel economy.

    Neither were true. Egobust cost thousands (initially not including the expensive repairs) and got the same economy as a V8. And that’s thill the case in the real world.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryannosaurus

      I don’t understand the hate EB. My 2015 2.7 turbo F-150 is averaging 22 mpg after 60K of hauling and towing. Although I do drive a lot of highway miles, the mid rise camper-shell I installed does it no favors. This is inline with EPA testing for combined city/highway. I have a friend with the 5.0 V8 and he is averaging 18 mpg, which also matches the epa tests. As for the initial cost, my ecoboost upgrade was $900 from the base V6. Going to the V8 would have been double that at $1800.
      I am sure hotfooted driving or all city driving would be much worse, but that is true with all trucks. What has been your experience?

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        My V6 Colorado has averaged a full 19mpg in three years of driving in all kinds of conditions from city to highway, the vast majority of which is suburban driving with speeds averaging just under 30mph over that same period (Yes, there are ways to measure your driving habits and my Colorado has been letting me do that.) More highway mileage like yours, Ryano, would probably have my economy matching yours. Granted, I had the option of going for a turbo 4 but I wanted my torque non-boosted in the event I chose to tow a trailer near the truck’s limit and not risk blowing the turbo.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          So aren’t you kind of making his point @vulpine? You have a midsized truck that gets roughly the same miles per gallon as his full sized truck and the full-sized rig is more capable. Sounds like Does accomplished their goal here.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Art Vandelay: Nope. Because the point is that he went turbo to save cost and it didn’t work… I get essentially the same capability at a lower cost of operation. Were I to put as many highway miles on as he does, I would actually be seeing more than 24mpg as compared to his 22.

            On another hand, since we’re talking about EVs, the pure electric F-150 will very probably realize a 50+mpg equivalent at a ‘fuel cost’ of half or less of what he’s paying today, not even considering the maintenance costs of that turbo engine over the years when an electric motor runs for tens to hundreds of thousands of hours mean time between overhaul (MTBO) periods. And electric motors can be rebuilt much less expensively than rebuilding an old ICE or even replacing it with a crate engine.

            I agree with Ford on this one; the F-150 BEV is probably going to be significantly less expensive to operate and maintain than the ICE version… Ford might even lose its “Found On Road Dead” reputation.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @Vulpine You get a smaller platform, 125 fewer ft lbs of torque (at the same RPM), 20 fewer horsepower that you have to spin the motor 1800 more RPMs to get (almost to 7 grand in a truck), 2000 fewer pounds of towing capacity when both are configured for their max, and 1000 less pounds of payload.

            That is not “essentially the same capability”.

            You can love Ford, you can hate Ford but there have been no significant reliability issues with the truck motors and the sales numbers bear out that people like them.

            Honestly you could substite Ram or Chevrolet in there…the numbers aren’t that far off. You have to really want a midsized truck for reasons other than capability to choose one over a full sized model. Of you do, cool…there are valid reasons. But no, they are not “basically as capable”.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Your numbers are significantly off, Art.

            His truck:
            Peak Horsepower: 2015 – 2017 325 hp @ 5,750 rpm
            Peak Torque: 2015 – 2017 375 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm

            My truck:
            Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 308 @ 6800 (SAE certified)
            Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm): 275 @ 4000 (SAE certified)

            Horsepower is almost insignificantly different while I will grant you 100 more torque, not 125 more. But keep in mind that if that turbo blows, he’s lucky if he’ll have 125 horses and 100 torque. I’m not willing to risk that if I’m going to tow a trailer.

            As for essentially the same capability; my truck and his were built to perform essentially the same tasks: carry a load and/or tow a trailer. His towing is “up to 8500#” while mine is “up to 7500#”, which is only significant if you choose to tow at maximum capacity. Any SMART driver would choose a trailer allowing about a 15% – 25% safety margin. And honestly, I have no need or desire to tow over 8000# around nor do I have any desire or need to carry more than 2500# of cargo in the bed. 90% of the time when I do carry cargo, it comes in around 1000# or less. So as far as I’m concerned, essentially the same capability because I would use them identically.

            And personally, I don’t like full-sized trucks and you know it. They’re simply too big and bulky. Even the one I have is a lot bigger than I wanted but the wife still wants to tow a SMALL camping trailer for which the truck I have is still gross overkill.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            So even if you don’t tow at the max, he can tow 1000 extra pounds safely (his truck is older…I was comparing current year for apples to apples.)

            Yeah, HP is close but you have to spin it over 1000 extra RPMs. That matters. As does the 100 or 125 ft lbs depending on year.

            I’m over 22 mpg on a 2015 crew cab 2.7 in 60k + miles. Normal mix.of driving, occasional towing of a 5000 pound travel trailer and various crapbox project cars belonging to myself and others.

            Anyway, yes, they are both trucks designed to pull and haul stuff. Using the same amount of fuel his has the capability to pull and haul more stuff. You using that capability is another matter but it doesn’t invalidate what the engineers accomplished.

            And again, “blown turbos” just don’t happen very often. I can honestly say I have broken more piston ring lands on Chevy 305s (2) than blown turbos (1 and that was at a drag strip.

            I have a GM 4.8 hanging out on an engine stand for a future project that had some flavor of lifter failure. It couldn’t have towed anything either.

