# EV Pickup Truck field is still open, who will do something about it?



## electrico (May 18, 2017)

Tesla's EV Pickup Is Aiming at F-150 But The Open Field May Soon Close, reports Torque News.


Tesla may introduce a Ford F-150 pickup truck killer by 2020. The EV truck field is still open to the introductions of bold and courageous electric pickup trucks. But is Ford's F series hybrid the remedy or antidote to a revamped proposed Tesla EV Pickup truck?


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

EV Pickups are likely to remain expensive for some time.

So just because they may start to exist won’t guarantee widespread mainstream acceptance


----------



## electrico (May 18, 2017)

But I am hoping that the battery prices will come down and the range will improve.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Phoenix Motor Cars has been producing trucks for years now - they just limit their market to fleet sales.


Cheaper batteries are coming. Recent price drops from Tesla and others are still almost perfectly tracking the 6.5 year cycle of exponential decline, and there are now literally thousands of innovative alternatives being tested in labs. Lithium sulfur looks to me to show the best promise for the next notch down the price curve, but I'll be happy to be wrong if another innovation beats it out.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> Cheaper batteries are coming. Recent price drops from Tesla and others are still almost perfectly tracking the 6.5 year cycle of exponential decline, ......


 Which price drop was that ?
Do they list EV battery prices ?
..the last price change (feb '18) for batteries from Tesla (Powerwall) was UP 7%
https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...-raised-the-price-of-the-powerwall#gs.vI2g94Q


> Tesla now charges more for its powerwall than it did back when the product launched in October 2016.
> 
> The company's website now lists the starting price for the 7-kilowatt/13.5-kilowatt-hour storage system as $5,900 — a $400 increase from the original list price of $5,500. The actual price to a customer will be higher still, because it includes supporting hardware, installation and other fees.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Which price drop was that ?
> Do they list EV battery prices ?



The 65 year year trend I've been telling you all about for the past 6 years I've been a member of this forum. Read, "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil (tech advisor to 4 Presidents) for an explanation of how technology advances. Basically, each new idea evolves at an exponential rate until it hits the laws of physics (e.g. piston engine can't get much more efficient unless we invent higher temperature materials); or the cost / availability of raw materials and labor. Batteries and solar have not yet approached any of those limits. In this case I use the word "battery" to include any device which stores and releases electrical energy - so there can be many "leaps" and "plateaus" over time as new solutions are released, they go through a cycle of improving manufacturing capabilities, and are eventually supplanted by a superior solution.



There is no "they" - you have to do the research yourself. It takes a few hours using Google and a little competence with Excel. You have to research year over year what the specifications were for the types of battery available at that time; capacity; number of expected charge / discharge cycles; and typical purchase price in that year. Every year there is a price leader when considered as a grid storage choice; another when considered for use for EVs - but overall the trend tracks. Lead acid had only about 300-400 charge cycles. NiCad was better, and the cost per Kwh stored and released reflected that. LiIon upped the ante. With each chemistry change there was also a period of time in which manufacturing became more efficient, so although there was some saw-toothing in the curve overall it is clearly tracking to an exponential curve (cost per Kwh over the life of the battery drops by half about every 6.5 years). never a perfect line of course, but if you plot it year by year even a 6th grader can see it tracks.


Note that some advances are subtle - an increase in the number of expected charge cycles being most notable for the same basic chemistry.



No technology has been as good as Moore's Law (a roughly 18 month periodicity to double the computing power per dollar). Solar panels have tracked at about 3.5 years to drop in price by half when you consider capacity, cost, expected lifetime.


I'm liking Lithium Sulfur for the next saw-tooth. It will slot into existing manufacturing (i.e. the Gigafactory and others).


----------



## electrico (May 18, 2017)

I only see 2 comments here, do you know where are the other comments and the original post?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Good question - I recall commenting that Phoenix Motor Cars has been providing electric trucks for fleet operators for several years now but not to the public.


Another company had promoted a hybrid pickup truck for utility companies such that the truck was also a site power generator. Great idea, don't know if anyone ever produced it.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Very wordy reply PP which is all just theory.
Im more interested in the real world situation.
IE lead batteries cost more now (real cost,..Mars bar/McDonalds equivalent).. Than they did 40 years ago .
Likewise lipo cost is the same if not more than when i first bought 10-12 yrs ago ..real dollars, retail prices.
But , you said Teslas recent price reduction ?
and i asked which recent Tesla price reduction ?..they infact recently increased.
Note the referenced article which states that ....
...."Teslas batteries cost more today than when they were introduced 2 years ago ."
You have not clarified your statement,...just tried to deflect the discussion with predictions and word litter.
So...which recent Tesla battery price reduction ?.

