Electric (F150 Ford Lightning) vs. Gas (GMC 1/2 Ton V8) Test

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by richard5933

I'm glad that people are having great success using their EV as a daily driver. I would have one if my budget allowed

But isn't this the very thing that this thread and this forum is about? Tow vehicles? For Airstreams? And often for long distances?

The conversations here are about tow vehicles used to pull Airstreams, in all sizes, often for very long distances. A tow vehicle which needs to be 'refueled' every 100 miles or so isn't ready for prime time yet, in my opinion. It might be useful for someone only going to a nearby country campground, but far more people with Airstreams travel much further than that.

Let's use my planned trip this weekend to go to a Pow Wow in Black River Falls, WI. It's just under 200 miles each way. If the range is only 100 miles when towing, then I'd have to charge at least once on the way, changing a 3 hour trip into a 4 hour trip. Then I'd arrive in Black River Falls with a nearly-depleted battery, needing to charge again.

But when I get to Black River Falls there are no charging stations. We're going to be dry camping, so there is no place to plug in there. I would have passed the nearest charging station about 30 miles south on my way up, so I'd have to at least get a partial charge on the way up so that I can make it back to a charging station after the event. Now I've got two stops for charging, further lengthening the trip. And if we use the TV to get around during our time up at the event, we're limited in that we have a 60-mile roundtrip drive to recharge and this has to come off our range while at the event.

Normally I can make it there and back again on a single tank of gas if I'm careful, but usually we'll top off when we get to Black River Falls. Takes about 10 minutes to do that.

It's great that manufacturers are working on this. It's great that states are pushing for it. But unless the real-world needs are met by an EV tow vehicle there is just no way that the transition can succeed. Just trying to be realistic about this. I suppose we'd better hope that either the manufacturers get this figured out before the deadline, or that our ICE vehicles continue to function well until they do.

Nailed it. And from an environmental perspective the impact of having ICE tow vehicles is nada. It’s a lot of hype.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by richard5933

I'm glad that people are having great success using their EV as a daily driver. I would have one if my budget allowed

But isn't this the very thing that this thread and this forum is about? Tow vehicles? For Airstreams? And often for long distances?

The conversations here are about tow vehicles used to pull Airstreams, in all sizes, often for very long distances. A tow vehicle which needs to be 'refueled' every 100 miles or so isn't ready for prime time yet, in my opinion. It might be useful for someone only going to a nearby country campground, but far more people with Airstreams travel much further than that.

Let's use my planned trip this weekend to go to a Pow Wow in Black River Falls, WI. It's just under 200 miles each way. If the range is only 100 miles when towing, then I'd have to charge at least once on the way, changing a 3 hour trip into a 4 hour trip. Then I'd arrive in Black River Falls with a nearly-depleted battery, needing to charge again.

But when I get to Black River Falls there are no charging stations. We're going to be dry camping, so there is no place to plug in there. I would have passed the nearest charging station about 30 miles south on my way up, so I'd have to at least get a partial charge on the way up so that I can make it back to a charging station after the event. Now I've got two stops for charging, further lengthening the trip. And if we use the TV to get around during our time up at the event, we're limited in that we have a 60-mile roundtrip drive to recharge and this has to come off our range while at the event.

Normally I can make it there and back again on a single tank of gas if I'm careful, but usually we'll top off when we get to Black River Falls. Takes about 10 minutes to do that.

It's great that manufacturers are working on this. It's great that states are pushing for it. But unless the real-world needs are met by an EV tow vehicle there is just no way that the transition can succeed. Just trying to be realistic about this. I suppose we'd better hope that either the manufacturers get this figured out before the deadline, or that our ICE vehicles continue to function well until they do.

I think the value of the discussion centres not on where we are, but on where we are going. I think there are few people today who want to consider only 100 mile towing trips. But at the pace of development we are seeing, we will get to 200 miles when towing larger trailers, and then on up from there. Due to more battery capacity, lower consumption, faster charging, more availability of chargers, and so on. Not one of those, but all of those.

