Ford Rolls Out Gas-Guzzlers To Fund Its Green Energy Ambitions
While that might seem backward, even the most worthwhile green energy goals will require some level of trade-off if they are to be achieved.

This week, Ford Motor Co. unveiled its pickup truck product line for the 2023 model year. Among the options for the workhorse Super Duty series, the auto giant will offer multiple engine options, including a 6.8-liter gas engine, a 6.7-liter diesel engine, and a hulking 7.3-liter gas engine that automotive blog Jalopnik named "Godzilla." Depending upon configuration, the truck can be over 6 feet tall and more than 22 feet long.
Given the company's stated goals of reaching complete carbon neutrality and a shift to all-renewable energy by 2035, a beefed-up internal combustion engine would seem to directly contradict the mission statement. Ford has a different take: Gigantic gas-powered trucks are essential to the mission.
Ford's trucks are part of its "F-series," from the mainstream F-150s to the heavier-duty F-250s, F-350s, and above, used mostly as commercial vehicles. Anything above an F-150 is considered part of its "Super Duty" line.
To say that trucks are important to Ford's bottom line is an understatement. As CEO Jim Farley told Yahoo Finance, "If the Super Duty was a separate company, it would have more revenue than some Fortune 500 companies." The F-series alone generates almost $40 billion annually, nearly a third of the company's global revenues.
As such, the continued success of the global truck brand is essential to the company's future aspirations, including the $50 billion it pledged toward building out its production of electric vehicles (E.V.s). By 2026, it plans to be able to put out 2 million E.V.s per year, more than twice what Tesla sold in 2021.
Even still, it might seem backward to dedicate so much of one's green energy goals to the continued success of gas-guzzling behemoths. But unfortunately, even the most worthwhile goals will involve some trade-offs.
For example, the European Union (E.U.) plans to become fully carbon neutral by 2050. It went so far as to ban the sale of all internal combustion engines by 2035. But this summer, facing devastating energy shortfalls in the near term, many European nations and the E.U. reversed course, pouring tens of billions into restarting coal-fired power plants and importing coal and natural gas to get through the winter.
Despite the dire situation, the United Nations (U.N.) Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights cautioned Europe to "consider the long-term consequences of locking in more fossil fuel infrastructure… There is no room for backtracking in the face of the ongoing climate crisis."
Indeed, carbon emission reduction is fundamental to mitigating the effects of climate change. But the transition from a fossil fuel-intensive economy to one that more readily utilizes green technology cannot happen overnight. To progress toward the goal, private firms like Ford must stay in business, and utility providers must keep the lights on. Better they do that with fossil fuels than not at all.
Europe is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, but it must also provide for its citizens' needs today. Similarly, if your goal is to eventually live in a world where more than a quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions do not come from the transportation sector, then it may require some awkward transitory periods of half-measures to get there.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They may look like gas guzzlers to the urbanized, metrosexual, progressive moron who inhabits the Chicago's River North, or New York's Village, but to most of us out here, these are real working vehicles for pulling large items on a trailer from boats to horses, livestock to crops. That is Ford's bread and butter, not the WannabeMustang EV.
I agree and would note that different vehicles for different situations. The vehicles described in the article would be fine for hauling large trailers, but likely would not even fit on an urban roadway. My son was once looking at a Ford F150 with a crew cab. During the test drive in rural Wisconsin, I asked him to think about where he planned to park vehicle when it not in use. He settled for Ford Ranger.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-03] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
The new YouTube review of the “towing power” of electric trucks and their about 100 mile battery life when in tow kind of put a knife in electric trucks.
https://insideevs.com/news/612612/towing-with-ford-f150-lightning-total-disaster-owner-finds/
It is worth noting that the owner was very satisfied with the towing experience of the electric F150, just the range anxiety. Again, for the owner working in typical commuter ranges the vehicle would not be a problem.
That was your take from his review where he calls them essentially useless for anyone that actually needs the towing power? LOL.
Electric motors have some significant advantages over their internal-combustion counterparts.
Range is not one of them.
Electric
motorsbatteriesMotors tend to be great when it comes to endurance.
To the tune of The Pink Panther:
"Pedant... pedant... pedant pedant pedant pedant pedaaaaaaant, petadidadant."