            If the turbo blows while towing you get it fixed be it in your pickup or Peterbilt and they happen with similar frequency. It’s not new or exotic tech. One of the broken ring lands I mentioned was while towing. I didn’t keep towing (the lack of power and the cloud of smoke ensured that). I had a friend tow the trailer home and we came back for the truck.

            It isn’t something worrying people. Sales numbers validate that.

            Now yes, you had reason to go with a midsized truck…not liking the size of modern full-sized trucks is a perfectly valid reason and it’s a choice many make. But they don’t share the same capability in spite of basically equal fuel economy.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Art: “And again, “blown turbos” just don’t happen very often. I can honestly say I have broken more piston ring lands on Chevy 305s (2) than blown turbos (1 and that was at a drag strip.”

            — Yet nearly every time I drove down I-81 through Virginia, I would watch at least one truck blow a turbo and see multiple others on the verge of blowing them (it’s very obvious to see when you know what you’re looking for.) And watching a truck towing a load drop from highway speed to about 25mph on a grade tells me all I want to know about what happens when that turbo blows.

            You might consider it a matter of “if” whereas I consider it a matter of ‘when’.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Objective sources say it happens infrequently enough that it is a non issue. Heck I see janky junkyard turbo set ups all the time running at the strip and they break all manner of components, but rarely the turbo.

            To each their own but we are.over a decade into Ford’s turbo truck motors and the dire predictions haven’t materialized. I’d be way more concerned spinning my truck to 7 grand than with a couple little.turbos that bring like 3 moving parts to the table.

            I think the 2.7 is the smart choice in the family since it was built ground up for turbos. It is a stout motor.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Art Vandelay: I won’t argue; I simply don’t trust them… yet.

            But while you’re talking about bringing in three more moving parts, going electric REMOVES over a hundred moving parts. Even with as many as four electric motors, you only get about four moving parts, eliminating both all the moving parts in the engine AND the transmission. Yet you get more torque at the instant you put your foot down and your horsepower and torque both are limited only by the size of the motors.

            Electric simply has the power and efficiency advantage across the board.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Oh I won’t argue there. I think an electric drivetrain in a full-sized truck makes more.sense than any of the EVs we’ve seen to this point. Given the numbers and what looks to be an actual commitment from Ford, this could be the tipping point in this country. I’m a fan so far.

            I’m also not a hater of midsized trucks as my last truck was a Frontier. The 2.7 F150 was simply the best driving truck I drove. Had they had the EV then it would have gotten a serious look. The way I use my truck now it would be about perfect.

  • avatar

    Here in CT our new electric rates mean EV’s cost the same to fill up as gas cars at current rates.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    @Matt, you sound skeptical about Ford’s lifetime ownership cost calculation.

    “the company’s estimates are based on the e-pickup using zero gas and oil…, consistently low electric charging rates, lower maintenance costs, and increased vehicle uptime”

    Ford is also very likely factoring in:
    • Higher resale (for purchase)
    • Higher residual (for leases)

    They are likely doing this based on the resale values/residuals of some current EV models. They are likely correct in doing this.

    (The higher resale/residual would tend to offset at least part of the higher initial purchase price.)

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Sounds like the funny and deceptive math the snake oil salesman over at Tesla uses to sell his garbage cars.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        @EBFlex,

        a) Do you believe the Ford Motor Company does not have any individuals knowledgeable enough, capable enough and engaged enough to do a realistic calculation of lifetime ownership cost from a customer perspective?

        b) Do you further believe no one in the management chain between those individuals and Kumar Galhotra is capable of validating said calculation before announcing it to the world?

        We should discuss Tesla marketing separately. (Are you tired of all the Tesla advertisements?)

  • avatar
    HotPotato

    Why does anyone reply to EBFlex? He’s obnoxious, aggressively ignorant, and has never added an ounce of value, humor, kindness, insight, helpful advice, or anything else useful to any thread on TTAC. Not one. Anywhere. Ever. He’s a troll’s troll.

    TTAC should do us a favor and delete his account.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @HotPotato: I’d rather they didn’t because he would only come back under a different username and it’d take a few comments for people to realize it’s the same person.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Why does anyone reply to EBFlex? He’s obnoxious, aggressively ignorant, and has never added an ounce of value, humor, kindness, insight, helpful advice, or anything else useful to any thread on TTAC. Not one. Anywhere. Ever. He’s a troll’s troll.

      TTAC should do us a favor and delete his account.

      Awe, did the words on the screen hurt your feelings? Don’t be such a snowflake and stop taking the internet so seriously.

      And have you seen all my posts or are you just lying to lie?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      There’s a Ford hate/bashing troll on every major auto/truck enthusiast/review site. Is it EBF on all of them under different user names? They do all sound like EBF.

      I can’t comprehend what would motivate him or psychopath alike. But a GM dealership’s internet sales specialist could be doing it for laughs (and pay) or out of total boredom sitting at a cubicle all day.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Whatnext: A great throwback to An era when vehicles had greenhouses you could actually see out of, and trunklids deep...
  • markf: My buddy had one of these and I had an ’89 Integra LX Coupe. Both were great cars. Base model as base...
  • JimC2: “You think you hate it now, but just wait until you drive it.”
  • R Henry: Not a single syallable about politics. Thanks Tim, keep it up!
  • mcs: Most of these will be sold in virtual form as IP licenses to video game companies, so it’s appropriate. I...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber