Pete. (l33t FS) said:
Keith Tanner said:
While you're watching batteries for the Next Big Thing, pay attention to the gradual constant improvements in lithium ion.
Can you actually tow 5000+ lbs 250 miles on a tank? I'd expect 10 mpg on a gas truck, which means you need a 25.01 gallon tank.
Reason #2 why I greatly prefer to drive the competition car to events instead of tow. Why should I buy a truck and a trailer to get 16mpg when I could drive the car and get 20-25ish towing a tire trailer?
Don't forget storing car trailers is also problematic for lots of people. There is a reason I rent trailers or borrow them.
Keith Tanner said:
While you're watching batteries for the Next Big Thing, pay attention to the gradual constant improvements in lithium ion.
Can you actually tow 5000+ lbs 250 miles on a tank? I'd expect 10 mpg on a gas truck, which means you need a 25.01 gallon tank.
I get about 13.5 mpg towing my 2400# racecar on a 1200# trailer. That racecar has probably 250# of stuff shoved into also. I also have about 600# of stuff in the bed of the truck.
22.5 gallons tank means that I knock that down (250 mile range) on a frequent basis.
I realize that I'm not at 5000+ lbs...
This is for cheap car racing with a 2015 chevy 1500 4wd crewcab with the 5.3.
I'm not trying to contradict you, because your point stands. I am curious what the new lightning will do because I REALLY want that frunk for luggage and stuff! Plus, I want all the torques and all the accelerations!
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
That is also on the list.
The list is pretty long.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
Keith Tanner said:
While you're watching batteries for the Next Big Thing, pay attention to the gradual constant improvements in lithium ion.
Can you actually tow 5000+ lbs 250 miles on a tank? I'd expect 10 mpg on a gas truck, which means you need a 25.01 gallon tank.
I can tow 5000+ lbs on a 20 gallon tank 250 miles. I've done it a few times already, and at 70-75 mph in a Chevy Colorado. A Uhaul trailer plus an SN95 Mustang twice, once can be confirmed by a member of this forum as I met them. I'd estimate my range at 280-300 towing 5000# at 70 mph easily. You underestimate the efficiency of modern IC engines which is surprising how many LS engines you've put into Miatas. LS engines and their smaller V6 counterparts make lots of power and get good mileage with stock profile camshafts. It's the big cam cars that throw mileage to the side.
A tank of gas is $60 or so right now. A trailer rental is about $65 for day. If you want to bet $300 on it, I'll have my buddy record it on video for posterity. I was towing I-35 and I-30 before and they are not flat. I could easily beat this towing I-20 headed west out of DFW all day long. Once you get past the hilly part of south dallas, it's all flat all the way to I-20 ends. We can tow my 96 Camaro SS, or the Subaru Impreza or Boxster S. I know the Camaro is the porker of the bunch.
And on a side note, I'm well of aware of what lithium ion batteries can and cannot do. I have other hobbies that started using them long before they hit highways. Even in model aviation there is a size where battery cost becomes prohibitive and heavier than dino fuels. The electric motors are plenty powerful enough but the size and mass of the battery packs becomes a real problem. I also have my batteries stored in fire resistant bags in a safe location. Once you see a li-ion battery fire it'll leave an impression.
My comments on 10 mpg while towing is based on experience with my own 2000 Tundra as well as a newer one across the western states. However, it was usually with enclosed trailers. Open trailers did bump more into the 12-13 mpg range in but at 5000+ I'd expect it to be enclosed. I suppose the Camero I towed home on an open trailer would have been in that range.
I am not so invested in this that I feel the need to demand video proof or wager money. Just making statements based on actual experience.
The fuel efficiency of an LS Miata while towing is unknown to me :)
The comment on batteries was not "they can do everything", but pointing out that the managed batteries in EVs are continuing to evolve. They're getting cheaper and more dense. It may be that the current technology's evolution is going to have a bigger impact than the step change everyone expects, just like the ICE evolved gradually instead of going through big jumps. Basing performance of current EV batteries on RC batteries years back is like me making towing range estimates based on a gas 1995 F250.