Right, and you probably think all the lockdown problems were actually COVID problems. Riiiight.
In your case the song goes, to the tune of Anything you can do I can do better:
“Anything my team did, they did it worser Everything my team did, they did it worse
No they didn’t! Yes they did! No they didn’t Yes they did”
Ask a boomer if you don’t get the reference. It’s like Scooby Do to them.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (emu-06) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
I think you are the one who did not read the article. The author never said they were useless; he did speak of range anxiety. You will also note he report the vehicle did a good job on the actual towing.
He doesn't talk about articles. He talks about people. Notice his comment wasn't about electric cars. It was about you. Your take. You are wrong because you. You think this that and the other thing, don't deny it. What was the article about? Who cares? You're on the stand. It's Perry Mason.
Wrong again. He calls out how he had to estimate the distance for a single haul and how the towing dropped his range by over 30%. Construction people travel a lot with heavy loads, they can’t be stopping to charge every 100 miles.
Now imagine someone simply driving a few hundred miles with a toy trailer. They too can not stop and charge every 100 miles as part of their destination planning.
Look, I get youre an idiot and sarc will back you up because he has no principles. But you’re looking ridiculous here.
Only leftists use electric vehicles.
Poor baby.
As a man with several contractors in his family, I will strongly disagree.
It is very common to put 50 or 100 miles on in a day towing a heavy trailer. You do NOT want to be running that close to the edge getting to job sites and worrying about getting back.
Likewise, when you're pulling the toy hauler you're going to put about 100-200 miles each way because that's how far the desert is away from here. Folks pulling a horse trailer to the track or moving from one place to the next very often pull 100 miles one way. Places I, personally, have regularly towed to in the past have been between 40 and 100 miles one way, with no way to charge when I'm there.
And, the heavier the trailer and the more wind resistance, the lower the mileage. So big boats are extra problematic. The kinds of horse trailers or toy haulers people get dualies for are about the worst for battery towing.
F150s, and other Fs, are work trucks first. Some buy them to commute, most buy them to use as trucks, which is why they're Ford's bread and butter. I actually like the lightning in theory. Most people won't tow, but it's a major consideration. If you're towing, you're likely to find 100 miles too limiting.
Electric motors have instant torque and weigh a lot less, which is really nice. When the batteries are fully charged. The problem of course is the energy source. Batteries today are amazing compared to a decade or two ago, but compared to fossil fuels their energy to weight ratio is still pathetic.
The only thing I can think of that would make electric vehicles useful would be some kind of standardized batteries where you go to the fill-up station and swap them out. Pay for amps.
edit: autocorrect prefers comparted over compared
The only thing I can think of that would make electric vehicles useful would be some kind of standardized batteries where you go to the fill-up station and swap them out. Pay for amps.
Per your own assessment, this is wishful thinking. Like saying it would be nice to have standardized engine compartments and motor mounts so you could swap out motors and just pay for horsepower-miles/hours.
The heaviest, most expensive, most critical part of ICEs is the motor. The heaviest, most expensive, most critical part of EVs is the battery. Making them interchangeable would be like swapping out the handles rather than the heads of Gillette razors. Just rent or lease and you don't have to worry about owning either the handle or the head of the razor.
Per your own assessment, this is wishful thinking.
Is it? We've got all different kinds of batteries. How many AAAs do you have in your junk drawer?
I'm not saying it's a great idea. My point is the energy storage. With ICEs you just fill 'er up and go. With current batteries you charge them. And wait. And wait. And wait some more.
So I figure, why not swap them out. Size DDD or something. My car has more boobs than yours! Mine has six batteries and yours only has four!
Maybe quick-charging batteries is a solution to that problem.
I'm just tossing out ideas.
Someone smarter than all of us will figure something out.
How many AAAs do you have in your junk drawer?
Are you trying to fool other people or are you yourself fooled? Bought anything lithium powered more than ~10V lately or are you equating 100-yr. old carbon zinc technology with the best Tesla's engineers can produce?
I’m just tossing out ideas.
Sure. But it's a wish in one hand, shit in the other situation and, if you're going to have to shit in your hand, might as well make the wish really worth it. I'd love to see the entire industry flattened, with more transparency, and standard interoperability all the way around. As I indicated below with PCs, you go to your local shop, order the frame from Lear or a dozen other manufacturers, engine from Cummins, batteries and EV motors from Tesla, brakes from Continental... and Ford or your local shop does nothing but slap warranties on whatever you order.
