https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jptUPEpxN0I
On line order was 48,000 in 45 minutes.
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jptUPEpxN0I
On line order was 48,000 in 45 minutes.
As much as the gas powered versions get plugged in to check for bad codes, they should have the whole plug in portion of the program perfected for these electric ones.
Are these constant awd and have to be picked up with a flatbed or can they be towed with a regular hook truck like the rest of them are?
I was shocked that sleepy joe could even get in it , much less drive it , surprised me .....
Electric Trucks = robbing Peter to pay Paul
Ford, electric, and Bumbling Biden.........no thanks!
I wonder how many of those 48K were, fleet purchased vehicles and government fleet purchased vehicles?
Remember, Biden said he would replace 650K government fleet vehicles with EV’s.
Very very good question ?
From an article I read about the truck sales it's individuals and not companies or the government. They did this to see how it would be accepted by the public.
I'm not sure on that number since Ford's CEO tweeted that they had 44,500 orders within the first 48 hours. As for how many of those are from Biden, I'd put it at around 0. 48,000 is actually fairly low for pre-orders when compared to Cybertruck (200k within 72 hours). Government orders would also be bulk orders. Ford has been reported to have 44,500 orders, not units. I do agree that if Biden follows through on his promise, he will do so through Ford
https://www.fleetowner.com/resource-...nce-bev-pickup
Maybe it was this electric truck.
If this nation ever has a major blackout how is anyone or company going to use these F-150's?
I predict that after the hoopla and fabricated build up and praise for these trucks by the politically controlled media, that they will wind up flopping like Orisis's tongue!!!! hehe
I myself, and Junior are going to pass on these juice wagons!!! hehe
https://www.realclearenergy.org/arti...le_773429.html
Quote:
Joe Biden’s EV Dreams Are Just Another Government Boondoggle
No one’s surprised to find President Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure package brimming with special interest pork, but his green dreams may be the biggest government boondoggle yet.
Included in the infrastructure bill are $174 billion toward vehicle electrification, provisions for 500,000 new electric car charging stations, and plans to electrify the entire federal vehicle fleet.
While electric vehicles (EVs) are a strong symbol of climate activism — a clear statement declaring concern about the fate of the planet — as things stand today, they make little difference in terms of curbing global greenhouse gas emissions.
The United States’ energy grid is still largely reliant on fossil fuels. Adding millions of federal electric cars to the road and spending billions on charging stations without solving the problem of establishing reliable, zero-emission energy puts the cart before the horse. And though renewable energy like wind and solar are in vogue with the Democratic administration, the impracticality of scaling these technologies is an inconvenient truth that can’t be ignored.
Solar and wind are impractical sources of energy because of their intermittent power generation and low power densities. Any energy grid reliant upon these two carbon-free energy sources must be supplemented by baseload energy such as natural gas or nuclear. Biden’s plan would punish utilities, forcing them to phase out fossil fuels and embrace solar and wind via a clean energy standard, and would extend the renewable investment and production tax credit, a program that the notorious Solyndra once benefited from. Biden might be able to coerce the adoption of these technologies, but their underlying shortcomings aren’t going away.
Mandating a less reliable energy grid by pushing for solar and wind while at the same time incentivizing more electricity use by encouraging the adoption of EVs is a recipe for disaster. It’s destroying supply while jacking up demand. Even if the energy grid challenges could be overcome — a tall order — EVs remain a luxury good for the more affluent among us and are therefore impractical for the average driver.
For example, the most popular EV sold in 2020 was Tesla’s Model 3 at $38,690 on the low end with another $9,000 needed to obtain the long-range model. Tesla’s Model X was another top seller, ringing in at $91,190. Even with the $7,500 federal tax break, those prices might be a bit too steep for many Americans. Ultimately, the EV and green tech provisions in Biden’s infrastructure plan will only further subsidize wealthy Americans.
Furthermore, Biden’s plan to ramp up EV infrastructure by spending billions to build 500,000 charging stations across the country is entirely unnecessary. In 2019, 17 million new light-duty vehicles were sold. That same year, fewer than 363,000 EVs were purchased. Clearly, current demand doesn’t warrant such a massive government investment.
The reality is, true all-electric vehicles represent less than 2 percent of cars on the road today. That’s because for most drivers they’re simply unaffordable and impractical.
Yes, major car manufacturers, spurred by government fuel regulation, have pledged to invest more to develop their own electrified vehicles, but this doesn’t warrant government spending.
