Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
2022 Ford F-150 Lightning (ford.com)
727 points by awb 5 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 1396 comments



All: this thread has over 1000 comments. To see all of it you need to click More at the bottom of the page, or like this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27234039&p=2

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27234039&p=3

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27234039&p=4

(Posts like this will go away once we turn off pagination.)

There are also some previous related threads:

The Electric Ford F-150 Can Power Your House for Three Days on a Single Charge - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27232576 - May 2021 (14 comments)

Ford unveils the F-150 Lightning, its all-electric pickup truck - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27218029 - May 2021 (88 comments)

How Ford Built an Electric F-150 That Can Do Real Work for $40K - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217386 - May 2021 (7 comments)


Hot take: this, as some like Ars Technica have observed, stands a decent chance of being a real game changer.

Everything about this vehicle launch appears masterful, from its technology to its branding to the obvious care taken to ensure that in almost every respect it is so superior, and offers so many no-brainers, as to make anyone who can (both individuals and especially, fleet managers), buy these as fast they can.

This thing has more than one killer app.

The biggest by far IMO is its ability to power high voltage high draw tools at the jobsite.

If you have never worked on a jobsite, this is a BFD.

This is itself a game changer, it offers the ability to "disrupt" in a material way a whole class of project. Logistics just got 20% simpler and projects 30% cheaper.

Sure, it can go super fast; yes, you can lock your stuff in the truck...

But the other killer feature for fleet owners is that these are remotely manageable.

Your fleet now has detailed telemetry and its only going to get better.

And this is on launch.

We just got a RAV4 Prime and if I didn't live in SF proper, I might be seriously regretting not waiting for this thing. (I don't, and don't think this makes sense in the city.)

If we move to e.g. Sonoma and work remote? This would be that no brainer.

Hallelujah. Now, to invest in Ford...


The biggest by far IMO is its ability to power high voltage high draw tools at the jobsite.

I have a TIG welder and a solid state linear amplifier that I'd love to be able to power from my truck instead of from a generator.


To be fair, some of these features are available on the recently released hybrid, as well.

What I would like to figure out is if it can actually backfeed the home with 240V split phase power. That would be a seriously big deal if it could, it's not a common generator feature as it is. I'm skeptical, but they did claim it could transition from charging to supplying the house and back to charging when the power returned. Probably some fine print there where they say "only with the 120V charger". Otherwise, that would just be killer. An automatic whole-house UPS that can easily support all your needs for hours or even a couple days in a pinch.


Backfeeding houses with generators is indeed a killer feature... but not in the way you mean. It can be done safety, but when done incorrectly (if the house isn't removed from the grid first) it can kill linemen. It's a good thing most generators a homeowner might causally buy at the hardware store don't have this feature. Unfortunately I've seen male-to-male extension cords sold online for this purpose. I think these are actually illegal, at least in some places.

https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/elecgenerators.html


Yes you definitely have to get it installed by a licensed electrician (and possibly approved then by the local utility) if you are going to backfeed your own house.

It is good that people are aware of the risk, but in reality the risk is quite low. It is standard procedure for a lineman to ground a line he's about to work on, to mitigate the risk of any power source feeding it. But I'd never advocate a DIY setup. But damn near everyone I know with a portable generator has a suicide cord and just flips the mains. Ah well.


I do hear this kill a lineman a lot as soon as any talk goes into backup power.

How many linemen are killed a year in the US due to backup generators or similar? Are there no procedures they can do to work on lines safer?


Are GP mentioned, the safety procedure to protect you from a line you're working on becoming inadvertently energized is temporary protective grounding. A grounding jumper is connected to each phase of the power line near the work location so that the worker touching the line works in a zone of equipotential. Because everything the worker is touching bonded together, if the line becomes energized the worker's hands and feet are elevated to the same voltage simultaneously, so there is no potential difference across the body and no current flows through the worker.

But since lives are at stake here, we prefer to have layers of protection rather than just one thing. Grounding jumpers can fail if not properly connected (a large mechanical force will be applied to the jumper when the phase-to-ground fault current flows through it).

Bottom line, respect the electrical code and connect generators through a transfer switch. These rules are in place for a reason.


Could an isolating transformer be an alternative to connecting generators through a transfer switch?


Transformers only block DC. Unless your house is wired for that (pretty rare in almost every country) You'll backfeed AC which will go through transformers.

In fact it's likely the transformer on the street between your house and the network that's responsible for the death of the linemen. IIRC that's a step down transformer (so step up when run backwards like this.)


Shouldn't this be called a "homicide cord"? It's the unsuspecting lineman that'll be harmed, not the homeowner, right?


I assume Ford’s lawyers are all over this, as the liability is immense, and Ford has deep pockets.


> Backfeeding houses with generators is indeed a killer feature...

oh, you mean like solar PV on-grid setups ...


All of the grid tied solar systems are able to conform to the IEEE 1547 standard. Amongst the particulars are a 300 second reconnection time if there's an interrupted grid to protect utility workers. Most (all?) USA utilities mandate this standard.

Some battery systems, like the Tesla Powerwall include a contactor that allow their microgrid battery systems to conform to the standard without a loss of power to the site they power.

https://standards.ieee.org/standard/1547-2018.html


Your basic solar inverter monitors the grid voltage, and if the grid goes down it stops generating.

Needless to say, if you're looking for a backup power source this isn't a property you want.


People with generators and suicide cables know to shut off the main breaker. Per my buddy who is a lineman in a rural area, DIY solar systems in cabins and such are much more of an issue.


d'oh. i'm an idiot.

(an idiot who the state of NM certified last year to install his own on-grid solar PV system, so doubly an idiot!)


Yeah, our local utility won't let you feed the house from panels without grid power unless you also install a battery.


Those are generally fine because they are generally installed and configured by licensed electricians. Generators with suicide-cables installed by homeowner Joe Blow are the problem.


Close. It's not the electricians qualifications that make it safe, it's a feature in generating home inverters called 'anti-islanding'.

A correct install is of course also required as it's possible to screw up and unintentionally cripple this important safety feature.


The language on the site talks about requiring a whole house manual or automatic transfer switch. Plus the thing has a 240v outlet. (presumably split phase, 240v single phase is not common in US residential settings).

I wonder if the wiring is basically plug the 240v split phase into a special outlet in the house that feeds the transfer switch. The 80amp charger is then just a charger.

Could be completely wrong though. We'll know more at launch.


That is basically how generators work.


Right. The backup function will require the house be set up with a transfer switch and the appropriate inlet setup, just like a whole house generator. The interesting bit is just the fact that the truck has a 240v split phase inverter built-in and ready to go.