And yes,...the forum has suffered a major failure with missing posts etc.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Very wordy reply PP which is all just theory.


I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the technological progression for batteries is somehow different from every other technology in history? Or that 65 years of data showing they are following that same pattern are somehow irrelevant? 

If you have another theory about how technology progresses, or have any evidence whatsoever that progress in batteries is about to break the historical pattern just a few years before they reach the point of being truly economical, I would honestly like to know.



> Im more interested in the real world situation.
> IE lead batteries cost more now (real cost,..Mars bar/McDonalds equivalent).. Than they did 40 years ago.


Right - that particular type of "battery" reached its technological limit based on physics (Pb acid simply won't hold a lot more energy than it already does) and the cost of materials.


Since then there have been two successful major chemistry innovations and multiple minor tweaks breathing new life into "batteries." For the major improvements first was NiCad, then Lithium Ion.


> Likewise lipo cost is the same if not more than when i first bought 10-12 yrs ago ..real dollars, retail prices.


That is simply false. Todays batteries have tweaked the chemistry of LiIon (such as LiFePo) and provide many more charge cycles than the earlier versions - providing lower cost per Kwh stored and released over its lifetime when properly used. 



> But , you said Teslas recent price reduction?


Right - Tesla tweaked their batteries in a new form factor, providing a boost in energy density / total energy for about the same price.



> and i asked which recent Tesla price reduction ?..they infact recently increased.


Manufacturers are notoriously closed mouth about actual costs, but there have been multiple articles indicating that costs were dropping towards $100/Kwh and that battery life has during that same period increased. Again - do NOT focus on a single manufacturer's product. Pricing strategies distort the trends. Tesla can charge more for their batteries because people are driving their cars. I am focused on the bigger picture of possible grid storage as well as EV battery trends.



> Note the referenced article which states that ....
> ...."Teslas batteries cost more today than when they were introduced 2 years ago ."


Purchase price is not indicative of cost, and varies considerably more than cost (responding to market forces). Perhaps you are confusing the two? In any event, price changes are offset by charge cycle improvements, and looking at pricing changes for a specific product are again irrelevant especially over the short term. I will say it again - the exponential price decline is across the industry of "batteries." For example, you could put together a pack of A123 cells and, due to the greater number of lifetime charge cycles, the lifetime value would be better than a Tesla pack when chosen for the right purpose. Also, the trend may be stair-stepped over the short term.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the technological progression for batteries is somehow different from every other technology in history? ....


 Yes,..are you suggesting that every technology in history has the same cost reduction over time ?
I will stick to reality and leave the theorys to you.
Remember the Pb battery example ..?



> ....Right - that particular type of "battery" reached its technological limit based on physics (Pb acid simply won't hold a lot more energy than it already does) and the cost of materials....
> Since then there have been two successful major chemistry innovations and multiple minor tweaks breathing new life into "batteries." For the major improvements first was NiCad, then Lithium Ion.....


 All of which , acording to "theory", should have made the superceeded Pb tech batteries less popular and hence cheaper....But in reality it has not !




> ....Right - Tesla tweaked their batteries in a new form factor, providing a boost in energy density / total energy for about the same price...


 Wrong..Teslas 2170 cell has the sme energy density as their previous 18650
The only indication of price (or manufacturing costs) that we have is the price of their PowerWall and, more realisticly, the commercial Powerpack
And as previously stated, prices for those have increased over the past few years since they were introduced.
The most recent increase, February this year, was reported as being due to the increase of Cobalt prices.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Yes,..are you suggesting that every technology in history has the same cost reduction over time ?


No, what I DID say was that they followed the same PATTERN (exponential decline until limits reached, but DIFFERENT periodicity). Thus, wagon wheels declined over thousands of years and were eventually replaced by machined wheels with metal bearings.

Again, go read, "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil, technology advisor to 4 Presidents and one of thousands of scientists who have all come to the same conclusion.



> Remember the Pb battery example ..?


I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is simply too complicated for you to grasp. Any ONE technology may reach its limits quickly; a CATEGORY (e.g. "batteries") may continue to improve as newer innovations upset the status quo of "the old way".



