Ford's New Electric Truck!

[Subway]

2 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

You are misunderstanding how the sensors and codes work. The sensors report via codes what is not working, not that necessarily that the sensor is bad. Multiple sensors reporting problems will narrow down which component is probably the problem.

The sensors report via codes what is not working, not that necessarily that the sensor is bad.

 

It could be the sensor is bad or something else needs to be replace. It is like engine light on indicates either the sensor is hiccup or something serious needs to check. 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Subway said:

The sensors report via codes what is not working, not that necessarily that the sensor is bad.

 

It could be the sensor is bad or something else needs to be replace. It is like engine light on indicates either the sensor is hiccup or something serious needs to check. 

Some OBD glossaries will have user fixes for codes. If a code pops up for P0502 and the solution says replace EGR, you don't replace your EGR. You check if the EGR's valve is stuck, if it's gummed at high or low, or if it leaks. If it's gummed, you can attempt a repair. If not, you can then replace. We're creating an argument outside of the original discussion. 

[D13H4RD]

Inb4 F-150 E-Raptor

[ARikozuM]

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

True, sometimes its as easy as a loose connector or clearing the codes in the OBD scanner and see if it the issue is fixed.

Yeah like you either don't get a oil dipstick or I've read you have to remove the front right tire to get at the oil filter on the new Ford Ranger.

And all the dumb stuff engineered to fail on purpose and cost a ton to repair like electric water pumps, or especially plastic stuff like valve covers or intake manifolds which should be steel or aluminum.

My mother's 2005 Highlander is a pain in the ass for oil changes. You have to remove the underskirts to grab the filter, rather than reaching in from above the engine. BMW has like 40 steps to get to the dipstick. 

[D13H4RD]

15 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

My mother's 2005 Highlander is a pain in the ass for oil changes. You have to remove the underskirts to grab the filter, rather than reaching in from above the engine. BMW has like 40 steps to get to the dipstick. 

On the topic of oil, I remember knowing that for the old Lincoln Continental, they recommend removing the engine to remove the sump due to how tight it is, although some have got around it by raising the engine a little. 

 

What I find funny is that in modern BMWs, right in the vehicle settings on iDrive, you can actually check the oil level. 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, D13H4RD said:

On the topic of oil, I remember knowing that for the old Lincoln Continental, they recommend removing the engine to remove the sump due to how tight it is, although some have got around it by raising the engine a little. 

 

What I find funny is that in modern BMWs, right in the vehicle settings on iDrive, you can actually check the oil level. 

I've only driven my '98 328ic and the dipstick was so far up the engine bay my car called the cops for molestation. 

[Canada EH]

8 hours ago, SuperCooling87 said:

It is unclear what the cost will be

Range anxiety is an issue with pure electric. Fuel prices havent gone up at all, they have actually fallen a lot which is too bad. I wish a barrel would increase so people can start making lots of money!

[RejZoR]

It'll only weight 300000 metric tons with all the batteries now...

[Lady Fitzgerald]

7 hours ago, Subway said:

The sensors report via codes what is not working, not that necessarily that the sensor is bad.

 

It could be the sensor is bad or something else needs to be replace. It is like engine light on indicates either the sensor is hiccup or something serious needs to check. 

That's what I said, Einstein. 

[Drak3]

10 hours ago, Subway said:

This is why 90s and early 2000s cars are more reliable than today modern cars

No, they aren't.

 

Easier to mainain? Not for basic maintenence, many complaints I hear about removing a wheel, becoming a contortionist, or remiving a few parts on modern cars (which isn't a universal given, btw), also applies to many 90's and up cars.

 

Complex maintence? More systems that can fail, but most of them are very reliable, especially when maintained, and that's offset by the fact that finding issues is MUCH easier with OBD2.