Instead, we're figuring out how to swap out razor handles because the FedGov mandates that the razor heads use a particular technology and Ford's figuring out how they can sell electric razors so that the same FedGov will let them sell double-edged 'safety' razors.
Batteries will never beat the energy to weight ratio that fossil fuels have.
I'm simply suggesting that electric vehicles could be practical if instead of waiting for your batteries to recharge, you just swap them out.
Will that work with all kinds of proprietary battery designs? Hell no! But that's a red herring. Suspend reality and imagine a world where the fill-up station swaps out batteries. Some vehicles carry more than others.
Just tossing out an idea.
Like shipping containers I think batteries could become modularized. Keep a standard size and shape. What's inside that matters.
Fill up on Duracell or Costco?
That would eliminate the incentive to innovate a better battery.
That explains why AA battery technology hasn’t innovated since the size and shape was formalized a half century ago. That's why the batteries I have in my drawer are the same technology as the ones my grandparents used.
I took you off mute because I was curious as to how you’d insult me, but instead you just said something stupendously stupid.
Back you go.
Suck it.
Like saying it would be nice to have standardized engine compartments and motor mounts so you could swap out motors and just pay for horsepower-miles/hours.
That said, it would be nice to have cars made like computers were made in the 90s/00s or cars were made in the ~50s-80s.
Slow and dangerous?
Average daily commutes are about 35 miles/per day and so electric vehicle works for the average commuter. The article cited put the electric F150 max tow load at 7700 pounds, which would preclude a heavily loaded trailer. I have not towed regularly but I prefer to work inside the limits. Again, the electric F150 is not for everyone but I know many people where the F150 is for status more than for need.
BTW - I usually find that the people who really make use of pickups have older models that show some wear. When I see a brand-new pick-up, I am thinking status. The Dutton Yellowstone ranch being the one exception, I think they wash and polish their trucks twice a week.
Why did you use full population averages and not construction averages?
Got the construction daily average miles driven? The following paper does an analysis of construction commuting. The paper suggests that for the construction worker commuting is longer than most other professions but not by that much. Average daily commuting for construction and mining is less than 35 minutes. So, on average they could be within the range of an EV.
http://ijah.cgrd.org/images/Vol6No1/3.pdf
Nobody is talking about commuting. We're talking about hauling a trailer. You don't haul a trailer on a commute. You haul a trailer when you have a trailer load of shit to haul. Specialty rigs, things you don't want to or can't load in a truck bed (gravel, vehicles, etc), tool storage... big shit.
Nobody gives a shit what the average guy driving to work is doing. We care about the guy hauling.
But you know that.
Making decisions based on the "average daily commute" is statistical malfeasance. The distribution curve of daily commutes is not a bell curve - it is camel-shaped. A block of urban people have far shorter commutes. Those in suburban and rural areas far longer.
Furthermore, "average daily commute" entirely misses the fact that most families have activities on a weekly cycle that significantly exceed their mere commute. And that number gets blown out of the water when it's time to drive to Grandma's for Thanksgiving or to the beach for vacation.
All-electric cars can work for some people (given the current generation of battery/recharging options). But as Tesla sales demonstrate, it's not anywhere close to 'everybody'. It's not even close to 'most'.
I would agree with your assessment of the commuting distribution. But as the average is 35 miles, I would still see many people in the suburban and near rural areas as having daily commutes within the range of today's electric vehicles. I would expect that most people with electric vehicles to charge at home and so most would start the day at full range, unlike the gasoline vehicle which could start the day at a half or quarter tank.
The weekly trip to grandma's is the problem. Most households have at least two vehicles so have one electric and one gasoline for the long hauls. Better yet have one vehicle be a plug-in hybrid. I would also add that say grandma is a progressive sixties liberal and already has an electric car with a charging station at her house. Just plug in there for the trip home.
Or electric vehicles with a gas tank. For the when the battery runs out.
I know it's just moving the electricity generation around.
I'm trying to make electric vehicles practical.
It's hard.
I took you off mute but you just said something stupendously stupid.
Back you go.
