2022 Ford Lightning

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

K223

FRF Addict
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Posts
5,182
Reaction score
3,445
Location
Florida
I forgot about the part sharing thing. That's huge, especially early on. When I grew up, all the cool trucks were from the '40s. Starting in the '60s, they became boxy and I still haven't warmed much to that shape. I think they're boring and ugly. Some are uglier than others. I guess if boxy trucks are all you've ever known, then boxy means truck and truck means boxy. I can see how they're a bit constrained at this point. And from an engineering standpoint, a box gives you the most amount of room inside to work with given that your volume envelope is box-shaped. And all of the manufacturers seem to be bent on looking bigger than the competition, so the box wins there. It always amazes me when you put a modern half ton next to a classic. It's huge. I wonder if the cyber truck will change truck styling for the better? I hope so.
That’s totally subjective and based on one’s opinion of what a truck should be. The Cybertruck is a whole different approach. Where it goes, we shall see.

Ford has a big advantage with using current F-150 parts. They can make 20 something thousand dollar trucks. Not that a Lightning can be produced for that. But Ford can probably produce a nicely optioned Electric truck as low cost as the best of them. If they sell it to the masses and govts and businesses, they will suck up market share fast. I have a feeling this is the game plan first.
 

CoronaRaptor

FRF Addict
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Posts
28,961
Reaction score
31,173
Location
CANADA
Seems to me that...

The use of power just shifted; the use of Gas vs Electric.

We gained torque right? Are we still not dirtying up the environment? I am sure you cannot find it on google, but there was a man who invented an engine that ran off of ******* WATER.
Yeah, it's called hydrogen fuel. There's buses etc running on that around the world already, don't need to search google, it's well known.
 

GordoJay

FRF Addict
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Posts
6,218
Reaction score
12,032
Location
Colorado
Yeah, it's called hydrogen fuel. There's buses etc running on that around the world already, don't need to search google, it's well known.
Hydrogen is not the same as water. You can burn hydrogen. You can put out fires with water. When you burn hydrogen, you get ... water. An engine that burns water is impossible according to physics as we know it. The atoms are too tightly bound.
 

melvimbe

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Posts
4,878
Reaction score
6,436
Location
Houston, TX
That’s totally subjective and based on one’s opinion of what a truck should be. The Cybertruck is a whole different approach. Where it goes, we shall see.

I was going to add that it take time for people's perception of what a vehicle should look to change. Cybertruck obviously took a big leap, and perhaps too big for a lot of people.

One thing that could change about all EVs is having the passenger compartment (cab) in the center of the vehicle. For an ICE vehicle, that's obviously where it made the most sense. You needed a spot for the engine and for cargo, and it made sense to put people in the middle for protection sake. With upgraded safety equipment, and removing the ICE, does it make sense to have passengers in the middle still? Perhaps they should be in the front, leaving one large cargo space in the back. But that feels less safe to be upfront (does a frunk provide protection?), and could negatively impact aerodynamics. The wheel wells would also be a factor. The back is another option, but that leaves potentially less cargo space, since you have to see over it, and you have to work around the rear wheel well.

But the point, is, a vehicle 15 years from now may look completely different than todays cars and trucks.



Ford has a big advantage with using current F-150 parts. They can make 20 something thousand dollar trucks. Not that a Lightning can be produced for that. But Ford can probably produce a nicely optioned Electric truck as low cost as the best of them. If they sell it to the masses and govts and businesses, they will suck up market share fast. I have a feeling this is the game plan first.

They also have the capacity to delivered to the masses. It's rather hard to buy a fleet of Teslas when it may take 2 years for Tesla to complete the order.
 

matrix243

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Posts
699
Reaction score
249
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Hydrogen is not the same as water. You can burn hydrogen. You can put out fires with water. When you burn hydrogen, you get ... water. An engine that burns water is impossible according to physics as we know it. The atoms are too tightly bound.

I saw the article too, a long time ago, engineer in office was heavy into it and there was a website just for very technical engineering with a range of different engineering that hasn't hit main stream.
 

melvimbe

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Posts
4,878
Reaction score
6,436
Location
Houston, TX
Hydrogen is not the same as water. You can burn hydrogen. You can put out fires with water. When you burn hydrogen, you get ... water. An engine that burns water is impossible according to physics as we know it. The atoms are too tightly bound.

I'm thinking the reference was referring to a steam engine. Water isn't the fuel in that engine though.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
93,180
Posts
1,955,514
Members
56,460
Latest member
khunter
Top