[TempestCatto]

My take on this is if it was a gas (or diesel) engine powering electric motors to each wheel, along with a stronger frame, you could tow way more with it than previously, and still have 4x4 abilities. I'll be honest, I don't personally believe that all electric is the future of automotive transportation. Maybe in cities and small towns, but for someone like me, I drive up to an hour one way to work. So electric would fuck me over. I believe the future is hydrogen electric cars. Hydrogen is easier and cheaper to make than gas, and is also infinite, where as crude oil is finite (finite to us because of how long it takes for earth to make more). Not to mention they burn way cleaner and don't hurt the earth as much to manufacture everything that goes into the car. I say this because Air Products has been working with Toyota for awhile now on it, and it's so far proven to be amazing (testing mostly done in California, I driven the cars myself, they're amazing).

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, Subway said:

I am not a fan of electric cars because it will be way more complicated to fix it yourself. 

I'm not going to give you the full argument, since multiple people have already covered why you're wrong. But you're wrong.

 

A 90's car is "easier" to fix than a current car. Period. I don't care whether the modern car is an EV or a straight gasoline - with how complex the computer systems are, plus advanced equipment like collision avoidance, etc - the main difference between an EV vs a gasoline is simply a battery + DC Motors vs a gas tank + ICE.

 

The electrical system is more complex, sure. But I doubt even the computer is more complex, since they're already really complex on any modern vehicle.

 

The mechanical systems are actually significantly simplified in an EV. You've got the motors, and maybe a drive shaft, depending on whether it's an "AWD" dual/quad motor design, or a single motor driving the whole platform.

11 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Not just the gearheads, people that actually need their truck for towing, the EV version will only make sense if it can tow the same load and have the same range as the gas version. But price is already a barrier with trucks, if you want any kind of features a truck can easily cost over $40k, even the Ford Ranger that just came to the US,if you add options it isn't much cheaper than a full size F150.

Rather ironic because Fiat Chrysler and Ram have been having more issues with reliability than Ford has lol.

The Ecoboost engines are nice, V8 torque with a lighter engine, its just people that aren't changing the oil often enough because of the twin turbos.

You say it would need the same tow load and range.

 

Why?

 

Same tow load? Sure, yes of course that makes sense. Don't want to lose performance after all. I don't think an EV will have too much trouble with towing though - with all that electric low-end torque.

 

But range? Why are we comparing range of a gas tank with range of an EV? Certainly more range is better, but you have to consider typical usage. Typically, someone using a pickup truck does NOT go through an entire tank of gas in a single day - that would be highly unusual (Perhaps if they do long distance delivery or something).

 

Instead, they might use a quarter tank or half a tank per day (or less). They might fill the tank up once a week.

 

Compare that to an EV, which has a fundamental paradigm shift in how you use the vehicle. Why? Because every day you're filled up. You don't need to "Drive to the gas station", because your home (or office, if work vehicle) is the gas station. It charges over night so you always have a full charge.

 

So, the new question becomes: how long of range do I need in a single day?

 

Now - obviously, there are going to be some people who still need the longer range of an ICE. And still need to be able to just "fill up" the tank quickly and keep going. But these are not things that most people need to deal with regularly.

[Shodapop98]

This might actually get me to look at Ford for a truck now instead of GM, but I have 55 months of payment left on my current truck

[TempestCatto]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Typically, someone using a pickup truck does NOT go through an entire tank of gas in a single day

