I have no problem with the 12 month resell wait, given certain parameters. That resell wait is very common on fleet deals where businesses are getting their pricing directly from Ford and it is often a discount under invoice based on volume. That said, in order for Ford to make that stipulation, it needs to be signed when the customer places the order, not when they go to take delivery of the vehicle. And it should also only be applicable if the dealer is held to selling at or below MSPR. If the dealers are allowed to add any amount of ADM, then the buyer should be able to resell whenever they want for whatever they want.

 

Not sure if anyone has done this, or posted it, but have not seen it myself. I just did a comparison (as close to apples to apples as possible) of a Lariat Lightning ER with no options and a Lariat Powerboost 4x4 optioned the same as the Lightning. Came out to 79169 vs 69195. Subtract the 7500 tax and it is only 2500 more... That is about a years worth of gas (assuming 18mpg. 12k miles, at $3/gallon)... Now if the BBB bill comes in at a higher rebate and it is an actual point of sale rebate, I would be willing to get one, assuming the miles are good and get more charging stations... Just putting it out there, I think my numbers are good...

Would definitely like to see real mileage numbers when they start hitting the streets. Glad I am not on the first wave, give a chance to see something real...

 

Best numbers I have are about 463 Wh/mile or about a kWh every 2.2 miles. My kWh are 9¢ each so about 4.2¢ per mile. At 18 mpg and $3 per gallon that's about 16¢ per mile. So a lot cheaper for fuel when charging at home. Tesla Superchargers are about 30¢/kWh so about 14¢/mile. FWIW we charge at home about 80% of the time.

At 463Wh/mile, the small battery, 91 kWh, will take you about 197 miles.
The large, 131 kWh, pack will take you about 283 miles.

That consumption rate of 463 kWh/mile may be high. It is about 1.7 times what my Tesla Model 3 and Y consume. I calculated it from Ford's charge times at 240V and added 10% to account for charging losses.

 

Thank you for this. Totally agree on the total cost of ownership being lower for an electric. It works like that for my humble Nissan Leaf. The way my wife drives (kind of binary, full throttle, full brake), the cost of electricity for the Leaf is covered by saving the brake jobs when compared with the gas car she used to drive (for the uninitiated, electrics recoup braking energy, as opposed to wasting it in heat, friction and money spent on associated parts).

The question I have on your post, how does the level 2 (240V) charging rate relate to consumption when in use? Just curious, however I do agree that a 1.5xModel3 consumption for a heavier, less aerodynamic, and probably less optimized vehicle (since they have reused the regular F150 platform) is a good approximation.

 

So I have kind of ignored the Lighting and all of the info supplied up to the last few weeks. Can you elaborate on the "reused the regular F150 platform". What have they truly shown here and what do we know. Is it truly the same frame and suspension under a current F150 with no modifications other than remove engine and transmission and insert 2 electric motors and battery? Or do we have a new frame and suspension by chance? I know they've shown their "skateboard" if you will, but didn't know if we had any true good comparison.

I do know the cab is largely the same - mainly concerned with frame and suspension.

 

The charge rate has very little to do with consumption. On an early Tesla Model S experimenters guess the vehicle consumes 200-250W just to power up and monitor the charging process. On 120V 12A that is a significant percentage. But it is the same 200-250W on 240V 40A. A good guess the Lightning has a similar consumption to power the computer controlling the charge process.

Lightning consumes 1.5 x Tesla Model 3? That is way low. Model 3 is 260 Wh/mile. Early Model is is 380.

 

That is my understanding, that they reused as much as they could, including the frame, but with a different suspension with coils at the back. Which is smart as Ford’s timing is good. They’ll beat everyone else with volume production.

Here is a look at the frame:

 

In agreement, too much of an approximation. Taking the numbers from this article https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022...apacity-range/

131 kWh / 300 miles would imply 436 Wh/mile for the larger battery.
98 kWh / 230 miles gets to 426 Wh/mile for the smaller one.

Using your 260 for a M3, would get to 1 Lightning = 1.6 to 1.7 Model 3.

And all of these are estimates in range by Ford. Reality is going to be different, with factors such as speed, snow, rain favouring the lighter, smaller, more aerodynamic car.

My math is yet to be peer reviewed 😀

 

Ford says 131kWh gets 300 miles. 30/131 = 2.29 per mile. Seems about right. Mach-E gets low to mid 3s. Ford claims 277 miles on 91kWh with AWD/Extended battery and that's 3.0. Based on my experience with the Mach-E, that 2.2 will probably be closer to 2 or 1.9 for most people, and in winter will drop to 1.6 or lower.

Mach-E has a 98kWh battery advertised as 88, which they then release another 3 to raise it to 91. I suspect Ford's 131 also holds back ~10%, so figure 146 - 150kWh.

 

To explain using charging specs to figure consumption.:
Ford as many other EV makers published "miles of range added per hour of charging" at several different charge rates. That information can be used to estimate how many kWh are added per mile of range added. Hence Wh/mile consumption. Using this method includes kWh lost in heat while charging. So it overstates the Wh/mile ie the Wh/mile comes out larger than it should because more Wh leave the wall than make it to the battery.
Yes we won't really know until we get some actual people driving actual trucks and reporting back here. Then we'll have to account or their driving speed, temperature and wind.