Suck it.
First how much would both weigh? Second how big a fucking truck would be able to hold both the batteries, fuel tank and a big enough ICE to take over when needed? Fuck you're an idiot who doesn't know shit about what you speak.
What sarcasmic is describing is basically a hybrid. Well, the zero-generation experiments, anyway. The current Prius uses both gas and electric motors for power - biases toward electric at low speeds when high torque is the priority but biased toward gas when that's more efficient. But some of the original designs used electric for all drive and gas to generate the electricity. It wasn't that much bigger than a conventional vehicle. Tow-capable SUV hybrids are available now.
Those selfish fkers driving 35 miles should be taking the bus.
You don't know shit. The ranchers I work with and hang out with tend to trade in their trucks every two to three years because they work them so hard and it's a business expense. Most the loggers I knew growing up also tended to trade in their trucks quite frequently. Fuck. I've told you before you know shit about how agriculture really works and every time you open your mouth you just show how full of shit you are.
Is your observation in the west any more or less valid than my observation in the midwest? I can tell you that pick-up trucks are run longer in the midwest than cars are run. I will also stand by my statement that no farm pick-up in Wisconsin ever looked as nice as the ones shown on the Dutton Yellowstone ranch. I still believe they wash and polish the trucks twice a week.
You stand by your observation that a tv show is fiction?
He thought it was a documentary.
I actually like the lightning in theory.
Not the F-150. I could see a/the Ranger EV, Bronco, or Explorer making sense. The F-150 lightning made as much sense to me as the Mach-E.
IMO, both are clearly placeholders until energy retardation becomes less retarded.
Nope. I still like it in theory.
All "in theory" here. I'd never spend that much to buy one. None of this is for me to consider. You're completely right about them mostly being early placeholders.
Technology has to advance on pace, and infrastructure has to grow organically. I don't think we're anywhere close yet.
All the wishful thinking and politician grandstanding on earth matters not. You can't get 9 men together and make a baby in a month.
Stop being knowledgeable about a subject. Sarc and m4e look down on that.
JesseAz's contributions:
"That was your take... LOL"
"I get youre an idiot.."
"Why did you..."
Always about the person and scoring points for the team. Topic is incidental.
… kind of put a knife in electric trucks.
Just ford’s electric trucks.
This is the same thing that happened with the 1973 aftermath. Govt put CAFE in place to reduce gasoline. But auto made sure there was a loophole - CAFE only applied to car chassis. So auto stopped producing the big boats and station wagons on car chassis. And switched over to marketing SUV's, vans, and non-working pickups on truck chassis. Hey presto, vehicles on the road get bigger - driving small cars small peds and small bikes into oblivion.
The more things change....
Do you know what the fuck people who buy F-250s need? Here's a hint it isn't a truck with a tow weight of only 7700 pound for 100 miles.
I specifically said non-working pickups. You live in the country so I expect most of the pickups you see are working pickups. I live in Denver and there are a lot of pickups of contractors and such (working) but there are also a ton of pickups that are just commuting tanks intended to intimidate during rush hour (non-working).
I would agree with your observation and say it is true in the Midwest also. There are plenty of pick-up out there that are equivalent to people's cars. These trucks are used for commutes and errands. The electric F150 will meet these people needs. I fully expect that people who need large towing capacity and longer ranges to purchase gas- or diesel-powered vehicles. Noting that these vehicles are a subset of pick-up market.
Nobody needs that much towing capacity.
It only seems backwards if you accept three false premisis
1. An all ev fleet is good
2. An all ev fleet is reachable
3. An all ev fleet is possible
I think #3 is not a false premise.
I mean, most of us will be pedestrians. No matter where we live, because you would have to outlaw gasoline or something like that. But TECHNICALLY it is possible.
I’ve been thinking that if you thought gas-electric was the future and you wanted to start a line based on that, now’s the time. Right about the time the line gets established and the kinks get worked out, CA and everyone else’s EV dreams are going to blow up in their face and you’ll be poised to sell to people who want >400 hp of towing capacity and still want to feel the smug satisfaction of going green.
If you’re lucky, the ZEV market will have consumed enough minerals to make your hybrids ludicrously profitable but not enough to price them out of the market.
