Need 200kWh and 280kWh options + 350kW charging to kill the anti-EV truck arguments!

[lightspeed]

The biggest (and true) argument against the Lightning is that it can't tow for long distances.

This is because 100kWh battery is roughly equivalent to 12 gallons of gas in the comparable ICE truck. (People incorrectly say that 33kWh = 1 gallon of gas, that's a theoretical energy number and doesn't take into account the 80% thermal efficiency loss in a gas engine.)

So, the ER battery is roughly equivalent to 16 gallons of gas.

Towing something big like a 8000lb Airstream can be a 60% range loss which is an equivalent loss in gas or EV.

For gas, if we had 16 gallons and assume 20mpg unloaded, towing we get 8mpg * 16g = 128 mile range which is very close to what people are reporting with the Lightning @ 1.0m/kWh = 131 mile range.

So, under heavy towing scenario:
- 200kWh is roughly 24 gallons of gas or 200 miles of range towing, 480 miles unloaded.
- 280kWh is roughly 34 gallons of gas or 280 miles of range towing, 672 miles unloaded.

This is very close to the gas tank options in the gas F150 (26g and 36g) and there would be zero reason to complain about range under towing.

Of course, the last part is recharging which 350kW charge rate would make very reasonable. Depending on the charge curve, perhaps 30 minutes for 10 to 90% charge with the 200kWh battery and 45 minutes for the 280kWh battery. Yeah that's still worse than buying gas, but it's not crazy worse.

The next 10 years of EVs is going to be pretty amazing.

Sponsored

 

[Roy2001]

Unless magic happens, we won't see significant range increase. 200kWh is the max for a pickup truck..

What we would see is faster/safer charging and long lasting battery technologies.

 

[lightspeed]

Yeah I wonder if a better long term solution is to put batteries in the thing being towed and have a common connection to the truck that let's it use/manage/charge those batteries.

I think we'll be surprised at how quickly batter tech improves now that all the big companies are working on it.

 

[Kev12345]

Unless magic happens, we won't see significant range increase. 200kWh is the max for a pickup truck..

What we would see is faster/safer charging and long lasting battery technologies.

as cell energy density gets better you can pack more into the same space. there's no 200kwh limit.

 

[shutterbug]

The biggest (and true) argument against the Lightning is that it can't tow for long distances.

This is because 100kWh battery is roughly equivalent to 12 gallons of gas in the comparable ICE truck. (People incorrectly say that 33kWh = 1 gallon of gas, that's a theoretical energy number and doesn't take into account the 80% thermal efficiency loss in a gas engine.)

So, the ER battery is roughly equivalent to 16 gallons of gas.

Towing something big like a 8000lb Airstream can be a 60% range loss which is an equivalent loss in gas or EV.

For gas, if we had 16 gallons and assume 20mpg unloaded, towing we get 8mpg * 16g = 128 mile range which is very close to what people are reporting with the Lightning @ 1.0m/kWh = 131 mile range.

So, under heavy towing scenario:
- 200kWh is roughly 24 gallons of gas or 200 miles of range towing, 480 miles unloaded.
- 280kWh is roughly 34 gallons of gas or 280 miles of range towing, 672 miles unloaded.

This is very close to the gas tank options in the gas F150 (26g and 36g) and there would be zero reason to complain about range under towing.

Of course, the last part is recharging which 350kW charge rate would make very reasonable. Depending on the charge curve, perhaps 30 minutes for 10 to 90% charge with the 200kWh battery and 45 minutes for the 280kWh battery. Yeah that's still worse than buying gas, but it's not crazy worse.

The next 10 years of EVs is going to be pretty amazing.

I have no plans to tow, ever. However, I would rather see pull-through charging stations, that would allow to charge without un-hitching.

 

[Ford Fanatic]

The biggest (and true) argument against the Lightning is that it can't tow for long distances.

This is because 100kWh battery is roughly equivalent to 12 gallons of gas in the comparable ICE truck. (People incorrectly say that 33kWh = 1 gallon of gas, that's a theoretical energy number and doesn't take into account the 80% thermal efficiency loss in a gas engine.)

So, the ER battery is roughly equivalent to 16 gallons of gas.

Towing something big like a 8000lb Airstream can be a 60% range loss which is an equivalent loss in gas or EV.

For gas, if we had 16 gallons and assume 20mpg unloaded, towing we get 8mpg * 16g = 128 mile range which is very close to what people are reporting with the Lightning @ 1.0m/kWh = 131 mile range.