>vehicle launch

Product launch is when something is released and you can buy it, not when someone published plans and best wishes.


Äh I have to disagree. This is far, far, far less of a game changer compared to the Cybertruck.

It basically worse and more expensive at everything and its very unlikely Ford can build close to as many as the Cybertruck. Simply because of batteries alone and other production capacity as well (a lot is shared with the other F150s).

Its really slow charging considering the time it will come out. If you want to use this to transport anything its range is worse compared to the Cybertruck and its gone charge much slower.

This will likely sell well and they will likely sell as many as they can make. But that doesn't make it a game changer.

This will sell well but


Yes I'm sure ford will struggle as they only make 4+ million plus vehicles a year, nowhere near teslas bumper crop of 180k a quarter...


Oh this old bad argument warmed up again.

Remember when 5 years ago people claimed that as soon car companies make electric cars they would outsell Tesla?

Well the fact is that Tesla sells more EV by far then even VW by a large amount.

Scaling BEV production is hard, and just because for produces lots of ICE cars does not mean they can magically produce lots of EVs.

Do yourself a favor and actually learn about BEV production and supply chain issues.


> Remember when 5 years ago people claimed that as soon car companies make electric cars they would outsell Tesla?

Remember 5 years ago when Telsa fans claimed BEV range and acceleration wasn't possible for legacy automakers?

Ford sell more F series vehicles per year than all tesla models combined - why are you assuming they need to pivot asap to EV only?


> Remember 5 years ago when Telsa fans claimed BEV range and acceleration wasn't possible for legacy automakers?

No, I don't. Its the opposite, most people were saying that legacy makers could do it eventually but they need to make massive investments in EV production, and guess what, they did.

Tesla fan were actually right, it took way longer then people said for real mass market EV to come out.

But of course Tesla got the lead and they are not just outselling everybody else and are still among the leaders in performance and efficiency.

> Ford sell more F series vehicles per year than all tesla models combined - why are you assuming they need to pivot asap to EV only?

They don't but in a few years EV version will outperform the alternative ICE version along pretty much every dimension and there will be huge demand for EV trucks.

The question is if you at that point have the capacity to produce them in accordance with demand.


> The biggest by far IMO is its ability to power high voltage high draw tools at the jobsite.

The hybrid F-150 could already do that.


Not for 40k


game changer It is as it is not a truck but a Mobile power source.


The features and specs feel mediocre compared to CyberTruck. The only thing that looked perhaps better was the frunk size and access but everything else CyberTruck is clearly better even price and most definitely on the most important spec of all, range.


The Cybertruck is coming from a leader with a history of hasty, half baked communication. If you think the Cybertruck will be out this year or exactly as pictured and specified... well I think that is extremely unlikely.

A production prototype doesn't even exist yet.


The Cybertruck is going to end up being a sales disaster after the initial sensationalism rapidly wears off. Sales will fade, it'll end up as a gimmick. Large numbers of consumers don't want to drive/use/own something that looks like that, they want something that looks like a normal truck.

Cybertruck is Musk's equivalent of the Mac G4 Cube ego mistake, except far worse. He understood that electric vehicles should look like existing conceptions of vehicles, things people can easily identify with as being vehicles they'd want to drive, but electric and maybe sexy + better in various boring functional ways. He abandoned that with the Cybertruck, and it'll bomb accordingly over time. Meanwhile Ford will sell a bazillion electric trucks, and humiliate Tesla's efforts in the space (in his inability to be humble, Musk will fall back on claiming Cybertruck is superior, even as it doesn't sell very well).

Tesla should have acquired Ford in a stock swap, left it an independent operating entity, and electrified their trucks; or acquired a huge minority position (in a stock swap) if the Ford family wouldn't go for a full acquisition. They should have done that years ago. They were too self-absorbed to see the obvious opportunity. The electrified trucks would be enormous profit centers. Now, instead, Tesla will almost entirely miss out on the zillion dollar electric truck market, which they could have had a big slice of. Tesla's only shot is to abandon Cybertruck and build a normal looking truck, which they won't do for several years until the pain from the embarrassment overwhelms Musk's ego problems (otherwise they'll just leave Cybertruck as a low volume trinket in their lineup, or abandon the space entirely).


I believe Tesla will sell the initial batch of trucks, with crazy futuristic styling, while improving their production scale at a high premium to the early adopters. Once they have the factories/scale setup, they will just re-skin them with a non-futuristic/conventional body and be able to mass produce (at Tesla levels) the trucks to the wider audience that F-150 owners would buy. And at a more reasonable price as well since they early adopters would have already paid the ramp-up cost. This is similar to the first launch of the high performance Tesla series and makes sense overall. I personally would love to have an electric F-150 for the reliability that they could have with the years of experience Ford has had in the market. Job site users would be all over this.


Cybertruck preorders have passed 650,000 units. While a lot are definitely just doing it for "fun" since it's refundable, it's still an insanely impressive number.


It's not impressive specifically because it won't follow through. There will be an initial sales surge (which will be very loudly touted), and it'll rapidly implode because it's a ridiculous vehicle that the masses of consumers will not want. The curiosity and gimmick of its look / design will implode very quickly, as is always the case and without exception when companies do things like that. It'll melt down to being a low volume sales space for Tesla, until or unless they do a normal or quasi-normal looking truck (and by that time they'll be running from behind).


I don't know but... I want a goddamn car that looks like it's from the future. Car companies always build the coolest looking prototypes then dress them down and make them ugly.

I have a pre-order Cybertruck and may or may not be in a position to buy one when they land in Australia (if they land at all) but man it's cool.

Think of the Lamborghini Countach [0], it was designed decades ago and it still looks like it's from outer space!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Countach

EDIT: Saying that, if this new F150 came to Australia (or say an all electric Raptor) I'd probably go for the Ford. I currently drive a 2019 Hilux and it's a very handy do everything car, but the F150 is quite a lot larger and not really suited to the (very few) Australian cities.


I thought Tesla was primarily a battery company?


Tesla doesn't make batteries. Panasonic does.


Then why is it selling cars for a loss?


This same old story gets warmed up ever fucking time. With the Model S, with the Model 3. Its so fucking tiered.

Even at 20% conversion of preorders (and that is way lower Tesla usually gets) they have plent for the first 1-2 years of production and that is assuming that they don't get more orders (again as they did with ever other car).

This is just your personal taste and you have formed your opinion on that 100%. Not a single actual state about the Cybertruck or its release indicates anthing like what you suggest.

> humiliate Tesla's efforts in the space

Ford wins in a space Tesla doesn't have a product in. Wow. Amazing.