We are seeing a very rapid development trajectory. Not just with EVs, but also with batteries, and charging infrastructure., No one is suggesting that ICE tow vehicles be banned, so those concerned about that should just take a breath.

To focus on today misses that this is changing so quickly. And different use cases will be met at different times. Some may be OK with 200 mile towing range. Others may demand 500 mile towing range and 10 minute recharging They may be waiting awhile. But in the meantime they can continue with their current practices. I am not clear on why some of those individuals want to disparage the shift. (I am not picking on you). It is likely to happen whether we individually like it or not.

[skyguyscott]

Given how crude the battery technology of Rivian and Ford are to Tesla, I don't consider their performance indicative of what BEVs are truly capable of.

Unfortunately, since Tesla is late out of the gate with their Cybertruck, we have no way to do a fair comparison, and the result is that many will leave with an inaccurate perception of what state-of-the-art actually is capable of.

How a Ford performs today is not how good BEVs will perform in 10 or 5 or even 3 more years.

Of course, there will always be those who are immune to evidence that contradicts their own biases and preconceptions and who will always latch onto whatever anecdote confirms their own beliefs and will never buy anything but a new ICE vehicle (which may become impossible to do in CA starting in 2035), but if we are to save the planet and pass on a livable biosphere to our grandchildren, many of us will, and even for reasons that have little to do with the environment, such as better performance, cheaper TCO, easier convenience, and more fun.

[kscherzi]

So this thread is about the F150 Lightening, and what a lousy tow vehicle it is, at least for towing a large Airstream. It is Version 1, and it is pretty lousy, but future versions will probably be better.

On the other hand I happen to have a Version 25 gasoline F150. So far with 87,000 miles it's had a vacuum thing fail for $900 causing the 4WD on the fly system to randomly try to engage at freeway speed with loud grinding noise, a leaking oil pan replacement at $1,000, a failed 10 speed transmission controller at around $900 (transmission wouldn't go below 4th), and now headed to the shop for bad cam phasers making a really loud rattle at startup. Probably around $2,500 to fix. Fortunately all this is funded by Fords extended warranty which I purchased. An EV would have none of these expensive problems.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by jcl

I think the value of the discussion centres not on where we are, but on where we are going. I think there are few people today who want to consider only 100 mile towing trips. But at the pace of development we are seeing, we will get to 200 miles when towing larger trailers, and then on up from there. Due to more battery capacity, lower consumption, faster charging, more availability of chargers, and so on. Not one of those, but all of those.

We are seeing a very rapid development trajectory. Not just with EVs, but also with batteries, and charging infrastructure., No one is suggesting that ICE tow vehicles be banned, so those concerned about that should just take a breath.

To focus on today misses that this is changing so quickly. And different use cases will be met at different times. Some may be OK with 200 mile towing range. Others may demand 500 mile towing range and 10 minute recharging They may be waiting awhile. But in the meantime they can continue with their current practices. I am not clear on why some of those individuals want to disparage the shift. (I am not picking on you). It is likely to happen whether we individually like it or not.

I agree that things will be continuing to develop, and like I've said earlier I believe that the current generation of EVs is a transitional technology, the the keeper technology. Unfortunately I'm not sure the technology and infrastructure will be ready by the newly enacted deadlines.

You're correct that there technically is no ban on ICE vehicle being proposed, only on sales of new ones. However, in many ways these bans on sales of new ICE vehicles will effectively become a ban on them altogether. A dwindling supply of used vehicles will create skyrocketing prices, a shrinking parts supply, and an ever-shrinking support network for them. I believe that this is the goal, so saying that there is no ban on ICE vehicles gives little solace to those who may still have to rely on them to carry out their daily tasks/vocations.

You appear to interpret people pointing out the reality of the upcoming paradigm shift as disparaging EVs and the shift to them. At least for me, I'm not at all against the shift. But, I believe that if it's not done properly and in a way that doesn't leave people behind it will not succeed and will only serve to create another divide. There's a big difference in criticizing the path we're taking and the goal we're striving for. I agree with the goal, not so much with the path.