In fact, if these moves are driven by genuine anticipation of a spike in consumer demand, then this signals a need in the market for more charging stations to accommodate the coming surge in EVs on the road. Again, the government need not step in. As demand rises for EVs, so too will demand for EV infrastructure. Private entrepreneurs motivated by the desire for profit will rush to meet that demand. Growing national debt and raising taxes in order for government, rather than private industry, to meet that demand is not necessary.
And all of this spending comes on the heels of having already spent $5.4 trillion throughout the Coronavirus crisis. We’ve saddled the country with a debt so large even Keynesian economists typically favorable to the Democratic agenda have warned about the risk of inflation and growth stagnation. To spend another nearly $2.3 trillion on projects that won’t meet their stated aim is simply reckless. And remember, this package is only phase one of two.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that if we continue under the current spending status-quo, per-person income will be $6,300 lower than it would be otherwise. That’s because, despite what proponents of the convenient Modern Monetary Theory might theorize, incurring massive debt does have real-world consequences.
Large government deficits hurt the economy in part because that debt represents money that could be circulating privately in the economy as capital to be invested in enterprises that would actually create wealth. The money the government spends has a short-term consumption benefit but a long-term growth cost. In short, increased spending will have the effect of throwing a weighted blanket on the economy.
Ultimately, consumer demand doesn’t warrant massive government spending on EV infrastructure. Further, EVs that plug into a grid reliant upon fossil fuels accomplish little in terms of curbing global greenhouse gas emissions. What we need are real solutions to climate change not ideological posturing and handouts to special interests. And most importantly, we must weigh the cost of government programs against other priorities, like long-term economic health.
did too. That’s why I was asking ss12. But he’s disappeared since his drive-by posting.
Your post #6 was not directed toward me. Read post #9 and he already answer your question.
I haven't been on this site much because I have a life. I have been taking care of my elderly parents and my grandchildren. Grandsons are into motocross and we spend a lot of time practicing.
I would have to see the source that you read those claims from, as I have seen no claims that this was the case in terms of fleet orders.
Someone would have to care what you think first ......you haven't seen them because you haven't looked for them.
If the source doesn't fit your narrative you dismiss it anyway, so what's the real point of your post other than to just be argumentative?
You bring some good points, but in the end you're posts are just polished up versions of McNuggets .
All I did was ask for what you read? It's not my fault if you can't answer a simple request, so have to resort to insults instead.
Actually no, that's not " all you asked" you didn't " ask" anything..........as for the insulting part, I'm just saying what others already think.....sorry if that melts your tips.
So you don't have anything to back up your claim. Impressive
It will be impressive when you read it.........advanced apology accepted.
Read this morning Biden to propose 6 trillion dollar budget.
Hey ohisis, thousand bucks say you slice it in the woods.
One of the articles is a CNBC read Spaulding.....go check it out.....again, apology accepted.
Ford has hit a new 52 week high the last two days and is reversing a downtrend that started in 1998 ever since it unveiled the Lightning (Electric F150).Its not the government that's big on EV's its the whole (not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word) stock market next 10 years are going to be big in this area.
Electric cars a few years ago had many batteries , and if you had one go bad you had to replace all of them at a large cost, also if you left something on, and ran all batteries down it would take up to 40hrs to recharge fully, has this been corrected on the new F150 ? also what are people gonna do while they are waiting 2 hrs on a regular recharge ?
“refundable $100 reservations” ---- Now that’s funny!!Quote:
The automaker is taking refundable $100 reservations for the F-150 Lightning on its website.
IDK but it can do this
Took this from the an artical:
Assuming an average daily household electricity usage of 30 kilowatt-hours, the F-150 Lightning equipped with an extended range battery should be able to power an entire home for three days. With rationed power usage, Ford estimates that the battery can stretch for up to 10 days of use.
Quote:
Part of that scale for the truck will be driven by sales to commercial vehicle customers, according to Ted Cannis, general manager of Ford's North American commercial business. He said commercial customers are "the only way you can build up the volumes" at this time, given consumer demand remains relatively low for EVs.
Expanding and better monetizing fleet sales to municipal and corporate customers is a focus of the company under Ford CEO Jim Farley. It's a segment Ford leads in globally.
"commercial"
"fleet sales"
"given consumer demand remains relatively low for EVs."
@lurker, do you have a link to where you read that most of these orders were for the government fleet? Apparently BBQ isn't capable considering searching CNBC and Spaulding shows nothing about Ford or even anything related to auto-manufacturing. The only CNBC articles related to Spaulding that come up relate to a some kind of fashion company.