> Tesla should have acquired Ford in a stock swap

That you believe that shows how you have absolutely no understanding of the car market. That the worst possible idea.

> Tesla's only shot is to abandon Cybertruck and build a normal looking truck

Or you know if your outrage claims are actually true, they could build a 'normal' turck and the Cyberturck. Crazy that a company could produce two different trucks.

The battery availability is the fundamental constraint.


Ironically, the frunk on electric trucks is a game-changer. Complementing the bed with an enclosed, waterproof, secure place to carry things (and no mucking around with insecure bed covers) is a killer feature. No more springing for a crew cab just to carry groceries in the rear seats. In terms of practical carrying capacity this dominates an SUV.


Trucks are more dangerous to pedestrians because of the higher and flatter front--means people end up underneath rather than above if they are struck. I understand why they kept the look the same and why they used that space but in the future would prefer that they made changes to make it safer for everyone and not just the occupants. The high hoods make for poor visibility around the front.


Thank you. As a cyclist and pedestrian (who does own a normally-sized car), I was getting pretty frustrated by the lack of safety discussed in the comments.

https://twitter.com/lloydalter/status/1395326192908218371?s=...


I agree this is less safe for pedestrians, which matters in cities, but it is maybe safer in rural areas? I'd much rather hit a deer or moose going 80 in a tall truck then a short truck. Also, in my experience, people drive much slower in smaller towns, and are therefore less likely to hit a pedestrian or cyclist.

Plus the added visibility is nice and certainly would increase safety, I would think.


> but it is maybe safer in rural areas?

People walk in rural areas, too; and those roads are often not designed for it and these accidents tend to happen at night. There's a significant percentage of pedestrian deaths that happen out of the city under these circumstances.


I guess suburbs are where these trucks and people most often encounter each other.


Sounds like a common sense reasoning about this. Are there stats to back it up? Do trucks pose a significantly greater risk to cyclists and pedestrians? I'm actually a truck owning cyclist myself.


The commonly cited study (that of course nobody reads) from the Governors Highway Safety Association showed that if you get hit by a truck or SUV you have a higher chance of dying. They also found that if you adjust for how many of each are on the road, you are 15% more likely to be hit by the driver of a car.

Trucks and SUVs are on average newer than cars and at a higher price point, which means more newer safety features like object detection and driver warnings. I also suspect the feeling of mass in driving a larger vehicle makes you take driving more seriously.


>I also suspect the feeling of mass in driving a larger vehicle makes you take driving more seriously.

I think it's the opposite. Also larger vehicles feel slower when you drive them even when you are doing 80.


Is it that, or is it just that people drive smaller vehicles on average in cities than in rural areas, and that's also where most of the pedestrians are?


It's probably a function of average parking spot size.


Front visibility issues come up from time to time. Especially with children sometimes hidden from sight.

https://www.wthr.com/mobile/article/news/investigations/13-i...


Yes, there are lots of studies on this. If you want info a good place to start is London's upcoming ban on large vehicles with low visibility (I would provide more info, but I'm limited on time right now).


You'd need a study that actually looked at more than just "what happens if you hit a pedestrian at 25 mph" - because it's quite possible that a truck does more damage when it hits, but hits less often because it's higher up and has better visibility.


I feel like I'm much more able to see pedestrians in my Cayman than in my 4Runner. People seem to blend in with the surroundings the higher up I am.


Every single near-miss I've had while walking in Minneapolis has been due to the driver not paying attention. There wasn't a single time it was due to lack of visibility from inside the vehicle.

My yelling at one driver who was staring at her phone while driving out of a parking ramp and across the sidewalk where she nearly hit me, probably woke her up enough to avoid driving into traffic and being hit by a bus!

No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.


The gp was simply stating that being struck by a truck is more lethal than a car due to their flat, tall fronts. They weren't, by my reading, insinuating that trucks are more likely to hit people. That is indeed, in my opinion, a function of operator error all things equal.


The GP said also, " The high hoods make for poor visibility around the front." to which your parent responded.


Yup, this is also why the Cybertruck (probably) won't be road legal in Europe. Too many sharp edges that would seriously hurt a pedestrian on collision.


Also no side mirrors. It's kind of a joke how poorly defined it is with people seriously expecting it this year.


You don't necessarily need mirrors when you have reliable (probably ASIL-B, maybe ASIL-D) cameras systems that recreate that view inside the vehicle, although I'm not that well versed with European laws.

They could also just add mirrors as has long been standard between concept and production motorcycles. (Example [0][1])

[0] https://2yrh403fk8vd1hz9ro2n46dd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-... [1] https://i2.wp.com/www.asphaltandrubber.com/wp-content/upload...



This article states that forward blind spots account for 30-60 pedestrian fatalities each year. Rear blind spots are 5-10x deadlier. I would prioritize backup cameras.


Back up cameras are now standard 18MY onwards. New vehicles are required backup cameras.


Totally agree with you. Now, would you prefer being hit by a Ford F-150 or Fiat 500 (same speed)?


>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.

people being distracted isn't a new feature; people being given distractions in the cabin is.

I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, to be quite frank.

Are you insinuating that less visibility isn't hindering the ability to drive safely?

There are additional devices commonplace in vehicles to make up for the lack of visibility -- pedestrian detection/auto-braking/switching cameras for example -- but surely a car would be safer to both pedestrians and the passengers if it had those types of features along with increased visibility..

>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.

As a former auto mechanic, maybe i'm over-exposed.. but :

1) car interior design changes yearly, and it's usually to sate consumer desires rather than for safety/usability/efficiency.

2) mechanical failures aren't rare. mechanical failures that may end in injury or loss-of-life aren't rare, either.

The DoD has done tons of usability studies with regards to UI/UX. If auto manufacturers wanted a safe/repeatable/efficient environment then the interiors would probably share a lot of features with fighter jets; tactile buttons, audio cues, correct information density, etc.

They don't look anything like this -- this is a clue to the consumer that there are different priorities in mind at the manufactures' HQ, namely lately ICE (in-car entertainment, not internal combustion engine; sorry for possible confusion) and technological glitz like RGB lighting.


Second this. Even in the most bike- or pedestrian-friendly neighborhood of Minneapolis, all of the near miss experiences I’ve had have been because of driver inattentiveness. Is there some tautology here—with truck drivers and pedestrians frequenting disjoint geographies? Certainly.


Good that the car has DMS then :)


Related: Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? by Douglas Husak

Because of high crash incompatibility, more overall damage and death occurs because of SUVs (and other similar vehicles).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447?seq=1


Pedestrians make up only a small minority of people killed in car crashes. (Like 6k of 40k per year.) So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. Best would be indexing car/truck sales tax to the size of the negative safety externalities, which would be a quite small fraction of the total car price, and letting people buy what they want to buy. It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck format and are willing to pay for it.