> All of which , acording to "theory", should have made the superceeded Pb tech batteries less popular and hence cheaper....But in reality it has not !


Incorrect. You are failing to grasp that economics is not a straight line - and that people make purchasing decisions based not only function but "suitability to a purpose" and so price at the checkout line may not be a good indicator of cost to produce. LiIon is now far cheaper than Pb acid for EVs because of several factors including weight and total number of charge cycles. An EV with 10Kwh of Pb acid batteries might see a year or so of use before the batteries needed replacement while the same pack in LiIon would cost more initially but would last many years. Additionally the LiIon pack would have greater range due to lesser weight. However, some people with limited budgets might opt to replace their battery pack with Pb acid because of cheaper purchase price and because they are betting they ONLY need 1 year of service (suitability to intended purpose).



> The only indication of price (or manufacturing costs) that we have is the price of their PowerWall and, more realisticly, the commercial Powerpack


That is untrue. First, because those are "premium" products marketed to Yuppies, and so not well representative of cost. Second, because many many investigative articles have been able to put "fences" around the likely low to high cost ranges various manufacturers have been able to achieve.



> And as previously stated, prices for those have increased over the past few years since they were introduced.
> The most recent increase, February this year, was reported as being due to the increase of Cobalt prices.


And again focusing on a single product from a single manufacturer is irrelevant to overall industry cost to provide a given specification of battery performance. Tesla can command higher prices for their batteries because they are "necessary" (a monopoly) for their cars.


Well, if you can't understand this by now it is pointless to continue. Read the book, or remain ignorant. The financial giants have figured it out; if you want to believe you are smarter than all of them knock yourself out.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

You are just muddying the waters with obscure arguments to cover up your previous statement that Tesla had recently reduced their battery prices..
They have not, they have infact increased them.
You made a false statement just to support your "theory"
You stick to your books and theorys, ..
I will stick to the real world of actual prices.
I am not holding my breath for a cheap EV, ICE equivalent , anytime in the next 10 years.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> You are just muddying the waters with obscure arguments to cover up your previous statement that Tesla had recently reduced their battery prices..


I don't think that's what I said, although I certainly don't claim to be perfect. What I have consistently said for years here is that costs are declining, and that prices will follow overall. If I accidentally used the word price instead of cost somewhere, I politely recommend you go stuff yourself for quibbling - you know what I meant.



> They have not, they have infact increased them.


Ok. You are right. Do you feel better? That doesn't change the industry trend.



> You made a false statement just to support your "theory"


Not my theory, and not a theory. Empirical fact noted by scientists around the world. If you choose to believe the world is flat that is your right, but you don't have a right to your own facts.



> I will stick to the real world of actual prices.


Yes you will. If you buy a Tesla you may well pay a premium for batteries, just as computer owners have paid a premium for replacement batteries for decades. However, if you are clever and source your own replacement batteries or build your own EV you may get prices reflective of true costs. Thus it ever was.



> I am not holding my breath for a cheap EV, ICE equivalent , anytime in the next 10 years.


Even as annoying as you can be, I won't ask you to do that either. Besides, if you did that you wouldn't be around later for me to say "I told you so!"  



But it won't be 10 years to price parity/superiority. It will be about 7.


----------



## goingbush (Jun 20, 2017)

NZ design / Australian made EV Toyota 4x4 pickup being trialled by BHP 

www.voltra.net.au 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bhp-electric-ute-vs-tesla-pickup-2018-6


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

More batteryr price data..
Qtr on Qtr price increases across all formats..
https://imageshack.com/a/img923/3892/TufDlr.png
(Image deleted ..too big !


----------



## Visionofficer (Apr 28, 2013)

The CONDOR platform invented and produced by EV Fleet, Inc., is the only 100% electric pickup truck out there. It can haul 1,000 lbs 140 miles on a single charge. It has electric AC, heat, and power steering. It also have integral solar recharging in addition to a 2.5 kW onboard charger.

http://www.ev-fleet.com

https://youtu.be/1owzTqOuGsk


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

goingbush said:


> NZ design / Australian made EV Toyota 4x4 pickup being trialled by BHP
> 
> www.voltra.net.au
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bhp-electric-ute-vs-tesla-pickup-2018-6



Looks like a specialty vehicle for underground mining, great idea.


Pretty much any mid-distance per day fleet operation is now becoming a good candidate for an EV.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> More batteryr price data..
> Qtr on Qtr price increases across all formats..