Putting a hard deadline on buying a new ICE vehicle is very concerning to people whose livelihood (or retirement plans) depend on a vehicle with particular capabilities, when they look at the current fleet of EV replacements and see nothing that would fill the need. Hope you can understand that the issue raises some serious concerns and emotions for people.

And for comparison, a 200 mile towing range is nothing to brag about. My 1999 Suburban can tow about 400 miles on a tank, and I only get 9 mpg when towing. There are many with newer, more efficient trucks, who can tow much further on a tank without refueling. As you say, people may be waiting a while to have an EV tow vehicle that can match these distances, but lets hope they're not waiting beyond the upcoming deadline.

[Daquenzer]

200 mile range is not good enough when I have to sit 20 minutes to get a charge. And could be quite some time if there are people ahead of me.

[mikeinca]

FWIW, the new CA regulations for 2035 apply only to passenger cars and light duty trucks. Medium and heavy duty trucks (3/4 ton and above) won't be affected until 2045. That gives more time for some of the concerns around towing to be addressed.

[PC Conner]

I have a 2018 Silverado 2500HD Duramax and really like it.
I don't think enough infrastructure is possible to meet the demands of universal EVs.
An additional concern for ICEs is that as the number of EVs increases, the profit margin of fuel stations will go down resulting in increased fuel prices and fewer fuel stations. I haven't found projections about this or how it will affect ICE owners.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Right you are. Many concerns that EV zealots don't talk about

From what goes on here on Airforums, when EV vehicles come up it does really seem like "zealot" is the right word.

Most of these comments have zero to do with a Ford F150 Lightning and I am not sure how this is allowed to happen every time, in every discussion that even whispers the word "battery" or mentions and "EV" at some point? Another discussion ruined by the lecture hall people trying to audition for a tenured position at the local college.

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

200 mile range is not good enough when I have to sit 20 minutes to get a charge. And could be quite some time if there are people ahead of me.

I do not think you are alone!

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by Singularity

From what goes on here on Airforums, when EV vehicles come up it does really seem like "zealot" is the right word.

Most of these comments have zero to do with a Ford F150 Lightning and I am not sure how this is allowed to happen every time, in every discussion that even whispers the word "battery" or mentions and "EV" at some point? Another discussion ruined by the lecture hall people trying to audition for a tenured position at the local college.

Your assertion cuts both ways both with regard to the Ford F150 Lightning in particular and batteries and EV's in general. My observation is that the "naysayers" (for want of a better term) in these threads are just as adamant, defensive, repetitive and sometimes OT in their comments regarding EVs as the so-called "zealots".

Personally, I'm not auditioning for anything, and I don't pass judgment on or question the motives of others who post. Just trying to have a conversation, pass on a little personal experience where it's appropriate and listen to all sides of the discussion, while being polite about it.

[skyguyscott]

California's 2035 sunset on the sale of new ICE passenger cars/light trucks and 2045 for heavier TVs should be sufficient for anyone now towing large Airstreams.

If you figure the life of your TV being about 10 years or so, your 2045 edition of your brand new F250 should run until at least 2055, even longer if you take really good care of it. And then there is the used market. And you gotta strongly suspect some states like, say Texas, won't ever outlaw new ICE vehicles. Just how long do you plan on trailering?

I would wager that market forces will likely sunset the sale of new ICE vehicles years before 2045. I would even put money down on it, if I were certain to be around to collect.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by kscherzi

So this thread is about the F150 Lightening, and what a lousy tow vehicle it is, at least for towing a large Airstream. It is Version 1, and it is pretty lousy, but future versions will probably be better.

On the other hand I happen to have a Version 25 gasoline F150. So far with 87,000 miles it's had a vacuum thing fail for $900 causing the 4WD on the fly system to randomly try to engage at freeway speed with loud grinding noise, a leaking oil pan replacement at $1,000, a failed 10 speed transmission controller at around $900 (transmission wouldn't go below 4th), and now headed to the shop for bad cam phasers making a really loud rattle at startup. Probably around $2,500 to fix. Fortunately all this is funded by Fords extended warranty which I purchased. An EV would have none of these expensive problems.