Cars&trucks cause a large majority of the pedestrians killed in walking-around-the-city accidents, though. Lumping those deaths in with highway deaths makes the statistic meaningless.


No. That would only be potentially true if people were proposing a law to limit the form factor of trucks that are driven in cities (and even if so, it would not be obvious; you'd have to look at the numbers). Since that isn't feasible, and all the proposed laws are about limiting the form factor of all consumer trucks, the average statics are the relevant ones.

You can always find a subpopulation where some effect is large; that can't be good reason to make rules that constrain the entire population.


Observation: bigger and heavier vehicles are safer for their occupants in any impact.

Regulation: cars should be safer

Impact: All vehicles continuously increase in size and weight year on year, decreasing the safety of older vehicles and non-vehicular road users


You have not responded to my rebuttal to what you said, you're just bringing up a different argument.


Sure, I don't actually know what your argument is to rebut? I know many people who would like to buy a ford ranger sized truck, but manufacturers discontinued them a decade ago because fuel efficiency regulations disincentivized them.


Not if saving 5k pedestrians kills 10k highway drivers. (Numbers made up, I’m just saying you have to consider them.)


Why would design changes that improve visiblity to avoid killing pedestrians end up killing more highway drivers?


From other threads, one might conclude that animal accidents in rural areas inspire some apprehension about wedge-profiled designs. In USA, 1m out of the 6m auto accidents each year involve one car and one animal, with a human death rate of 200 per year.


>So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general.

unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences.

>It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck format and are willing to pay for it.

no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made.


> unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences.

Nope. "Deaths should always be prioritized over aesthetics" is a clearly bad rule because it is innumerate. You must always trade off how many deaths for the preferences of how many people. Otherwise all design of everything is dictated solely by safety.

> no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made.

No, you need to read about externalities and Pigovian taxes. The entire point of the proposed tax is that it does not require the car buyer to care about pedestrians whatsoever.


Vehicle drivers decide what vehicles they buy, but pedestrians do not. The Regulations (or lack thereof) incentivize vehicles that kill more pedestrians


Surely you can’t be serious


Pedestrians should get the benefit first though, because they are not the ones choosing to drive cars. I’m much more OK with drivers making choices that hurt themselves than I am with them making choices that hurt other people who never had the option of choosing.


Wow, 6k or 15% of deaths is not worth doing anything about... This is peak car-brain thinking.

Pedestrians are the ones who should be the first to reach zero deaths IMO, since they weren't the ones who decided to drive around in a deadly machine in the first place and are usually completely innocent in their own danger.


What are your thoughts on pedestrian vs. train deaths? Obviously it is always the conductors fault and peak train-brain thinking?

Commuting on a scooter I've seen more than my fair share of pedestrians on phones walking out into traffic and idiots on bikes blowing through red lights. Sometimes everyone involved can be at fault.


It's not even really their fault in those situations though, they're not walking faster than 3-4MPH. You're the guy driving a two thousand pound hunk of steel, not paying attention.


2k of those 6k pedestrian deaths had alcohol in their system. Surely a train is a safer place for them.


Please price in externalities. Add in noise, total area it takes up, weight, and pollution.


Only 6,000 dead?? Wow. Every year.

How is this acceptable??


This is a true point, but it applies to SUV's as well as trucks. This is more an argument for moving to a sedan-dominated fleet than an argument against trucks... but good luck: in the USA, SUVs and trucks are two very hot market segments.


Here's one for you on that topic from London: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56647128

Cities should start taxing the size of vehicles too if they're going to let people park on the street. Smart cars are a fantastic utility vehicle for example, but are not incentivised enough.


especially more dangerous when they've been retrofitted with even higher steel off-roading bumpers.


That's what I was most excited about, and agree it is a game changer. Hopefully we can get small e-pickups at some point - I have a 2004 Toyota Tacoma that I love, and it would be amazing with a frunk, but you can't really get small pickups that size anymore.


> I have a 2004 Toyota Tacoma that I love, and it would be amazing with a frunk, but you can't really get small pickups that size anymore

You're not kidding! I was in the market for a small pickup and checked out the Tacoma and Frontier, which I previously understood to be "small" trucks. They're massive these days, just like the F-150! I guess it's perceived that there's no market for that size any more.

A small electric pickup would be a super handy thing to have around, potentially appealing to urbanites too since they can toss their groceries in the frunk. There's really no reason the frunk needs to be so big on the F-150 Lightning - that part of the design is really a head scratcher.


Trucks, vans, suvs are the size they are, at least in part a due to CAFE regulations that give fuel efficiency concessions to vehicles with a larger wheelbase.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_econo...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Ford did a lot of internal research, and focus groups, on the marketability of differently designed electric trucks to their primary customers and came to the conclusion that their consumers like the way the trucks look and are more likely to adopt electric trucks if they look the same and offer tangible benefits. Consider the massive frunk, that can hold 400 pounds of gear, or the 2k hauling capacity, or the on board outlets, including a 240v plug, or all the fancy new towing features (that are hopefully not useless vapor ware). If I was in charge of a large truck work truck fleet that averages less than 200 miles/day I'd be replacing at least a few of my oldest trucks with these and give them to the senior guys to break in and see how they do. This truck could be a serious game changer. Ford's not my favorite vehicle manufacturer but they've got my respect for building a serious electric truck at a reasonable price.


I wonder if there are hidden systematic considerations that make it so that trucks the size of Japanese mini trucks simply appear to not exist in the united states. Here's the first DDG link about these trucks: https://jpnautoimport.com/mini-truck%EF%BC%86jdm


From what little I know, I believe it's related to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax


Crash test safety is the answer.


What we need is an electric Subaru Brat.


Funny, I’m building just that! https://www.instagram.com/bratindustries/


That's what I love about HN. Make anything up, and someone's done it and posted pics. It's like being able to wish things into existence just by posting a forum comment.

Next: Cold fusion jet pack!


That is awesome.


The new Ford Ranger is a smaller size, but it's perhaps the worst looking truck available. I'm not sure what Ford was thinking there.


The new ranger is the size of my 99 F150. I have an 01 ranger that is way smaller.

The only thing the same is the name.


Still much bigger than the Rangers of years past.


Indeed. I think the defining feature of a small pickup is the ability of an averaged height person to be able to reach over the sides and grab something from the bed of the truck. All of the current trucks on the market you can barely even see in to the bed. It makes it super hard to load the bed without actually being in it. Trucks today have become so much more vanity symbols than anything else.