So, under heavy towing scenario:
- 200kWh is roughly 24 gallons of gas or 200 miles of range towing, 480 miles unloaded.
- 280kWh is roughly 34 gallons of gas or 280 miles of range towing, 672 miles unloaded.

This is very close to the gas tank options in the gas F150 (26g and 36g) and there would be zero reason to complain about range under towing.

Of course, the last part is recharging which 350kW charge rate would make very reasonable. Depending on the charge curve, perhaps 30 minutes for 10 to 90% charge with the 200kWh battery and 45 minutes for the 280kWh battery. Yeah that's still worse than buying gas, but it's not crazy worse.

The next 10 years of EVs is going to be pretty amazing.

Can you provide thedocumentation that backs up your data showing every ev manufacturer, and the EPA, incorrect in assingning the standard MPGE formula of 33.7KW = 1 US Gallon. Your formula shows the lightning MPGE of 20 vs the 70 EPA rating.

 

[vandy1981]

I may be cynical, but the critics would find something else to complain about even if the Lightning was capable of towing a 10,000 pound toy hauler 300 miles on a charge.

 

[lightspeed]

33.7kWh = 1 US Gallon is a theoretical number based on the energy available in gas and 100% conversion to electricity. But there are no actual methods to convert gas to electricity at 100%. Also, gas engines are inefficient and lose around 70-80% of the gas energy to waste heat (maybe less in a Prius) and EVs only lose 15-20% to waste heat.

MPGe is a useless metric. It doesn't say anything directly meaningful, but it does allow us to compare relative EV efficiencies. It shouldn't be used to compare against ICE MPG.

Another way to think about it is, the Lightning ER battery is equivalent to 3.89 gallons if you could extract 100% of the energy and with this you could go 320 miles. But an equivalent gas truck obviously can't go 320 miles on 3.89 gallons because it loses 75% of the energy to heat which is why it requires 16 gallons to go 320 miles (with some variance depending on specific engines, etc..)

It's actually quite complex to get a real picture of efficiency when you include the whole supply chain and all the conversion steps. And here is way too much info about MPGe if you care:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent

What most people actually care about is something like COST PER 100 MILES which is tough because gas an electric rates vary so much. Something like this in California:

Lightning: 100 miles = 41kWh x $0.25/kWh (EV rate at home) = $10.25 for 100 miles
F150 V8: 100 miles = 5g x $6.50/g = $32.5 for 100 miles

To make these cost independent, you would use kWh per 100 miles vs Gallons of gas per 100 miles and then the person comparing the two would have to insert their own cost numbers.

Imagine living in a state (Idaho) where you can buy a kWh for $0.08 or $3.28 for 100 miles!

 

[Ford Fanatic]

33.7kWh = 1 US Gallon is a theoretical number based on the energy available in gas and 100% conversion to electricity. But there are no actual methods to convert gas to electricity at 100%. Also, gas engines are inefficient and lose around 70-80% of the gas energy to waste heat (maybe less in a Prius) and EVs only lose 15-20% to waste heat.

MPGe is a useless metric. It doesn't say anything directly meaningful, but it does allow us to compare relative EV efficiencies. It shouldn't be used to compare against ICE MPG.

Another way to think about it is, the Lightning ER battery is equivalent to 3.89 gallons if you could extract 100% of the energy and with this you could go 320 miles. But an equivalent gas truck obviously can't go 320 miles on 3.89 gallons because it loses 75% of the energy to heat which is why it requires 16 gallons to go 320 miles (with some variance depending on specific engines, etc..)

It's actually quite complex to get a real picture of efficiency when you include the whole supply chain and all the conversion steps. And here is way too much info about MPGe if you care:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent

What most people actually care about is something like COST PER 100 MILES which is tough because gas an electric rates vary so much. Something like this in California:

Lightning: 100 miles = 41kWh x $0.25/kWh (EV rate at home) = $10.25 for 100 miles
F150 V8: 100 miles = 5g x $6.50/g = $32.5 for 100 miles

To make these cost independent, you would use kWh per 100 miles vs Gallons of gas per 100 miles and then the person comparing the two would have to insert their own cost numbers.

Imagine living in a state (Idaho) where you can buy a kWh for $0.08 or $3.28 for 100 miles!