You for some reason, have had bad luck with your F150. Not sure if it was/is the 6Cyl Ecoboost or the 4Cyl EB? I had a 2012 EB Platinum 4x4 that had 144K miles on it when I sold it in 2017; no mechanical issues. Friends I know with same engine towing still today, have had no issues. Obviously, not your experience.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by richard5933

I agree that things will be continuing to develop, and like I've said earlier I believe that the current generation of EVs is a transitional technology, the the keeper technology. Unfortunately I'm not sure the technology and infrastructure will be ready by the newly enacted deadlines.

You're correct that there technically is no ban on ICE vehicle being proposed, only on sales of new ones. However, in many ways these bans on sales of new ICE vehicles will effectively become a ban on them altogether. A dwindling supply of used vehicles will create skyrocketing prices, a shrinking parts supply, and an ever-shrinking support network for them. I believe that this is the goal, so saying that there is no ban on ICE vehicles gives little solace to those who may still have to rely on them to carry out their daily tasks/vocations.

You appear to interpret people pointing out the reality of the upcoming paradigm shift as disparaging EVs and the shift to them. At least for me, I'm not at all against the shift. But, I believe that if it's not done properly and in a way that doesn't leave people behind it will not succeed and will only service to create another divide. There's a big difference in criticizing the path we're taking and the goal we're striving for. I agree with the goal, not so much with the path.

Putting a hard deadline on buying a new ICE vehicle is very concerning to people whose livelihood (or retirement plans) depend on a vehicle with particular capabilities, when they look at the current fleet of EV replacements and see nothing that would fill the need. Hope you can understand that the issue raises some serious concerns and emotions for people.

And for comparison, a 200 mile towing range is nothing to brag about. My 1999 Suburban can tow about 400 miles on a tank, and I only get 9 mpg when towing. There are many with newer, more efficient trucks, who can tow much further on a tank without refueling. As you say, people may be waiting a while to have an EV tow vehicle that can match these distances, but lets hope they're not waiting beyond the upcoming deadline.

Agree; we are a loooong way and many $$$ away from dropping our ICE's used for towing our AS's. (lets hope, anyway!)

Here is what Toyota is thinking, and why:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...qsJ?li=BBnb7Kz

And then there is this from CA on EV's...again... https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savi...9eb097752c3f1b

[jcl]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Here is what Toyota is thinking, and why:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...qsJ?li=BBnb7Kz

And then there is this from CA on EV's...again... https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savi...9eb097752c3f1b

It is always worth looking at more than one aspect of the news.

Toyota has been very slow in the shift to EVs. With Honda finally getting on board, Toyota was one of the last holdouts. Toyota has pushed hydrogen fuel cell technology over BEVs.

This week Toyota announced an increased spending of $5.6 billion on EV batteries. Quite a shift in corporate direction. Now their problem is how far behind they are.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/31/toyo...ina-plant.html

California has asked for voluntary cut backs of significant electrical loads during their current heat wave. Not limited to EV charging, and including air conditioning, the largest load. With EV charging, vehicles typically have settings that allow users to set charging for off peak hours, which is far cheaper. I can plug in when I return home; the vehicle automatically starts charging closer to midnight, and is still fully charged by morning.

California recognizes that the issue is climate change and GHG emissions, not EVs. And they just passed a sweeping package of legislation. EVs are a part of it. So is grid infrastructure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/c...gislation.html

And on the subject of the California grid, the Tesla virtual power plant is operating. The utility pays those who are connected and provide power, currently $2 per kWh.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-cali...nia-heat-wave/

This is with home batteries, but California has started testing vehicle to grid connectivity. Imagine a fleet of EVs being part of the solution to grid stability, instead of a purported cause of instability.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by jcl

It is always worth looking at more than one aspect of the news.

Toyota has been very slow in the shift to EVs. With Honda finally getting on board, Toyota was one of the last holdouts. Toyota has pushed hydrogen fuel cell technology over BEVs.

