More truck talk. All-electric Ford F150 Lightning.

[Killroy1999]

Yeah! Does it have tank turn????

[YouTube]yzwM8KE2L3I[/YouTube]

 

[chrisweir.com]

/want

 

[Killroy1999]

If we started this thread a couple years ago the responses would lean a lot more towards - that will never work. Times have changed .

Aerodynamics: Many manufacturers seem to ignore design for aerodynamics on cars in trucks. What sucks about this is that normal drivers like to speed over the speed limit and there is where power requirements are exponential function of speed. And then drivers whine about not meeting EPA estimates.

The Towing Corner case: Yes, its a corner case. Many truck owners will never put much in the bed or tow. I would actually like so see the average truck driver drive in reverse with a trailer

Yet some folks will tow and my conclusion is that towing is a great way tub BURN a lot of energy, so it should be expected that range will significantly be reduces. Driving the speed limit and managing trailer weight will help. A plug in Hybrid configuration, like the Chevy Volt or Prius Prime would be great for the best of both worlds if long distance towing is desired.

 

[Abacinator]

It's a truck. It's not supposed to be fast or aerodynamic

 

[splat]

Nope, I said 'more aerodynamic', not 'aerodynamic' for a reason.

Just because it's got a triangular shape to it, doesn't make it "more aerodynamic" than something that isn't shaped like a triangle. That's my point. Here are vehicles that you might describe as "boxes" that are more aerodynamic than the triangular Countach (0.42 drag coefficient)

Chevy Tahoe: 0.39

Lexus GX: 0.38

Ram 1500 quad cab: 0.357

Toyota Sequoia: 0.35


Something just being triangular doesn't necessarily mean it's more aerodynamic than something you've described as boxy. There are other factors, too.

 

[Killroy1999]

Just because it's got a triangular shape to it, doesn't make it "more aerodynamic" than something that isn't shaped like a triangle. That's my point. Here are vehicles that you might describe as "boxes" that are more aerodynamic than the triangular Countach (0.42 drag coefficient)

Chevy Tahoe: 0.39

Lexus GX: 0.38

Ram 1500 quad cab: 0.357

Toyota Sequoia: 0.35


Something just being triangular doesn't necessarily mean it's more aerodynamic than something you've described as boxy. There are other factors, too.

Those are actually impressive drag coefficient numbers.

A couple of thoughts. The important parameter is "drag area" which is coefficient of drag X cross sectional area.

Also, the Lambo is probably design for down force with is traded for coefficient of drag.

 

[splat]

Nope, I said 'more aerodynamic', not 'aerodynamic' for a reason.

Just because it's got a triangular shape to it, doesn't make it "more aerodynamic" than something that isn't shaped like a triangle. That's my point. Here are vehicles that you might describe as "boxes" that are more aerodynamic than the triangular Countach (0.42 drag coefficient)

Chevy Tahoe: 0.39

Lexus GX: 0.38

Ram 1500 quad cab: 0.357

Toyota Sequoia: 0.35


Something just being triangular doesn't necessarily mean it's more aerodynamic than something you've described as boxy. There are other factors, too.

 

[ScarySpikes]

Those are actually impressive drag coefficient numbers.

A couple of thoughts. The important parameter is "drag area" which is coefficient of drag X cross sectional area.

Also, the Lambo is probably design for down force with is traded for coefficient of drag.

They would be if those numbers were true. I can't say for sure on all of those models, but when independently tested the RAM 1500 showed a drag coefficient of .56, not .357

Companies lie about Drag Coefficient all the time. C/D tested a few cars that are reportedly pretty good back in 2014. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15108689/drag-queens-aerodynamics-compared-comparison-test/

Nissan reported the leaf had a cD of .28, the test showed .32, Mercedes said their 2014 CLA had a drag coefficient of .23, it's tested drag coefficient was .30

I have not found independent testing for all of the vehicles there, but given RAM was so far off from the truth, I don't expect the other numbers to be true either. Companies lie all the time, cD testing is difficult and expensive and thus, not something that a lot of reviewers will independently test, so it's relatively safe for companies to lie. that's why when I see Elon Musk saying 'cD below .3' I trust the independent test that said .39, not his word, at least to the extent to say, the same tester used the same methodology to test the shape of different competing vehicles and found that the cybertruck was substantially more efficient than traditional truck shaped competitors.