This. I had an old VW pickup which was a charm to use for my small business. Could also park it in tight spots too.


Agreed on looks - I actually declined buying one because of that.

That said, I really wish they would have started there. I want an electric truck. I don't want one anywhere near as large as an F150. I understand F150s sell better so know why they went that route, but an electric Ranger/Colorado could really dominate the fleet market.


Maybe GM will see as an opportunity to electrify the Colorado instead of the Silverado (unless there are already public plans to do so).


I don't know much about trucks, but I looked up both on the Ford website. The Ranger's front area is slightly curved while it is flat on the F-150. Aside from that, the trucks look identical to my novice eyes. I can't say I find either particularly appealing.


They look quite a bit different in person. The Ford Ranger has a very muted look where as most trucks these days have an agressive look. It looks like it was designed not to be noticed.


You should have look at the Toyota Hilux, not Tacoma.


I don't think those have been sold in the US for over 30 years. I miss mine.


>you can't really get small pickups that size anymore

Write your representative and tell them to thank the EPA and NHTSA for doing their jobs. The death of the small pickup is squarely the fault of the confluence of fuel economy and crash safety regulations.


> Write your representative and tell them to thank the EPA and NHTSA for doing their jobs.

It seems like those regulations aren't working they way they ought to if the result is to encourage people to drive bigger cars than they need and to have more cars on the road that minimize the safety risk to the occupants while maximizing risk to everyone else...

> The death of the small pickup is squarely the fault of the confluence of fuel economy and crash safety regulations.

...and the chicken tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax


Thanking them for doing their jobs was sarcasm. The chicken tax existed for decades and small pickups were fine though I'm no fan of it in principal.


>>>It seems like those regulations aren't working they way they ought to

Regulations rarely end up with the outcomes the people pushing for the regulations publicly claim the desired outcome is.


I'm not following - how would a smaller (and presumably lighter weight) truck have worse fuel economy than the giants we see today?


Fuel economy regulations are based on vehicle footprint and weight. Small trucks are small and (were, still would be if we still had them) fairly heavy for their size making them bad for compliance. A small vehicle is also going to have harder lines (less physical space for clean curves) so will have worse aerodynamics.


On the other hand, all these arguments completely go away for electric cars, so there would be space for smaller e-trucks.


You think the government won't set energy efficiency requirements for electric vehicles similar to mpg?

They put energy requirements on dishwashers, they're not going to give EVs a pass.


That is interesting. I wonder if that is why Ford got rid of their small pickup (The Ford Ranger) for several years from 2012 until 2020.

It did come back last year, probably after meeting new regulation requirements.


That's exactly it. IIRC they even said so at the time. They were already producing the "new ranger" elsewhere at the time so they could have just imported it but looking at the MSRP difference between it and a based f150 vs the size of the market they decided it wasn't worth it.


Ahhh. So that's why it happened, makes sense now. These are the types of regulations I want to see disappear (or, rather, modified to align better with desired incentives).


My dream car is an electric 1955 ford f100.



Those are ugly as sin though.


My "when I'm rich" car is actually an old truck like that rejiggered to be an EV.


Yeah like the original Subaru Baja, or even better, the iconic El-Camino.


The 2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz [1] looks like it'll be much smaller than the current crop of trucks (though still larger than the compact trucks of 20 years ago).

[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36125131/2022-hyundai-san...


This is one of my biggest complaints about trucks these days. I have a newer Tacoma and it is the same size as my dad's 2008 Tundra.


Ford is supposedly coming out with a smaller pickup, the Ford Maverick, that I think is similar in size to the old Ranger.


but will be a horrible unibody truck


And the 2004 is large compared to earlier small pickups. Vehicles keep getting unnecessarily larger.


I drove a 1997 Ford Ranger XLT Supercab for about 12 years. I recently came across a 2021 Ford Ranger while I was running some errands and have not been able to get it out of my head. It looked like it's practically twice the size of the 97 model. It's a full 12" longer, 8" wider, 6" taller... But the bed length has remained the same or gotten shorter. I don't pay any attention to this stuff but it is strange to me, I don't understand why mid-size and light-duty trucks are / feel so gargantuan today.


The first thing that we need to change about the perception of these vehicles is we have to stop calling them e-pickups. Because e usually means economy. And economy means cheap and flimsy and no legroom. People who are buying Ford pickups don't want cheap and flimsy and no legroom.

Just call it a pickup.


E means electric


Oh yeah, I'm totally into that. It's perfect for a grocery run and you don't need to do anything to keep it from rolling around the bed of the truck or get rained on.


Taking a pickup for a grocery run is like using a jackhammer to push in a thumbtack.


I own a cow. Because I own a cow, I often need to get bales of hay from the local co-op. I need a bed (or a trailer) to bring those back to the farm. A pickup can do this.

I grow vegetables. Because I grow vegetables, I occasionally need to pick up a yard of compost. I need a bed to bring that back to the farm. A pickup can do this, too.

I own a tractor. Because I own a tractor, I need to be able to tow said tractor to the nearest dealer or machine shop to get it serviced and repaired. I need a vehicle that can tow a trailer carrying multi-thousand-pound many-foot-long tractor + loader + three-point implement setup. A pickup can do this, too.

I cook using ingredients I don't grow myself. Because I cook, I need to be able to buy groceries. I need a vehicle to bring as many groceries as I buy at once back to my house. Would you really suggest that if I already have a pickup for the above three needs, I should keep a second non-pickup vehicle around just to run to the supermarket, the doctor, or local watering hole?

That's a lot of expense when I could just have a general-purpose vehicle that does it all. HN seems to be all about general-purpose computers that can do more than you might need day-to-day. The same can apply to vehicles.


Of course. So could a semi, a backhoe, and a dump truck do all these things. Point being, use the right tool for the job.

If you're using the pickup to haul to and from the jobsite 99% of the time, sure it doesn't make sense to buy something else to do errands around town on the weekends.

You'd be in the minority though.

Most household pickup owners in North America use them as a car. Here in Alberta there are more pickups sold every year than any other vehicle category. They are simply using the wrong tool for the job, and defend their 'fashion' choice by the once a year they throw in a bag of compost from home depot.

Furthermore, most North American households have 2+ vehicles, they do in fact have a choice as to which tool to use for groceries.


Good thing we live in the USA and can drive whatever we want to the store.


Not sure 'we can drive whatever we want to the store' is a rally cry to be particularly proud of, neighbour.

We seem to think because we have the freedom to drive a V8 half ton dually less than a block to the mailbox with the aircon blasting, that it somehow makes it any less of a stupid thing to do.