Yep - for one particular type of battery. Short term price variances have less to do with cost than with market demand. When demand rises, prices rise due to scarcity until someone else invests in additional manufacturing capacity. Nobody is investing in current tech battery capacity because they all know something new is about to pop and then might stand to lose their investment.

Meanwhile it only takes one successful breakthrough to continue the stairstep in the continuing exponential decline of cost.


Oh and would you please resize that image? It practically fills my 49" 4k monitor...


----------



## nickC29 (Jul 18, 2018)

Ah didn't know about the EV Toyota 4x4 pickup. I would have guessed that Ford would make the first move here but can't help but assume that most pickup truck owners aren't exactly the demographic to go for EV.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

The Voltra truck is amusing: put electric hardware into the most outdated truck platform available. It does make some sense, for the specific application, but the idea of EVs underground is hardly new.

The Condor looks like a kid's after-school project, and ridiculously claims "PATENTED REAR WHEEL DRIVE WITH FULLY INDEPENDENT SUSPENSION" and "we removed all the drag from the body". There is nothing patentable about using RWD or IRS, with or without electric drive, and no need for a novel suspension design in an EV; the body obviously has lots of drag. I'm sure there's no meaningful technical content, especially since the website offers no substantive information. It appears to be a based on an obsolete production compact pickup roller (looks like an old Ford Ranger), although the combination of IRS and 5-speed manual transmission makes me wonder what other source of parts was used; the result has mediocre payload.

Neither appears to represent any advance in technology, or a product which is useful for most pickup truck users.

It is good to see that some companies are still taking their shot at the long-running electric pickup market.


----------



## CaptD (May 6, 2021)

PhantomPholly said:


> Phoenix Motor Cars has been producing trucks for years now - they just limit their market to fleet sales.
> 
> 
> Cheaper batteries are coming. Recent price drops from Tesla and others are still almost perfectly tracking the 6.5 year cycle of exponential decline, and there are now literally thousands of innovative alternatives being tested in labs. Lithium sulfur looks to me to show the best promise for the next notch down the price curve, but I'll be happy to be wrong if another innovation beats it out.


----------



## CaptD (May 6, 2021)

Ive realized i cant make my phoenix motor cars prototype type work. Its CAN ISSUES. And Im out of time to learn. Great vehicle! 1100 miles. EV miles...
Im in florida. Someone want it? One of you informed folks need to put touches on this bad boy and put it in your garage before Elon Musk gets his. It needs more than me! I am holding the truck back. No longer. Someone has to want a real damn project with a finish line and drivability. Screw dreaming just use your understanding and drive it. Im stepping aside. I barely tried. Whats up?


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

This thread seems outdated now that the Ford lightning exists and the Ford Maverick PHEV is almost a forgone conclusion in a few years


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

rmay635703 said:


> This thread seems outdated now that the Ford lightning exists and the Ford Maverick PHEV is almost a forgone conclusion in a few years


Yes. It was only revived because CaptD wanted to mention that his EV pickup, which is from this era of small-volume production pickups, is available for someone else to try to fix up.

The decision of real auto manufacturers to go ahead with pickup truck production (starting with Ford, but with GM immediately after) makes all of the startup schemes irrelevant and doomed to take their billions of investor dollars into oblivion. Goodbye, Lordstown, Atlis, etc. On the other hand, it looks like Rivian (not even mentioned a few years ago when this thread was started) might actually make it.

PHEV pickups seem to have been skipped, with available products going straight from non-plug-in hybrid to battery-electric.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

brian_ said:


> Yes. It was only revived because CaptD wanted to mention that his EV pickup,
> 
> PHEV pickups seem to have been skipped, with available products going straight from non-plug-in hybrid to battery-electric.


California’s Gas Free Future allows for PHEVs in 2030 so unless things excellerate I expect them to have a resurgence 


the Maverick shares this drivetrain so a PHEV is inevitable (even if aftermarket)



https://www.ford.com/suvs-crossovers/escape/models/escape-se-plug-in-hybrid/


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

rmay635703 said:


> California’s Gas Free Future allows for PHEVs in 2030 so unless things excellerate I expect them to have a resurgence
> 
> 
> the Maverick shares this drivetrain so a PHEV is inevitable (even if aftermarket)
> ...


