Ford kills the All-Electric F-150

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Truck Usage, Culture, and Alternatives

  • Many argue most F-150s rarely tow or haul heavy loads; ownership is often cultural/status-driven (masculinity, “brodozer” image) rather than utilitarian.
  • Others push back with detailed work-truck use cases: long rural commutes, job sites, towing heavy trailers/boats, farm and ranch work, off-road access where small cars or vans fail.
  • Ongoing debate: in Europe and much of the world, trades use vans and small flatbeds; in North America, pickups dominate. Some insist vans + trailers are functionally superior for most jobs; others cite clearance, towing, and security needs where trucks still win.

Technical Fit of Electric Pickups

  • Consensus: EV trucks have ample torque and handle heavy loads fine; the real problem is range, especially when towing high-drag trailers, in cold weather, or at highway speeds.
  • Short-range towing (e.g., to a lake or nearby job site) and daily contractor use in cities are seen as good fits, especially where electricity is cheap and gas expensive.
  • Multiple owners in Canada and the US report loving their Lightnings for farm work, trades, and camping, especially the large frunk and onboard power outlets for tools, campers, and even partial home backup.
  • For rural, mountainous, and long-distance towing use, range, charge time, charger scarcity, and lack of pull‑through sites are described as deal-breakers.

Economics, Pricing, and Ford’s Strategy

  • Commenters cite reports of Ford losing tens of thousands of dollars per EV once R&D and plants are allocated; others counter that per-unit margins were improving but volume never reached break-even.
  • The ~$19.5B EV write-down is viewed by some as evidence of massive misallocation, by others as accounting cleanup; several note bigger historical impairments exist.
  • Many blame poor pricing and dealer markups: early talk of ~$40k work trims vs real-world $60–80k+ sticker; small businesses and fleets largely priced out.
  • Comparisons to the F-150 Powerboost hybrid: similar bed power, better real-world range, lower purchase price, but criticism of its reliability.

Pivot to Hybrids and EREVs

  • Strong thread arguing plug‑in hybrids (PHEVs) or extended‑range EVs (EREVs) with ~40–50 miles electric range are the “sweet spot”: daily driving electric; ICE generator for trips, cold, and towing.
  • Distinctions made:
    • Conventional hybrid: ICE must run regularly; complex mechanical drivetrain.
    • EREV/series hybrid: always electric drive; ICE only charges the battery; can simplify transmissions and run a more efficient engine.
  • Many welcome Ford’s plan for a next‑gen Lightning EREV as pragmatic, especially for towing and rural use; some lament loss of a pure BEV option and likely loss of the huge frunk.

Competition, China, and Policy

  • Rivian is seen as technically excellent and beloved by owners but expensive, with reliability and repair-cost concerns; positioned more as luxury than F-150 competitor.
  • BYD and other Chinese makers are repeatedly cited as far ahead on cost and vertical integration, with sub‑$15k EVs and affordable trucks (e.g., Shark) in other markets.
  • Split views on tariffs: some say Chinese EV dominance is built on heavy industrial policy and forced tech transfer; others argue domestic tariffs mostly shield uncompetitive US makers and hurt consumers.
  • Security worries about foreign EV “kill switches” are debated; several point out similar risks already exist in other connected tech.

Product–Market Fit and Design Choices

  • Many wish Ford had led with smaller, cheaper electric trucks or vans (Maverick/Ranger-sized, e-Transit, future $30k midsize EV) instead of a large, premium F-150 Lightning.
  • Critiques of Lightning as a luxury, short‑bed, early‑adopter toy with awkward parts availability and fragile, expensive body hardware; defenders note substantial parts sharing with ICE F-150s and strong work-truck performance when not towing long-distance.
  • Broader frustration with US truck bloat, safety, and “arms race” aesthetics; repeated calls for compact, utilitarian EVs (Slate, Telo, BYD, etc.) and modular beds.

Structural EV Adoption Issues

  • Whether EVs are cheaper to run depends heavily on local electricity and fuel prices; some report home-charging costs undercutting gas, others find electricity more expensive than gasoline.
  • Apartment dwellers, rural drivers, and frequent long-haul towers are highlighted as poorly served by current US charging infrastructure.
  • Several note a strong ideological dimension: trucks and EVs are both politicized symbols, and many arguments about “need” or “impossibility” appear, to others, as post‑hoc justification of cultural preferences.