Speaking as a motorcyclist/bicyclist/small car operator, I'm not so sure I like the idea of the general public being able to run 9s.
Is this the coming of the next Mustang at Cars and Coffee phenomenon?
In reply to Keith Tanner :
You are also towing in parts of CO. Near Grand Junction there are pretty significant grades. You all also get crappy gas. You may not remember but we argued aero long ago in the past. Aero is a large function of frontal area. A Tunda pulling an enclosed trailer is a bad combination for drag. Yes it'll get bad mileage. A Colorado pulling an open trailer with a reasonable car on it is far more aerodynamic. At speed it is going to need much less hp, therefore burn much less fuel. It'll also tow what full size trucks towed 15 or so years ago.
Everyone keeps making these lists of things they want cars or trucks to do, which are so easy to meet today. The hard part is managing the cost of vehicles that do these things. Want a super fast car you can abuse on the track, gets decent mileage and has a full factory warranty. It's easy, there are lots of choices. They all just cost a lot. Trucks are the same way. You can get trucks that do all sorts of things nowadays. They just cost a whole lot.
The challenge was tows 5k lbs, has a range of over 250 miles doing it, and costs less than 40k. A Colorado crushes that easily. I expect a new Ranger can pull it off too. Heck a Tacoma might come close, but their engine is dinosaur tech compared to what Chevy and Ford offer. Full sized trucks are larger than ever and have to push more air than ever. It'd be harder, but I bet a Ford Ecoboost full size does it pretty easy, only they cost way more than $40k.
If you'd have only said "on the grades near where I live with my crappy gas," I'd have admitted you have a real dilemma. All things are relative, and your personal experience doesn't match mine. I've already towed 5000 lbs over 250 miles on a 20 gallon tank more than once. It's easy.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
I know last year (April 2020) I almost bought a brand new 3.5 eco-boost f150 xlt 4x4 for under 40k. Def meet those requirements, I believe it has a 36 gallon tank.
yupididit said:
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
I know last year (April 2020) I almost bought a brand new 3.5 eco-boost f150 xlt 4x4 for under 40k. Def meet those requirements, I believe it has a 36 gallon tank.
I shudder to think what they are going for right now though. If you didn't buy in early 2020, you need to wait until late 2022 the way things are looking.
My towing experience with that Tundra ranges from Newfoundland to Texas to California and with both open and enclosed trailers. The only time I'm towing near GJ is when I'm at the start or end of a trip. This is apparently a long-standing argument I have forgotten and I'm not interested in continuing.
As they say in F1, understood. All conditions for Toyman's required new EV truck can be met today. Although it's worth noting that he's not actually buying one :)
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I very well might buy a E truck at some point. We will have to wait and see how things shake out. I'm not super interested in plunking down a dealer surcharge to be in the first test group for EV trucks. I love having a truck as a DD, but I'm thinking I may go old school for my next one. An LS swapped aftermarket ECU controlled engine with a modern trans in an older CK or C series probably gets decent mileage and it's a whole lot cheaper and more environmentally responsible than buying something built with rare earth metals.
Elon Musk announced on Sunday that Tesla is canceling its announced Model S Plaid+ trim because the regular Model S Plaid "is just so good."
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Who is meeting them?
In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :
With current ICE trucks. I doubted the availability of the beast you had specified regardless of mode of transportation, but I was wrong. Mostly because I forgot how much trucks have grown and the baby Colorado/Ranger/Tacos etc have become capable.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the electrics will surpass the ICE trucks in the near future, and since my gas bill is around $14k a year I will be looking at them very closely. While they are making improvements by leaps and bounds, they aren't there quite yet.
My bet is on Ford. I foresee them coming out with an extended cab, 2wd, high battery capacity, 8' bed truck in the next few years that is geared toward the fleet buyers. I can take the $1000+ per month I'm spending on fuel and use it to pay for the trucks. Over the long haul, that's $$$ in the bank.
In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :
That's the mindset that will get people into these trucks. $1k/month in fuel plus maintenance goes a long way towards a car payment.