A Maverick PHEV seems likely, but the Maverick isn't really a mainstream pickup truck - it's so small it will be a special-interest vehicle for the foreseeable future. The F-150 uses the same series of transmissions as the Explorer/Aviator (which are available as a PHEV), and already has a non-plug-in hybrid available, so a PHEV F-150 would clearly be easy to build... but Ford seems to have skipped that for now. A PHEV of a truck like the F-150 with enough electric-only range and performance to attract much interest would likely need too much battery and too much motor, and thus cost and weigh too much, to be of significant interest at this point. If PHEVs are allowed under "no ICE" rules, I agree that they could become very appealing if only for the loophole value... but that's still almost a decade away.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

rmay635703 said:


> California’s Gas Free Future allows for PHEVs in 2030 so unless things excellerate I expect them to have a resurgence


From a CNET Road Show article:
​


> It seems plug-in hybrids have already started to fall out of favor with automakers as a potential zero-emissions vehicle solution, but they could become crucial to meet California's plan to end the sale of new cars powered by fossil fuels by 2035. Last week, the California Air Resources Board provided the first details of how it hopes to achieve this goal, and chief among the deets is a major rewrite of plug-in hybrid rules.​​These changes come in the overarching way the state plans to achieve 100% zero-emission new car sales. As of now, California wants to implement an 80-20 mix where 80% of new cars sold will be totally electric or hydrogen-powered, and 20% may still feature a plug-in hybrid powertrain. Essentially, automakers will still be able to plop an engine under the hood come 2035.​​However, PHEVs will need to follow far more stringent definitions of the powertrain. California wants any plug-in hybrid to achieve 50 miles of all-electric range to meet the categorization -- a huge ask. Only two plug-in hybrids in recent years meet that criteria: the Chevrolet Volt (no longer on sale) and the Polestar 1 (soon to exit production). To achieve such a lofty range, automakers need to fit larger batteries, and when you're talking about a big battery _and_ an internal-combustion engine, things get complex (and costly) quickly.​​


​The F-150 Lightning is currently estimated to use 32 kWh/100km in the EPA combined driving cycle (480 km on 155 kWh or 370 km on 115 kWh). If a PHEV were similar, the required 80 km range would require 26 kWh (usable) of capacity - far beyond anything currently found in a PHEV, because the vehicle is a huge and heavy barn door. With an engine, transmission, large electric motor, and all the electronics to manage them, that's going to be one very expensive pickup truck.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

brian_ said:


> From a CNET Road Show article:
> If a PHEV were similar, the required 80 km range would require 26 kWh (usable) of capacity - far beyond anything currently found in a PHEV, because the vehicle is a huge and heavy barn door. With an engine, transmission, large that's going to be one very expensive pickup truck.


26kwhr isn’t what it used to be nowadays it would be a about 300lbs with cladding

BMW I3 REX - 38kwhr

In so far as expensive all trucks are but the technology already existed in chevies 2 mode which was just a hybrid

There is also no rule that a weak PHEV like the PIP could not exist in pickup form (where the engine kicks in for more power)

After “gas” engines are banned I can still see the market demanding PHEVs

It doesn’t now because of lack of consumer awarenes and also because gasoline forever consumers haven’t brushed against a ICE ban, things change when you pull in everybody including those who travel rural


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

rmay635703 said:


> 26kwhr isn’t what it used to be nowadays it would be a about 300lbs with cladding


True, but that's still the weight of an entire compact car engine - and higher cost - added to the vehicle.

When Ford changed the F-150 body from steel to aluminum they saved about that much weight, and they promoted it as if it were the greatest automotive technology achievement of all time. 300 pounds really is a lot.



rmay635703 said:


> In so far as expensive all trucks are but the technology already existed in chevies 2 mode which was just a hybrid


The technology has existed for a long time, in a few variations. The GM Two-Mode was the most sophisticated, and it was extremely expensive; it cost far more to build than the selling price, which is why it was not continued. And a reasonable plug-in hybrid needs enough motor power to be acceptable without running the engine for a boost, and the current F-150 hybrid does not have enough: more weight, more expense.



rmay635703 said:


> There is also no rule that a weak PHEV like the PIP could not exist in pickup form (where the engine kicks in for more power)


I don't know what "PIP" means, but actually there is such a rule in the California exemption for 2035 - that's why I quoted that section, but I should have gone one paragraph further:


> But, that's not all the state will need. Future PHEVs to qualify under these regulations will need to be capable of driving under only electric power throughout their charged range. So, no software to flick on the engine for a few moments to recoup some lost energy. While these regulations would actually benefit drivers to shift PHEVs away from "compliance cars" to something far more usable, the complexities may just turn automakers to focus exclusively on EVs.