This week Toyota announced an increased spending of $5.6 billion on EV batteries. Quite a shift in corporate direction. Now their problem is how far behind they are.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/31/toyo...ina-plant.html

California has asked for voluntary cut backs of significant electrical loads during their current heat wave. Not limited to EV charging, and including air conditioning, the largest load. With EV charging, vehicles typically have settings that allow users to set charging for off peak hours, which is far cheaper. I can plug in when I return home; the vehicle automatically starts charging closer to midnight, and is still fully charged by morning.

California recognizes that the issue is climate change and GHG emissions, not EVs. And they just passed a sweeping package of legislation. EVs are a part of it. So is grid infrastructure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/c...gislation.html

And on the subject of the California grid, the Tesla virtual power plant is operating. The utility pays those who are connected and provide power, currently $2 per kWh.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-cali...nia-heat-wave/

This is with home batteries, but California has started testing vehicle to grid connectivity. Imagine a fleet of EVs being part of the solution to grid stability, instead of a purported cause of instability.

I think we can all read and understand these articles without your spin on things. Would like to see you get an Airstream so your posts could have some value related to reality of towing, vs sharing your EV bias toward ICE TV's we all are using; and will be for the foreseeable future. Do you see that happening anytime soon?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

I think we can all read and understand these articles without your spin on things. Would like to see you get an Airstream so your posts could have some value related to reality of towing, vs sharing your EV bias toward ICE TV's we all are using; and will be for the foreseeable future. Do you see that happening anytime soon?

You are concerned about spin?

The article about Toyota you posted was infotainment, put out to try and buy Toyota some time in the market given their slow pace of development of EVs. Even before the article was published, they had announced their investment in EV batteries.

We differ on the definition of foreseeable future.

Yes, depending on the availability of products both for towing and being towed. We won't be purchasing another ICE vehicle, that is decided. Our current EV would be fine with a 22. Would prefer a 23, with a lightening program, to remove all the superfluous weight. We are watching and waiting, given that the pandemic has severely restricted travel plans.

Now you. Will you be acquiring an EV so that your frequent comments on EVs and EV infrastructure have more value (your words)?

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by jcl

You are concerned about spin?

The article about Toyota you posted was infotainment, put out to try and buy Toyota some time in the market given their slow pace of development of EVs. Even before the article was published, they had announced their investment in EV batteries.

We differ on the definition of foreseeable future.

Yes, depending on the availability of products both for towing and being towed. We won't be purchasing another ICE vehicle, that is decided. Our current EV would be fine with a 22. Would prefer a 23, with a lightening program, to remove all the superfluous weight. We are watching and waiting, given that the pandemic has severely restricted travel plans.

Now you. Will you be acquiring an EV so that your frequent comments on EVs and EV infrastructure have more value (your words)?

First, I think EV's have their place for some folks. Too many "restrictions" to be mainstream however for my use. If I did have an EV, I would likely join an EV Forum where my experience owning one may be of value, when/if I could contribute. I surely wouldn't be posting just to demonstrate how smart I thought I was.

[RedSHED]

Originally Posted by jcl

Y...
Now you. Will you be acquiring an EV so that your frequent comments on EVs and EV infrastructure have more value (your words)?

Not directed directly at me, but it sorta is by proxy.
I have no immediate plan to purchase an EV... but this is the tow vehicle section of an Airstream forum. The Airstream is primarily relevant, the tow vehicle secondarily, and the "potential energy storage mechanism" is of tertiary importance. Interesting, but only tertiarily so.

I'll drop this nugget: ANYONE telling you they KNOW what the future of transportation propulsion is ... wrong. They are guessing. They may guess right, but odds are they won't.
Anyway, there are a lot of things in play at the moment, and a lot of research capital going different directions, and some of the non BEV projects are rumored to have a positive ROI, based on legislated financial reports. This hints strongly at a non-monolithic future. I *think* there's a consensus that BEV is part of that but contend there is zero consensus that BEV will be the ONLY player. For some parts of vocational use it is singularly unsuited, and RV tow vehicles are largely a byproduct of commercial product: pay for the factory & lab by selling to the fleets, pay for the bonus by selling to everybody else.