I agree with you on most of your points, but you clearly never owned a pickup before. Everyone and their second cousin will ask you to haul something. If your nice and do it, you'll use a whole tank in a day, easy. If you own a company, say landscaping, you will fill up more than once a day if you have a lot small client jobs. In the winter, you'll use them to plow, and with 4x4 engaged, you'll use more gas by default. I work for a company who's trucks can easily go from New York to West Virginia in the same day, and not always in one straight shot either. Usually you'll work in NY, pick up a job in Jersey, and then maybe PA. Next day your down in Maryland then Virginia, then back to PA. How much gas do you think those 2015 F-150's use? Especially because they're loaded with equipment, more than you think. I don't even remember how many times they fill up, but that's partly because I'm lucky to not be one of those guys. I just work within a 1 hour radius of where I live. But back to the issue at hand here, the ability to work all day and night, rather than work for so many hours out of the day, is key here. It's why many companies won't use full electric in the first place. The only demographic I see for this all electric truck is a do it yourself family man with kids who will occasionally buy drywall from Home Depot to fix up his house, take his kids to school, and go to his office job. That could explain why Ford doesn't offer all electric in there more expensive and powerful trucks, because the majority of work pickups are used for can easily need far more "range". A company won't stop a truck, they will stop the man power behind that truck (so they can rest) but will have the next shift of guys use the same truck for more work. Like where my dad works (a nursing home) they need to keep the parking lot and especially the ambo entrance clear at all times. So when it snows, they have their plow trucks working all day (and night) to clear snow and lay salt. An all electric vehicle simply would not be able to last all day aggressively pushing a heavy load, driving with all 4 wheels engaged (and locked) as well as hauling around the weight of a plow and salt filled spreader.

 

Pickups have shit gas mileage as is, I get 20mpg myself (which is good for a v8 from '96) and full electric is far more efficient, sure. But it simply isn't suited for continuous work loads that a good majority of trucks may see. Also to note, my truck has a 35 gallon tank, so that honestly gets you pretty far. But when you run out, you need more now, not in a few hours. Just my two cents as a pickup owner and user.

[Blasteque]

Let's reign this in a bit.  F150 owners come in many shapes and sizes; some people actually use them for city commuting (it's not a good choice in my mind, but I'm not going to judge someone else's preference), other people use them for work, others for hauling their recreational toys (boat, camper, etc.), and so on.  For some of those people an EV makes sense, like commuting.  For some of those people a hybrid makes sense, like some of the construction trades (most of the heavy haulers are using 250s or 350s anyway).  For others neither makes sense, like driving cross-country with a camper.

 

That's what options are for.  Certainly, some people will buy the wrong vehicle, knowingly and unknowingly, but having the option is not a bad thing.

[Drak3]

18 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Can I replace the truckbed with a giant battery? 

So, an oversized Ford Pinto?

[Subway]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

No, they aren't.

 

Easier to mainain? Not for basic maintenence, many complaints I hear about removing a wheel, becoming a contortionist, or remiving a few parts on modern cars (which isn't a universal given, btw), also applies to many 90's and up cars.

 

Complex maintence? More systems that can fail, but most of them are very reliable, especially when maintained, and that's offset by the fact that finding issues is MUCH easier with OBD2.

90s and early 2000s are more reliable than today modern cars because they don't have to deal with the complexity sensors and computer crap put into the car. Changing oil on 90s and early 2000s are much faster than today modern cars. Some new cars today remove the oil dip stick, so the driver have to rely on the sensor and let hope the sensor is working correctly. 

 

 

 

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

24 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

...In the winter, you'll use them to plow, and with 4x4 engaged, you'll use more gas by default...

Sorry, but I got a chuckle from that because of the huge amounts of snow we get in the Phoenix, AZ area. 

 

All seriousness aside, most of my truck use is local (sans plowing). I didn't get 4 wheel drive because I rarely get off paved roads (I'm too darned old and decrepit now to get myself unstuck or, though it has yet to happen, walk for help if I can't get unstuck) and 4 wheel drive requires extra maintenance, reduces gas mileage, and raises insurance costs. I do make out of town trips from time to time and can drive as much 400 miles on 3/4 of a 30 gallon tank (I do not like to run the tank down anymore than that on a trip; I keep it above 1/2 tank the rest of the time) running at freeway speed limits. While an electric would suit my local driving, it wouldn't be able to handle any of my long trips. I would also need hours of charging because I would have only 12A available for charging.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 minutes ago, Subway said:

90s and early 2000s are more reliable than today modern cars because they don't have to deal with the complexity sensors and computer crap put into the car. Changing oil on 90s and early 2000s are much faster than today modern cars. Some new cars today remove the oil dip stick, so the driver have to rely on the sensor and let hope the sensor is working correctly. 