Most North Americans translate whatever freedoms we've been granted into one: the freedom to thoughtlessly consume and squander without restraint. I guess it remains to be seen whether your freedom is a good thing or not, but the way things been going I suspect it aint gonna go your way forever.

Even a 5-year-old knows: if you keep using your transformer as a projectile aimed at your brother, it's gonna be taken away.


> Even a 5-year-old knows

How lucky that we're all grown up adults and the government is not our mommy!


My Ridgeline truck has a trunk in the bed. It’s amazing.


And think how much better it will be when it isn't covered by the stuff loaded in the bed.


Bed is usually empty, but yea that’s a concern when you’re hauling on a long trip. The trunk also contains the spare tire, so it’s hard to access the spare tire when hauling stuff.


Why do you own a truck if you usually don't use the bed?


The same reason I own a car with a rear seat and a roof rack.


Using the bed doesn't necessarily mean leaving things in it at the end of the day.


It’s a short bed with large cab. Meant for occasional light hauling, not for everyday usage. The Ridgeline is more car/SUV than truck. Refined for city driving and light duty.


I'm sure it's a great truck but I'm not seeing any refinement for city driving. Not in my city anyway.


You can buy giant drawers to put in the bed of a pickup, and still have access to what's in them even when loaded.

Example: https://truckvault.com/vehicles/pickup but there are others.


You'll probably continue to see camper shells in California due to the absolutely insane registration rules.


Please elaborate


https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/vehicle-industry-regi...

Registration is much cheaper if you have a camper shell because the vehicle ceases being 'commercial'.


Although

> Adding a camper shell to a pickup truck does not necessarily constitute a change from commercial to auto registration. The addition must meet the definitions for human habitation or camping purposes. Otherwise, the vehicle may be subject to citation from law enforcement for not meeting the definition of an auto. Human habitation is defined as living space which includes, but is not limited to: closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, and bath or toilet rooms.


. People do this all the time.

. The police never check.

You'd be surprised how expensive an old pickup's registration can be in CA.

The main problem isn't the cheating by low-end tradesmen but that the average schlub's truck is considered a 'commercial' vehicle including registration cost by gross vehicle weight. (at least that's how I understand all of this).

They never make it easy here to do anything, but people will put up with a lot of rules and taxes if it mostly happens to others.


This is how some people get away with registering commercial big rigs as not for hire and for towing their giant fifth wheels


I suppose they're wagering that the police won't do a detailed evaluation of the suitability of the space for habitation.


Agreed, which makes it strange that it’s only available as a crew cab.


Most of the gas F-150 sales are crew cab models, so it makes sense not to target that relatively small niche.

The long-bed was popular back when people owned a truck as an extra vehicle/work vehicle only, now many use their truck as their main vehicle and have need of carrying others.

If you look at the creature comforts of older bench seat trucks (bare-bones) and the trucks sold today, a truck today will have everything an SUV will have in terms of comfort and maybe more.


"The long-bed was popular back when people owned a truck as an extra vehicle/work vehicle only, now many use their truck as their main vehicle and have need of carrying others."

My favorite configuration is:

- 8 foot bed

- extended (not full) cab

- rear doors are "suicide" doors

Our ranch truck is a Silverado 1500 in that configuration and it is nice to have optional seats but not lose the 8 foot bed. Suicide doors allow you to open the entire vehicle up with no pillar in the way and I love that.

Chevy no longer offers this but I think Ford does, currently ...


I've got the same but the 6.5 bed. That just means I can park it at Home Depot somewhere near the entrance to the store. The 8 foot bed does have its allure.


The supercab F150 has serviceable back seats. There is no need to gimp the bed with an oversized crew cab.


My selection of vehicles agrees with you but friends who are new parents were shocked to see that child seats don’t fit in the back of Tacoma or I presume f150 supercab


Child seats will fit in an F-series supercab. The Tacoma isn't a full size truck so not exactly comparable.


My friends Tacoma backseat didn’t seem much different from my f150 with suicide doors, so thank you for the confirmation i’m Good to go


Serviceable, sure. But the crew cab has a cavernous rear seat area. I used to drive a BMW 5 series and now drive an F-450 w/Crew Cab (my wife and live full-time in a Fifth Wheel RV, otherwise I'd never own such a large vehicle). I was astounded when I saw just how much more rear leg room the truck has compared to the 5 series.


If the airlines were in charge of the F150, they would squeeze in 3 rows of seats


I have a supercab and I am happy that I have the 6.5' bed to go with it, I can lay 4'x8' sheets flat with the tailgate down. Combined with a backrack/hitch extender I can get 16' long lumber.

The backseat is passable with my dog and kids, but barely. If they were able to take some room from the front where there is no engine and give me both a reasonable bed and a crew cab I would be happy.

A lockable frunk is pretty attractive though so that you don't have to worry about leaving tools in the bed.


The vast majority of pickups these days are sold either for work or family, and both benefit from additional people capacity. It makes sense to go after this huge market first.


Yeah, this is a bummer for me. I don't really like crew cab (either how it looks, or how it compromises bed length vs. overall truck length), and this really doesn't need it.


Indeed; I was trying carefully to not imply that this was some unique advantage of the F-150, but rather an interesting property of the electric truck category in general.


I hope this displaces a lot of the adventure Sprinter vans out there. Obviously, the built-out vans for long-term living won't get replaced by a truck, but I live in Tahoe and could use an adventure ready vehicle for winter skiing and summer trail running and MTB excursions with the family.

The frunk makes a big difference for those kinds of things.


I gotta say, I am very impressed by what I've seen with the F-150. It's clear that a LOT of thought has gone into this product and Ford clearly understands their target audience extremely well. There are so many nice features that are so well tailored to folks who buy trucks. All the features to power job sites, etc is really sweet and I can totally see that being super handy. Heck, it would make it super easy to work on projects in my driveway without any worries.

Storage with the massive frunk is awesome. Lots of features around hitches and making it easier to use them and tow with them. Pretty good price point, good acceleration to appeal to the macho truck crowd who will hold their nose while making the plunge to electric so they can feel good about themselves when they floor the accelerator at stoplights and onramps.

There is something for everyone here. Yes, it plays it safe on the aesthetics side of things, but I don't see anything wrong with it. The "safer" aesthetics also make it more useful than the Cybertruck, what with the massive Frunk. Really glad to see some good competition in this space. The next 2 years are going to be really exciting in the EV space!


I could legitimately see every job site having at least one as a rolling power station.

That could be a very useful and popular niche, construction sites without power at early phases of construction aren't rare and power tool batteries are expensive.


I would be really interested in understanding the breakdown in F150's as sold by model number.