I’m a little confused by the your statement that MPGE shouldn’t be used to compare an EV to an ICE when the definition of MPGE is to compare the two by realizing the range of an EV in terms of miles per gallon of a gasoline powered vehicle.
Isn’t comparing the energy potential of 1kw as 3412 BTU’s vs 1 us gallon at 114,998 BTU (approx) a correct and not a theoretical way to convert kw to gasoline at at a 33.7 ratio? Granted I do not know if these are theoretical potentials under ideal conditions (IE 100% efficiency)? Also an ICE engine consumes gasoline, if properly tuned, at a ratio of 1 part gasoline to 14.7 parts atmosphere, an ev use only its stored power and does not consume additional energy sources to perform work. I do not know how the efficiency of a gasoline engine is quantified, strictly of the gas it’s using or off the total combustion of gasoline and atmosphere.

Cost per 100 miles is important but as you point out only if I can compare the Lightning to a similar ICE truck, and the EPA has done that with the MPGE in my eyes. Gas is currently $3.17 locally and .13/kWh to charge at home, the truck averages 2.2 mi/kWh (this is below the he EPA rating for efficiency) $5.90 home charging to drive 100 miles, a Powerboost reaching its EPA ratingof 23.5 mpg would be $13.36 for the same 100 miles. I’ll keep my lightning.

 

[LightningShow]

Why would 280kWh kill the EV truck stigma? It’s still only 200 miles of towing a large trailer.

 

[lightspeed]

Why would 280kWh kill the EV truck stigma? It’s still only 200 miles of towing a large trailer.

280kWh would give roughly 280 miles of towing and would be close to 36 gallon F150 in range under the same circumstances.

 

[lightspeed]

I’m a little confused by the your statement that MPGE shouldn’t be used to compare an EV to an ICE when the definition of MPGE is to compare the two by realizing the range of an EV in terms of miles per gallon of a gasoline powered vehicle.
Isn’t comparing the energy potential of 1kw as 3412 BTU’s vs 1 us gallon at 114,998 BTU (approx) a correct and not a theoretical way to convert kw to gasoline at at a 33.7 ratio? Granted I do not know if these are theoretical potentials under ideal conditions (IE 100% efficiency)? Also an ICE engine consumes gasoline, if properly tuned, at a ratio of 1 part gasoline to 14.7 parts atmosphere, an ev use only its stored power and does not consume additional energy sources to perform work. I do not know how the efficiency of a gasoline engine is quantified, strictly of the gas it’s using or off the total combustion of gasoline and atmosphere.

Cost per 100 miles is important but as you point out only if I can compare the Lightning to a similar ICE truck, and the EPA has done that with the MPGE in my eyes. Gas is currently $3.17 locally and .13/kWh to charge at home, the truck averages 2.2 mi/kWh (this is below the he EPA rating for efficiency) $5.90 home charging to drive 100 miles, a Powerboost reaching its EPA ratingof 23.5 mpg would be $13.36 for the same 100 miles. I’ll keep my lightning.

I think it's a weird metric, but I guess what you can say is that for the theoretical 120,238 BTUs of energy in 1 gallon of gas, a 63 MPGe vehicle extracts 63 miles worth of travel under the test condition. But for a gas truck under the same conditions, that 120,238 btus might only extract 20 miles worth of travel.

After thinking about it, I realize that it's not so much that MPGe bugs me as much as people misinterpreting what 33.7kWh = 1 gallon gas means.

Yes, a Lightning ER battery is theoretically equivalent to 3.89 gallons, but people misinterpret that to mean it's like having a 3.89 gallon gas tank in your truck when what it really means is that the EV does the same work with 3.89 gallons as an ICE truck does with 16 gallons.

 

[p52Ranch]

The GMC Hummer has a 210 KWh battery. That battery weighs 2923 pounds which is nearly 1/3 of the Hummers 9063 pound empty weight. The Hummer only gets 350 miles of range so there are inherent losses with installing huge batteries in a vehicle.

 

[lightspeed]

The GMC Hummer has a 210 KWh battery. That battery weighs 2923 pounds which is nearly 1/3 of the Hummers 9063 pound empty weight. The Hummer only gets 350 miles of range so there are inherent losses with installing huge batteries in a vehicle.

I think the Hummer has bad efficiency because of its enormous size and poor aerodynamics.

 

[p52Ranch]

I think the Hummer has bad efficiency because of its enormous size and poor aerodynamics.

If you added another 1000+ pounds of battery to the Lightning and gave it a reasonable payload and towing capacity it would require much heavier and less efficient tires, heavier suspension, etc. it may be slightly more efficient than the Hummer but wouldn’t be nearly as efficient as the current Lightning.

Sponsored