If the engine kicks in at all before the 50 mile all-electric range is reached, the vehicle does not qualify.



rmay635703 said:


> After “gas” engines are banned I can still see the market demanding PHEVs
> 
> It doesn’t now because of lack of consumer awarenes and also because gasoline forever consumers haven’t brushed against a ICE ban, things change when you pull in everybody including those who travel rural


I agree. While rural travel is the "legitimate" justification, most PHEV sales under this rule - many of them as pickup trucks - would be to people buying the opening of a loophole, carrying all the electric stuff around as penalty ballast while driving with 400 HP gasoline or diesel engines. Most buyers of the GM Two-Mode SUVs were just fishing for the government subsidy to help them drive their huge cars, burning more fuel in their hybrids than they would in a conventional vehicle of the smaller size that would still meet their actual needs.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

brian_ said:


> True, but
> When Ford changed the F-150 body from steel to aluminum they saved about that much weight, and they promoted it as if it were the greatest automotive technology achievement of all time. 300 pounds really is a lot
> 
> I don't know what "PIP" means, but actually there is such a rule in the California exemption for 2035 -
> ...



Funny Ford claims to care about weight, the lightning is a full 2000lbs heavier than a loaded F150 and a PHEV 150 depending on design decisions could be much lighter, close to the non-hybrid, I’m always amused by the fact my Antique half ton trucks sometimes weigh almost half of a modern rig with a similar towing capacity, progress.

A plug in Prius runs the motor under heavy acceleration and at high speeds but t can travel it’s full 7 mile battery range without igniting the engine.

Last point, That is very unfortunate , it’s the BMW I3 Rex stops going up a mountain all over again.

My Volt allowing for me to activate and kill the ice at will allows for much better fuel economy and range when I travel beyond the 50-70 miles or so I can extract from the battery. By favoring battery operations during city, decell and downhill stretches I can getthe maximum EV range and flirt with 50mpg on the ice saving both types of energy.

As for the PHEV being ballist I disagree, hybridization of trucks that drive outside the EV range should improve the vehicles economy all the time not just when running on battery


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

rmay635703 said:


> Funny Ford claims to care about weight, the lightning is a full 2000lbs heavier than a loaded F150 and a PHEV 150 depending on design decisions could be much lighter, close to the non-hybrid, I’m always amused by the fact my Antique half ton trucks sometimes weigh almost half of a modern rig with a similar towing capacity, progress.
> 
> A plug in Prius runs the motor under heavy acceleration and at high speeds but t can travel it’s full 7 mile battery range without igniting the engine.
> 
> ...


As the article explains, the Lightning's weight is due to the required battery; Ford is very concerned with weight. Yes, a PHEV would be lighter, but it wouldn't be the battery-electric vehicle that is apparently wanted by some consumers and by governments.

Antique trucks are not comparable in features, performance, safety, or size to modern trucks. Add everything that the modern truck has, and it would be heavier than the modern truck of the same size. Strip the modern truck of all of the extra conveniences and crash-protection structure, and watch it out-perform the antique (and you would be comparing a new F-150 to an old medium-duty, not an F-100).

A plug-in Prius has a large motor relative to vehicle mass... and yes, it still turns the engine on when needed for performance, which would violate the California requirement.

A hybrid system will improve fuel economy when operating in engine-driven mode, but it only needs a kilowatt-hour or two of battery to do that - a plug-in size of battery is really just ballast if an engine sized like a non-hybrid is operating.

RAV4 AWD fuel consumption, in L/100km (city/hwy/combined)

non-hybrid: 9.4 / 7.1 / 8.4 
non-hybrid with stop/start: 8.8 / 7.1 / 8.0
hybrid: 5.8 / 6.3 / 6.0 
plug-in hybrid: 5.7 / 6.4 / 6.0
(I used the RAV4 because it comes in all of these variations with nearly the same engine)
Although the hybrid uses a more efficient engine variant (with lower power, made acceptable by the hybrid system), almost all of the benefit is in urban use, and a substantial part of that is just from auto stop/start. Adding the PHEV battery capacity makes nearly no difference, only slightly decreasing fuel consumption in urban use, and increasing fuel consumption on the highway. If you don't plug in a plug-in hybrid, it doesn't help any more than a non-plug-in hybrid, and the extra battery is just ballast.


----------