For a lot of truck owners, there's going to be some resistance because they love having a v8 engine etc. I don't see those people moving over quickly (although they might be swayed by the acceleration/speed). But if you're using one as a tradesperson, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. You're not driving enormous distances regularly and if you're able to run your entire job site for free, as well as have lower servicing costs... why wouldn't you?


Many new trucks have used turbo V6s instead of V8s for awhile now. There’s definitely some buyers who just want the sound of a V8 or don’t quite trust the reliability of a twin turbo BUT I think more people would be open to electric than you would think, even in people primarily just using them for transportation


I know a few people who tow big trailers, and they buy the V8 because once you hook up a real load the turbo kicks in and you are burning just as much gas. They figure that larger engine without a turbo is probably going to last a lot longer. Those who use the truck for a mix, sometimes with the trailer, sometimes with small loads opt for the turbo v6 and like it just fine, but they all agree if towing is the real goal get the v8. (or better yet get a diesel, and a bigger truck)


Couldn't agree more. I'd hazard a guess that 90% of car users aren't wedded to using gas. There are enthusiasts, but they are a small minority.


I don't know a single person who enjoys going to a gas station. Paying $40 a week just to hear some loud noise is an incredibly lame proposition, and only makes sense if you drive your truck for fun instead of utility. Most people buy a car for work, so avoiding the pump is a huge bonus.

I'm sure gas guzzler enthusiasts will continue to exist, but the financials don't make sense; it would be far cheaper for them to daily drive an EV and keep the old guzzler for fun days. They'd save on gas and maintenance by not driving an ICE all the time, and they still get to use it whenever they have free time.

In conclusion, my argument is that Ford/whoever will still eventually capture these enthusiasts, because they can still keep their old trucks but will always eventually need a new one.


lol $40 for full tank...


I bought my truck used and somehow missed that it had the extended range tank, which is 36 gallons. I was so confused when I filled it up for the first time and it just kept going and going...


I don’t mind it. I drive a v8 Mercedes and love the sound etc... but at the same time, I’ve moved to NYC so the odds that I even keep a car aren’t particularly high.


I keep my vehicles a long time. I wouldn’t buy a turbo. When they fail, and they will, it’s super expensive. V8s have been around for a century, and they are very reliable.


I had the same thought but I ultimately had to choose between an F150 Lariat w/ EcoBoost or a near base model Tundra in the same condition for $8k more. So I decided to take a gamble on the turbos.


You'd be surprised at how far tradesmen need to drive sometimes. Jobsites are all over the place, and not everyone lives in the same place. So the jobsite might only be 45 minutes from the builder, but it's 75 minutes away from the trimmer. That's the situation for me, and it's not uncommon to travel that far to a job.


Man, pipes and noise can be nice, but people who really like a v8 will also love the lack of a torque curve.


> That could be a very useful and popular niche

Perhaps.. but we'll have to see how the battery holds up under extremely hot or cold conditions to really know if it will be used that way; and few people will want to be stuck at the job site after the end of the day.


I think it could be quite useful in construction, food trucks, events - any situation you normally see generators.

However, even better for that kind of stuff would be a hybrid with a smaller battery, but a generator in the frunk (sort of like the Volt).


I agree that would be even better.

Unfortunately I don't think such a vehicle exists yet, while hybrids and even plug-in hybrids are common, they aren't designed to be used as power stations/offer multiple 110v outlets.

This new F-150 is rare in that the manufacturer actually supports its usage like this. If you use a Tesla as a glorified battery they will actually void your warranty.


New f-150 hybrid has (up to) a 7.2kW generator with 120/240 outlets in the bed. This would probably be a better option for most commercial applications than the electric.


My self-built sprinter has seen it's solar-charged electrical system been used many times to power PA systems at parties and running events. Only 120VAC (no 240VAC), and only about 2.5kW/hrs of power available, but I've never needed close to that for anything it's been used for. I've used it a few times to run power tools, but that's when I most regret only having 1kW inverter instead of a 1.5kW one: a router or circular saw startup can trip the inverter breaker.


The only gotcha with this, is that F150s are huge. I have an oversized garage and an F150 will barely fit. Many of my full-size truck driving neighbors opt to park in the driveway because they turn a modern two car garage into a 1.5 car garage unless designed specifically for giant vehicles.

I haven't seen consumer chargers that are designed to be installed outside. Most people have wall chargers in their garages, but I don't thing this is going to work for the majority of F150 home owners.

That being said, this is an otherwise incredible vehicle. The F150 is pretty much the ultimate vehicle for someone with enough space for one, and this improves upon it in nearly every way.


At least in Europe, pretty much _all_ chargers are designed to be installed outdoors, as pretty much no-one has a garage anyway.

So outdoor charging should not be an issue.


(European here) do you mean in city centers? Most houses not in historic city centers have garages in Italy afaik


Here in the UK lots of people have garages but I'd actually guess its more common to use them for storage than to keep a car in. Everyone I know who has an electric car keeps it on the drive with an outside charging point.


Underground (or partially underground) parking garages are fairly common for newer and especially fancier apartment buildings where I live. I'm not sure how common electric car chargers are in these garages, however.


I own an F150 Platinum with the 6.5ft bed (most are only 5ft beds), and my truck won't fit in my standard size garage. It is simply too long.


The Siemens US2 VersiCharge is a pretty popular consumer charger that's designed to be weatherproof. I have one in my garage, but I've seen them installed in parking lots for commercial use, too.


> I haven't seen consumer chargers that are designed to be installed outside

Most can be installed outside, specially if they are hardwired. Not sure if there are any rated to be plugged in outdoor power outlets.


I live in Washington DC. My neighbors with electric cars just plug them in even though we lack garages.


Electric or not, trucks have been getting so big in recent years it's becoming pretty absurd.


I'm still waiting on the F350 EV :)


Ford has said they reused much of the same parts for the ICE F150 so it makes sense they look very similar. This will also help the model be profitable as well.


> good acceleration to appeal to the macho truck crowd who will hold their nose while making the plunge to electric so they can feel good about themselves when they floor the accelerator at stoplights and onramps.

I have a Mustang Mach e and can't emphasize this enough. It makes tooling around my suburban enclave a pleasure as I go from 0 to 30 mph in a blink.

I entered an on-ramp with a BMW behind me. Honestly, I wasn't trying to make a point, but the BMW swung around me as we entered the highway and it was on. Then it was done. Giggle.


I get to eat my hat somewhat. I hope it's tasty. Just a few days ago I made the comment that the Cybertruck's killer feature is it's $40K price tag, if and only if that price tag actually happens. I said that Ford could not make a decent EV F-150 at that price point unless they throw their dealerships under the bus. And here we are with a $40K EV F-150.