Maybe the people who use the F-Series want a reliable diesel that can haul heavy loads in varying conditions, in areas where there isn't a charging station on every corner.
Only leftists believe in climate change.
Do you ever get tires of this sophomoric schtick of yours? I'd be embarrassed by the pure juvenility of it if it were me.
Ctrl+f: 'HEV' 0/0 results
Ctrl+f: 'pro power' 0/0 results
Ctrl+f: 'onboard' 0/0 results
Did not read. Do not care.
Wake me when I can buy the 3.5L Ecoboost V6 w/ the potential for 7.2kW of onboard power.
Ctrl+f: ‘weapons-grade plutonium’ 0/0 results
Damn it.
I would very much be interested in the newsletter where Ford is advertising nuclear-powered vehicles.
Otherwise...
I'm so disappointed that link wasn't to a Mr Fusion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TeamTimeCar.com-BTTF_DeLorean_Time_Machine-OtoGodfrey.com-JMortonPhoto.com-03.jpg#/media/File:TeamTimeCar.com-BTTF_DeLorean_Time_Machine-OtoGodfrey.com-JMortonPhoto.com-03.jpg
The libians "gave" me theirs
If I didn't like you I'd say do Alt + F4. But for some stupid reason I don't want to be a dick. Must be all that whiskey I didn't drink.
Yeah, you usually butt-chug your whiskey.
The automotive cognoscenti and the regulators pushing for green automobiles strike me as always having lived in a world that isn't inhabited by families. It started with the station wagon. People with families loved them because they could load up the kids and all of the stuff they and the kids would need in the course of their travels. The elites pooh-poohed them as ugly gas guzzlers enjoyed only by the great unwashed. And they were mostly regulated away. Then came the minivan. And they were popular with families for the same reason. While the elites couldn't find much ground to get rid of them, in practical terms, they continued to pooh-pooh them as fit only for philistines. Then we got the SUV. People liked them for the same reason. But, they had the added advantage of being sporty. The elites went apoplectic about them. So, now the public is trending toward pick-up trucks.
Like it or not, the public wants a car they can transport their family in and haul a bunch of stuff around. Yeah, I get it. If you're a urban-dwelling single or couple with no kids, those priorities are lost on you. But, ignoring those needs is just stupid.
Personally I believe that practical electric vehicles, like artificial intelligence and fusion power, will forever be just over the horizon.
Just over the horizon.
It's right there.
You can almost see it.
I find the assumptions behind the framing of this article bizarre. Ford for the sake of appeasing the Green Puritans may have to spew the drivel about how the super duty line "funds the ev revolution" but that doesn't mean that the author has to accept that line of reasoning without question.
Even using the term "gas guzzling" implies that there is a degree of profligacy. In fact, these trucks are remarkably efficient at converting the potential energy in gas and diesel into useful work. Sure they might be a vanity for some, but there's a long list of very necessary functions that large pickups perform best, a good number of which are directly related to the one issue where libertarians and progressives supposedly agree on: building houses. I expect the purple haired to be as clueless about trucks as they are about guns, and wave their hands saying that they know exactly how to replace the ICE and still get a full day's work done in a pickup, but libertarians should know better than to be so arrogant.
Despite the dire situation, the United Nations (U.N.) Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights cautioned Europe to "consider the long-term consequences of locking in more fossil fuel infrastructure… There is no room for backtracking in the face of the ongoing climate crisis."
You know who else didn't allow room for backtracking?
If I was going to try and convince myself that a consumer choice was going to somehow help "save the planet" I wouldn't buy an electric vehicle, I'd buy a bicycle, and not an electric one. Then I would never, ever suggest that my bicycle was "green" because nothing I could personally purchase, besides a miracle, is going to save an entire fucking planet.
They should sell whatever makes them the most money. End of story.
An ev pickup truck is a problem searching for a need. Until they are much better they will be for a very small niche market.
I’d like them fine if they didn’t spontaneously combust all the time.
Over six feet tall and twenty two feet long, clearly the author of the article has penis envy!
These cars, as shown, are really fuel-consuming. I would rather use something that needs less gas, considering the circumstances. Click here to read about how I managed to find a car myself. My experience is not a paragon, of course. But even when I didn't have enough funds I managed to do it successfully.
Carbon emission reduction from private US cars will have no significant impact on climate.