 

 

Actually, the newer vehicles have been far more reliable for me. They can go far longer before needing routine maintenance and usually don't break down as soon. They also get better gas mileage.

[TempestCatto]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

4 wheel drive requires extra maintenance, reduces gas mileage

The only extra maintenance I have is just needing all four wheels aligned after a plow season, and when I buy new tires I buy all four at once. Otherwise, I genuinely have no extra maintenance associated with having 4x4. Besides that, almost all 4x4 is selectable, so 2 high, 4 high, and 4 low. So you can control how much gas you consume, and so on. I don't know about insurance tbh, I would assume indeed it does raise rates, but I don't honestly look at that for me, I just pay for full coverage regardless.

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I keep it above 1/2 tank

That's the smart thing to do with any vehicle honestly. I mean, you could go down to 1/4 of fuel (that should be one quarter, idk maths) and be fine, but beyond that you could damage your fuel system by potentially sucking in sludge and air (at least, that's happened to another vehicle of mine).

[Lady Fitzgerald]

6 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

The only extra maintenance I have is just needing all four wheels aligned after a plow season, and when I buy new tires I buy all four at once. Otherwise, I genuinely have no extra maintenance associated with having 4x4. Besides that, almost all 4x4 is selectable, so 2 high, 4 high, and 4 low. So you can control how much gas you consume, and so on. I don't know about insurance tbh, I would assume indeed it does raise rates, but I don't honestly look at that for me, I just pay for full coverage regardless.

 

That's the smart thing to do with any vehicle honestly. I mean, you could go down to 1/4 of fuel (that should be one quarter, idk maths) and be fine, but beyond that you could damage your fuel system by potentially sucking in sludge and air (at least, that's happened to another vehicle of mine).

With 4x4, you also have the front end CV u-joints, the front axle lube, and the transfer case lube that needs maintenance.

 

Keeping the tank too low also increases the amount of condensation that can add water into the tank. The more fuel in the tank, the less water can get in.

 

The in-tank pickup sock will keep sludge from being sucked up into the fuel line. Air in the fuel lines usually isn't a problem unless the engine is a diesel; then the injectors can lose their prime and repriming them is a pain.

[Zannah]

I'm not sure all-electric is a good plan for a truck, I would think a hybrid would be better. It just makes more sense for farmers, hunters, and similar people's lifestyles. Trucks to me are workhorses and not everywhere will have a charge station handy. I come from a hunting family, so an all-electric truck sounds incredibly cringe-y to me. 

[Monkey Dust]

On 1/18/2019 at 6:11 PM, TempestCatto said:

That's the smart thing to do with any vehicle honestly. I mean, you could go down to 1/4 of fuel (that should be one quarter, idk maths) and be fine, but beyond that you could damage your fuel system by potentially sucking in sludge and air (at least, that's happened to another vehicle of mine).

The sludge in the bottom of the tank is a problem from another age. A couple of years ago I changed the fuel pump in my '94 MX5/Miata and could see to the bottom of the tank, which was clear of any kind of debris after 140000 miles and 23 years. I also run my daily driver down to the low fuel light every tankful and never had an issue, except for the one time I completely ran out .

 

More electric commercial vehicles are definitely needed though. Commuters can switch to public transport, cycling or walking, but we need a low pollution solution for commercial vehicles for big cities pretty quickly.       

[Guest]

This is actually really cool btw might get one on finance 

[TempestCatto]

23 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

we need a low pollution solution for commercial vehicles for big cities pretty quickly.

My answer from earlier: Hydrogen Electric.

Or go the way of "Great" Britain, a bus that runs on poo! (I don't think they still operate those)