The continued presence of Lithium beyond 5-10 years is much less apparent except in those self-hagiographic focus areas that relentlessly cheer for one specific tech over another. I jokingly wonder what plasters the "I love me walls" of their editorial offices )

One thing very likely to change is the commoditization of some aspects ... a battery or a motor is pretty fungible, provided you can get standards in place - boardroom discussions right now are asking "are we primarily in the battery business or are we in the personal transportation business" and sniffing the air around some of the JV announcements, it smells mostly they're breaking toward transportation.


Now will the Lightning make a usable TV? For some mission profiles, absolutely. Even in some of the vocational uses it will be stellar (local construction, plumbing, and electrical contractors, hardware suppliers, etc). For others, such as hotshot, medium haul delivery, etc. not so much. If my profile is hitting campsites within 150 miles of home - and that's a legit profile for a lot of people, the Lightning will be da bom. for a lot of other, it'll be a non-starter. That's ok - both of those things can be true.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by RedSHED

Not directed directly at me, but it sorta is by proxy.
I have no immediate plan to purchase an EV... but this is the tow vehicle section of an Airstream forum. The Airstream is primarily relevant, the tow vehicle secondarily, and the "potential energy storage mechanism" is of tertiary importance. Interesting, but only tertiarily so.

I'll drop this nugget: ANYONE telling you they KNOW what the future of transportation propulsion is ... wrong. They are guessing. They may guess right, but odds are they won't.
Anyway, there are a lot of things in play at the moment, and a lot of research capital going different directions, and some of the non BEV projects are rumored to have a positive ROI, based on legislated financial reports. This hints strongly at a non-monolithic future. I *think* there's a consensus that BEV is part of that but contend there is zero consensus that BEV will be the ONLY player. For some parts of vocational use it is singularly unsuited, and RV tow vehicles are largely a byproduct of commercial product: pay for the factory & lab by selling to the fleets, pay for the bonus by selling to everybody else.

The continued presence of Lithium beyond 5-10 years is much less apparent except in those self-hagiographic focus areas that relentlessly cheer for one specific tech over another. I jokingly wonder what plasters the "I love me walls" of their editorial offices )

One thing very likely to change is the commoditization of some aspects ... a battery or a motor is pretty fungible, provided you can get standards in place - boardroom discussions right now are asking "are we primarily in the battery business or are we in the personal transportation business" and sniffing the air around some of the JV announcements, it smells mostly they're breaking toward transportation.


Now will the Lightning make a usable TV? For some mission profiles, absolutely. Even in some of the vocational uses it will be stellar (local construction, plumbing, and electrical contractors, hardware suppliers, etc). For others, such as hotshot, medium haul delivery, etc. not so much. If my profile is hitting campsites within 150 miles of home - and that's a legit profile for a lot of people, the Lightning will be da bom. for a lot of other, it'll be a non-starter. That's ok - both of those things can be true.

I think the propulsion system being electric is very likely. The on board energy storage is much less clear. Likely a type of battery, but fuel cells could be a factor. The type of battery is very unclear. Lithium is but one option IMO.

I think the Lightning will work for some mission profiles, as you say, but I expect Ford's next EV pickup, likely out in 2025, and no longer based on a legacy ICE truck platform, to have very different performance. Will it be enough to meet the needs of more of those who tow regularly? Too early to say. But worth watching.

[Atwebs]

I have a Chevy Bolt Suv. Cute little car, gets up to 280 miles per charge and Chevy paid for an in-home, quick charging station with select time charging (in the dead of night!). Love it, but I am not going to be driving it to the mountains where our cabin is. That's 235 miles at highway speeds with no quick charging unit at the cabin and very few on the road. It will charge at regular household current but S...L...O...W...L...Y. I love the car and the technology...but it isn't ready for adventure yet. Nope, but it's perfect for grocery runs.