The triangle shape vs. boxy shape is reductive, looking at the cybertrucks actual shape, especially with it's fully covered bed, it's relatively close to a teardrop shape which is generally regarded by experts as the most efficient (hence why most passenger planes have that basic shape.)

With that being said, aerodynamic efficiency seems to be a very major consideration for Tesla that led to them making design decisions that ignore how a lot of truck owners use their trucks. For one thing, the tall walls of the bed that rise up at an angle to the roof of the car are really impractical. No way Ford, GM, Dodge are going to make that design choice.

 

[berth]

Ram 1500 quad cab: 0.357

Woof. 'Murica! "RAM Magnum Edition"

 

[Killroy1999]

 

[R3DS!X]

It also produces significantly less milk.

 

[Kornholio]

How is it not good enough? How many people drive more than that in one go? 240 miles is more than half a tank of gas. How often do you people use more than that in one day of driving?

Half a tank a gas in what? A Yugo? Who the hell is getting 480 miles a tank out of any F-150 regularly without the extended range tank? I had a 2017 with the 2.7TT engine in it and I couldn't get 500 miles to the tank unless I set the cruise at 55 MPH and took it on a super long road trip.

 

[Johndicezx9]

 

[mrzuzzo]

Half a tank a gas in what? A Yugo? Who the hell is getting 480 miles a tank out of any F-150 regularly without the extended range tank? I had a 2017 with the 2.7TT engine in it and I couldn't get 500 miles to the tank unless I set the cruise at 55 MPH and took it on a super long road trip.

I dunno, I have a Ranger and I can't even get 20mpg on that thing.

There are plenty of SUVs that can get 400+ miles of range on a full tank, assumed the F150 was similar. I dont really drive ICE cars often but I have a Kia SUV rental in Hawaii right now and it gets 400 miles a tank easy.

Anyway, this thing will suck for towing. Will probably get 100 miles of range tops. Otherwise, don't see how it's any worse than the gas version UNLESS you drive a lot and to very remote places.

 

[bpw]

A couple of thoughts. The important parameter is "drag area" which is coefficient of drag X cross sectional area.

Yep, drag coefficient doesn’t tell you anything about how much energy it takes to move a vehicle. Useful number, but not for this conversation.

I bet Ford sells a zillion of these things to fleet operators and the trades.

 

[ScarySpikes]

I bet Ford sells a zillion of these things to fleet operators and the trades.

Absolutely to this part. Of the EV trucks that are coming out, this is the only one that seems credible as a fleet/work truck, or at least the only one that is anywhere near production.

 

[Killroy1999]

We can look at Ford Mach-E sales to gauge how well this will go. Mach-E appears to very production constrained at ~7K for their best month. Battery cell production may be the key.

 

[jiffy]

It's a truck. It's not supposed to be fast or aerodynamic

The 2021 Ram 1500 TRX
6.2-liter, supercharged V-8 HEMI Hellcat engine.
702 Horsepower.
650 Pound-Feet Of Torque.
Eight-speed Automatic Transmission.
Heavy-duty Advanced Four-Wheel-Drive System.
0-60 mph in 4.5 seconds.
Top speed of 118 mph.

 

[Abacinator]

Ok? That doesn't invalidate what I said

 

[easter bunny]

We can look at Ford Mach-E sales to gauge how well this will go. Mach-E appears to very production constrained at ~7K for their best month. Battery cell production may be the key.

Or maybe a vehicle that runs solely on electricity is disproportionately affected by the global chip shortage?