I don't know if you'll see a 2WD F150, though. I don't know how much load handling capability you'd give up with only one motor. I definitely agree that Ford is looking like the first of the major automakers that's figured how to make this work, and they're already showing a fleet version of the Lightning that is less to purchase than the ICE equivalent at the moment. I think they've caught Dodge and GM on the back foot bigtime.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
They are chasing the high-margin buyers now which makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. They will get around to customers like me eventually.
As to the 2wd, it will depend on how much abuse one motor will put up with. I neither want nor need a fleet truck capable of sub 5 second 0-60 times. Slow would be a good thing from my perspective. Two smaller motors would be acceptable, or possibly a programmable power level.
Are larger motors more or less efficient at low load?
In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :
I was a little surprised at just how fast the gas F150s are in a sprint. Same reason - if you have the power to deal with heavy loads, you have the power to sprint an unloaded vehicle. The dual motors aren't there for 0-60, that's a side effect.
The commercial model F150EV starts at $40k, and with the current $7500 tax credit that compares pretty nicely with the $33k for a crew cab ICE. Heck, if even compares pretty nicely with the $28k MSRP for the absolute cheapest F150 in the line. They're not really chasing high margin customers with that pricing. Of course these are MSRP numbers and we all know that that F150 MSRP is basically an imaginary number, and we don't know if the EVs will get the same treatment. But it's what we have to go on.
Toyman01 + Sized and said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
They are chasing the high-margin buyers now which makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. They will get around to customers like me eventually.
As to the 2wd, it will depend on how much abuse one motor will put up with. I neither want nor need a fleet truck capable of sub 5 second 0-60 times. Slow would be a good thing from my perspective. Two smaller motors would be acceptable, or possibly a programmable power level.
In my drives I've come across more fleet/ commercial type pickups being aggressively- probably as a result of the power available. Given that control of the powertrain is pretty trivial in an e-truck (compared to a gasser) I'd expect you see a lot of fleet managers start demanding this, especially when these early fleet e-trucks start crashing because of heavy-footed tradesmen. They may have to make some sort of limiter standard, to deal with the "Chuck & a Truck" lone wolfs who buy them, too.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Power limiting is super easy in a modern ICE. The accelerator pedal is a torque request, it is literally just changing numbers in a map to limit power.
STM317
UberDork
6/7/21 12:58 p.m.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Remember when the Boss 302 Mustang from 2012 came out with two keys? One that unlocked "full power" and the other that kept hings more calm? Around the same time they had a similar product for more pedestrian vehicles that was intended to let parents keep their teens or valets from having full access to all of the beans. They've been limiting ICEs for a decade now. It's already pretty common in commercial fleets to have vehicle speed restricted. EVs will be no problem.
Driven5 said:
The more impressive the numbers get, the more they leave me cold... It's an odd feeling.
Add me to the list. In a sense, what's happening is by making amazing rates of acceleration commonplace, it's devalued. Used to be to get seriously low ETs in the quarter meant someone with balls (or ovaries) of steel driving a rolling bomb that they may well have built in their garage. Now you check a box, write a check, press the go pedal and steer.
Whoopee.
Interesting. A friend of mine had a Plaid + ordered but since it's being cancelled he's thinking of going to Lucid for the 500 mile range.
What a first world problem....
STM317 said:
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Remember when the Boss 302 Mustang from 2012 came out with two keys? One that unlocked "full power" and the other that kept hings more calm? Around the same time they had a similar product for more pedestrian vehicles that was intended to let parents keep their teens or valets from having full access to all of the beans. They've been limiting ICEs for a decade now. It's already pretty common in commercial fleets to have vehicle speed restricted. EVs will be no problem.
The 1990 Corvette ZR1 had a valet key that dropped power by 150hp (although, I read it's true reason was to pass emissions)
stuart in mn said:
Elon Musk announced on Sunday that Tesla is canceling its announced Model S Plaid+ trim because the regular Model S Plaid "is just so good."
I wasn't going to get one unless it ran 8's, so berkeley them.