I'm glad I added the caveats though -- the $40K F150 is for commercial fleets, so will be missing crucial features for the passenger market and might bypass dealerships. Even so, $52K is still a competitive price for a SuperCrew with a few options.


I expect that a real advantage to an EV F150 over any Tesla truck (or car) will be repair costs, most particularly collision repairs.

Of course, they'll always cost more than the estimates, plus you get to throw in sales tax and the annual registration tithe to the state.

I'm always surprised that people are willing to spend so much on new vehicles but I guess it keeps the money moving through the economy. The spice must flow.


Those same people sell their previous vehicle in decent shape for a lot less money, and you and I can then buy it.


That's generally my attitude too. Once someone complained that the car I wanted had low resale value. I reminded him that I was buying used so that wasn't a bad thing.


Why do you think the F-150 Lightning will be cheaper to repair than the Cybertruck?


Cybertruck is unpainted (or varnished) stainless, isn't it?

Means that you can't fix small dents with filler, have to swap panels instead.


The cybertruck is unibody, there may not be a panel to swap. Body on frame is easier to fix major accidents as well. But getting a car that retains value andnis cheap to repair means after even major wrecks they won't total it and you get a car back that was bent back to mostly true.


But you can hit the door with a sledge hammer and not have any minor dent to repair. (Just a window)


At what speed does a Toyota Corolla have to hit against your door for it to be the same force as a sledge hammer?


How fast is the sledge hammer moving?


Doesn't unpainted stainless mean you don't really need to fix small dents, no rust issues?


Steel bodywork on modern cars is typically galvanized very thoroughly and/or given other protective coatings prior to painting, so dents generally aren't at risk of rusting. That said, people tend to not like having even cosmetic damage to their cars. It's reasonably easy to hammer out, fill, prep, and paint dents in traditional bodywork, but bare metal doesn't really have that option (especially if, as Elon Musk claims, it's significantly work-hardened--I am somewhat skeptical about that, since it could significantly reduce crashworthiness without a ton of engineering).


Fair, but at the same time we're talking about work trucks a lot in this thread, and I don't think I've ever seen a real "work truck" that was totally unblemished. If it's unblemished you're not working it very hard, in my experience.


Ford also hasn't sold that many EVs (yet), so it's still eligible for the US $7500 federal tax rebate (unlike Tesla).

(BTW: It seems like such an arbitrary and ultimately bad decision to cap rebates by manufacturer. Rebate caps for expensive luxury cars? Sure. But penalize a manufacturer for making _too many_ of the thing you're incentivizing doesn't seem right).


You're not penalizing anybody, you're adding a temporary incentive to get the manufacturer up to speed. Once they're selling enough, they don't need to incentivize people to buy them.


Since the rebate is per manufacturer you are penalizing the first movers. Meaning, Tesla and GM's electric vehicles are $7500 costlier than Ford because they exhausted their rebates early on.

The cap should have been for the entire country so that companies like Ford can't sit back years before rolling out with an EV and gain a second movers advantage now that the tech is mature.


Ford has already sold over 100,000 EV's, and if they can't sell 100,000 Mach-E's in the next 12 months then they're doing something wrong. So by the time the F-150 becomes available their credit should be in the wind-down phase.

Another likely scenario is that Biden gets his infrastructure bill through and the credit becomes available to all US-manufactured EV's.


As far as I know, Ford is capacity constrained to the point that they will only be able to ship ~50k Mach-E's this year.

Not only that, but the phaseout process for rebates is VERY slow. Its likely they will still have at least some rebates until some time in 2023, even without a change in the law.


> if they can't sell 100,000 Mach-E's in the next 12 months then they're doing something wrong.

Specifically, the thing they are doing wrong is not having enough capacity to make 100K Mach-Es this year. It's not that demand isn't there, but rather the supply can't meet demand. Same problem Tesla has, just in smaller numbers on the Ford side for the time being.


The Mach-E is a great vehicle. The only thing that may hold it back is high price tag, but tax credits will help.


The inflation that the infrastructure bill cause will make the credit pointless


I think the $40k price tag is deceptive if you look a bit closer. The extended range 300 mile battery is only available on the Platinum edition which starts at $60k IIRC, otherwise you're stuck with 230 miles which IMO going to make the truck feel hamstringed.

The $50k Cybertruck gets you 300 miles.


Yeah, the $40K version of the F150 Lightning is the "commercial use" one, which will presumably be utilitarian. I think they plan to reveal more about the commercial version on Monday.

If the $40K commercial use version is the right truck for a given consumer, great. But most consumers will want to step up from that for a personal vehicle. I think for most people, we will find $53K is the real starting price.

It feels as if the $40K commercial-use version was added in order to capture some headlines that group "$40K" alongside features of the more expensive trims such as "4.4 second 0 to 60," and I believe they have been successful in that.


> The $50k Cybertruck gets you 300 miles.

The Cybertruck gets you nothing. It doesn't exist.


And neither does the F150 Lightning. What a dumb ass argument.


President Biden drove the F150 Lightning on TV. Has anyone (outside Tesla) driven the Cybertruck on TV yet?



That statement makes the argument even dumber.


How?


Seriously? The president drove it for a commercial and that is the prove to convinced you that it is real product? And Tesla didn't do a commercial with a president and therefore its a fake product?

They are both large car companies who have invested billions into the development and production of these products and they will both come out next year. Anything else is just nutjob conspiracy theory nonsense.


the $40k cybertruck gets you 250 miles.

(...in late 2022)


The Lightning isn't supposed to be going until 2022 either, and Ford is having supply chain issues with chips, which this truck probably needs more than any car they've ever made, so we'll see which ships first.


Yeah, and the Mach-E was delayed by several months as well. It wouldn't be shocking if this ends up being more like late 2022, at least for any significant volume.

Not that its an issue. People focus a little too much on initial ship date, IMO.


Why would it need more chips? It's not inherently different from existing trucks in that regard.


Battery management in a modern EV requires more compute than an ICE vehicle, for starters.


I like Ford and have driven mustangs for 30 years with a short gap where I had a truck.

Just a preface to say I’m not hating on Ford in particular here, but the msrp is bogus. I can nearly guarantee that the actual base on a vehicle you can actually by will be $10k higher once a dealer is involved.

Edit: side comment, wow 800 plus comments on an F150 hacker news submission. Did not see that coming ;)


At some point I will want to buy an electric truck. The biggest appeal with Tesla is that I don’t need to deal with dealership.


Lots of people buy 100k Ford pickups, 50k is no big deal to fords market


The $40k cybertruck pricetag is good.

It is setting customer expectations and it is competition.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: