Is a Tesla Pickup Possible?

Tesla MS drawing II

By Brian Wong

Any way you slice it, the Tesla Model 3 launch was a huge success, with the sedan racking up 325,000 preorders (and counting) for which buyers put down a $1,000 deposit — all without finalized specs, pricing or an actual production vehicle.

I attended the March 30 introduction of the Model 3 and was one of the few journalists to take a ride in a preproduction version. If Tesla can deliver on its promise — and that seems to be a big if — it has the potential to be an even bigger hit for the electric automaker than the larger, more expensive Model S and will make Tesla vehicles accessible to an entirely new customer base with the Model 3's projected base price of around $35,000.

When the Model 3 hits the streets, Tesla's lineup will include a sedan, a sports car and an SUV, which leaves one important stone unturned: What if Tesla decided to offer a pickup truck? 

Longtime PUTC readers know the idea of a full-electric pickup is not a new idea, and there are plenty of past examples of hybrid pickups that had limited success, but it's our thought that Tesla could be different with its own version of either a full-electric or new hybrid model

I'm not even going to guess at styling or how big the front glass would be. An all-glass cab anyone? As for size, I think something closer to a midsize pickup or smaller would make the most sense, mostly because Tesla's distribution centers and supercharger stations are focused around urban environments, where smaller trucks are likely to be more prevalent.

Speed and power likely wouldn't be a priority for a Tesla pickup but could be a nice value-added proposition. Each of Tesla's other vehicles have been almost too quick — even the Model 3 can really scoot with five adults in the car — so I don't see Tesla skimping on speed and power in a pickup either. The question would be whether Tesla would give the pickup a sport-truck personality or if it would find creative ways to improve traditional pickup truck characteristics such as payload and towing capability. Of course, it's possible Tesla could offer vehicles with multiple personalities. 

A Tesla pickup could be a tailgater's dream, like a Ram 1500 equipped with a RamBox or a Honda Ridgeline with it's bed-trunk. The battery packs or chargers could be used to power all sorts of electrical equipment such as a TV and satellite dish, an electric grill, blender or hand tools, eliminating the need for one of those annoyingly loud gas-driven generators.

Since driving with payload in the bed or pulling a trailer would cut into an electric pickup's range, we'd expect owners' range anxiety to increase unless Tesla addressed a few issues. This would also have implications in regard to Tesla's supercharger network as well. Tesla rightly touts the "freedom of movement" offered by the supercharger network, but right now the miles between supercharger stations could outstrip the range of a pickup with a heavy payload. This could make longer trips and normal usage more difficult, if not impossible, if the pickup can't cover a significant distance between stations.

Given those issues, our guess is an electric pickup would need a minimum range of 200 miles, but some tweaks might be necessary to extend full-electric mode depending on heat or load. Both the Tesla Model S and Model X get at least 240 miles or so of EPA-estimated range, and the Model 3 is predicted to offer at least 215 miles. Whether the solution is an additional plug-in "power pack" or something incorporated into a trailer or bed accessory remains to be seen. But it's very likely some type of mobile power station that extends range will need to be offered.

Finally, a Tesla pickup could have some positive commercial implications. If an electrified pickup can't be an effective work truck, the market for it narrows considerably — especially if it can't be used as a mobile power station itself. Unloaded, 200 miles of potential range is probably enough for most municipal or small-business work applications where the vehicle is consistently on a local job site or at a central location where there could be a charger.

All that said, we hope Tesla takes a crack at a pickup truck in the near future. Whether it will have the gull-wing doors of the Model X remains to be seen. But if there's any company that could push the envelope about how we see, use and define a pickup truck, Tesla is probably the company best positioned to do so.

Got any ideas about what a Tesla pickup truck should offer? Share your comments below.

Illustration by Mark Stehrenburger; manufacturer image

 

Alte Electric Pickup chassis

VIA-motors-Electric-Pickup II

 

Comments

@ papa Jim

A cvt is a belt. There is a reason we moved away from timing belts to timing chains. If you notice what I first said to lou_bc is that it could be perfected over time. An engineer is supposed to find ways to "make bricks without straw", right? I do have faith in engineers. The only time I have seen a cvt in a truck was a 1500 silverado. Maybe weight and heat wear the belts down too fast. Ask the engineers why they abandoned it papa jim. It can be perfected its just if the companies are willing to give the engineers the money for research and development (quality assurance). Food for thought: what about something simplified like gears and chains on a bike. I'm pretty sure I read an article on here about multiple speed differentials too...If anyone wants to question or educate me feel free to, I'm too busy working my own job to be an engineer in my off time lol.

@Josh,

Since you are an engineer, spend a few minutes on this question:

Why do all the expense of building a ten speed trans that's as complicated as a Rolex watch when you can have a CVT that is rugged and simple and easy to repair?

The reason GM dumped the hybrid Silverado had nothing to do with CVT. GM was in the process of bankruptcy at the time and building trucks for the 3 percent of buyers who actually WANTED a hybrid pickup was not a strategic use of time and talent.

Instead the were busy bringing the Volt to market, which by the way is still my favorite of the hybrids of that day because it was simple and direct. Perfect design for hybrids if that sort of thing is your deal.

Lol I guess I'm in agreement with you in a round about way. Engineers will do whatever they are told for the right amount of money. It's up to the market I guess. I mean idk why automakers haven't switched to modular engine designs. They should come out with one inline engine family that can have 1-6 cylinders depending on application. 4 cylinders is the most that you need for fwd so the length of an inline 6 is no object. If Cummins uses an inline 6 I'm sure smaller trucks can do with 6 cylinders hence ecoboost. Yea I'm a v8 man, in a muscle car, not a 107 mph workhorse. So to elaborate on your why hasn't Detroit done this or that yet, why haven't they done a complete modular engine family yet? Did i mention Bmw gasoline engines share the same family as their diesel counterparts? Tbh, a 6 cylinder is enough as the new Ford from has shown us. I'm a v8 man, too.

*Ford gt. My stupid autocorrect.

Why are you so mad?
I never said i was an engineer! I said just the opposite lmao! I said I'm a common man! I even appreciate your knowledge! Why are you so mad?! I'm not insulting you at all!

I'm not for 10 speeds, I'm just saying that cvt's are not popular because no-one has invested in the development of quality for a cvt.

Just like the first direction injection cars. Fca don't put direct injection on naturally aspirated cars like gm does because they don't wanna deal with the development costs and they are too cheap to buy technology. Idk if i would trust the first direct Injection cars from fca. I know Alfa and maserati use it already but they would "have to dumb it down" so to speak so that the car using it would not cost too much. And to all of the fca guys, I drive a mopar so don't get too mad. ;)

If it had nothing to do with cvts, why did the cvt hybrid only tow 6,000 lbs while the 6.2 6speed towed almost double? Why did they not continue the transmission behind nonhybrid engines if it is such a good idea? Like I said in the beginning, it is a good idea if it is durable enough. No one will invest in the development of a cvt for a truck. Therefore we pretty much agree through different views. keep in mind cvts are the same concept as bicycle gears and chains, loosely. And what about modular engine families?

@Josh

please don't throw GM in the same boat with Fiat. Lightyears apart.

GM has a history of great designs, success and innovation and Fiat has been a government-supported car company for decades.

GM's critics bitch about the 2008 deal that screwed the bondholders and I totally agree, but Fiat has been on the government tit non-stop since before World War 2.

I used to work at a shop that worked on imports papa jim, and cvts were commonly replaced. They get replaced as one complete unit, not rebuilt with new belts. Now I wouldn't doubt they are remanufactured like alternators and starters, but what truck guy wants to be at the transmission shop/dealership all the time or declined because they towed more than the warranty would allow? Lol papa jim, don't ask me, take a poll for urself on pickuptrucks.com and see just how many guys want this. If more are for it than against it, then you have proved ur point. Don't sleep the data either by asking people if they want a cvt with no problems, but rather a cvt as they stand currently. Go ahead.

Papa jim

Wtf are u talking about? Can't u read? I complimented gm for perfecting direct injection! R u a spambot?! Why are u so mad?! Why can't u read?! Are u and bafo one and the same?!

@papa spambot

If you're looking for hookers, you're on the wrong website lol. How do i know you are looking for them you ask? Because you are all about entrapment roflmfao! Everything I say you complain about and try to dig deeper. Everyone on here is gonna laugh at you!

@papa spambot

If you're looking for hookers, you're on the wrong website lol. How do i know you are looking for them you ask? Because you are all about entrapment roflmfao! Everything I say you complain about and try to dig deeper. Everyone on here is gonna laugh at you!

Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. In Idaho 2/3 of electricity is hydroelectric. The other 1/3 is almost an even split of wind and natural gas. And most of the wind-generated electricity in Idaho is sent all the way to California believe it or not. Washington and Oregon also have a large percentage of their electricity come from hydroelectric power plants aka dams. IMO the only real problem with electric vehicles is the expense of the batteries. Battery technology is improving but they need to find a way to make them cheaper and longer lasting. Love my lithium Ion power tools. It's amazing how long they last and how much power they have. I'd love an electric truck if they can give it good range and not too expensive. An electric powertrain can be much more efficient and reliable than a combustion engine. Just need to find a way to make it cheaper. Where I live electricity is very cheap and a totally environmentally friendly source of energy.


Posted by: Beebe | Apr 25, 2016 5:43:12 PM

Just to clarify Idaho wind is not sent to Cali. Utility companies use that mentality and consumer ignorance to make a buck. There is no direct transmission interconnection to Idaho to California. There is a big round about loop to get that wind to Cali from Idaho but it doesn't happen since it is very inefficient to transfer a kilowiggle that huge distance on a AC grid. DC is much more efficient way to transfer power in large blocks but very cost intensive.

What happens is people sign up on there bill to get some "green energy". So they feel good but they are not guaranteed to get that green energy..... No way to separate green energy from carbon generated energy. Look at it this way and the best analogy I have heard concerning. Lets say you put a $100 dollar of some of your hard earned money in a bank in Idaho. A nice clean $100 dollar bill earned through hard work..... Write down the serial number before putting it in the bank. Now make a trip to California and go to the bank and get your $100 out..... Chances are you will never see that $100 bill again. The one you earned through an honest days work. When get your $100 bill out of the bank it could be a dirty $100 bill put in the bank by a criminal drug dealer or other nasty means.

Meanwhile the next person that goes to the bank in Idaho gets your clean $100 bill that was put in by you that earned it through an honest days work while you get maybe a dirty bill earned through other then honest means. But you still use it like its clean bill.

No wind from idaho doesn't make it to cali. It would be very expensive and inefficient to send it there from Idaho.

There isn't a transmission grid direct route from Idaho to Cali. There are long round about ways to get that wind there.

@ scott.

You are wrong. They actually built two huge new transmission lines when they put in the wind turbines. One goes down through Utah. The other goes through remote parts of nevada straight to California. I personally know one of the farmers that has over twenty of those million dollar wind turbines on his farm. And I was involved in a roundabout way with the construction of those transmission lines and the studies on their effects on sage grouse. They are selling credits too, but much of that power is actually going directly to california. Idaho already generates all the power it needs just from Hydroelectricity. If they couldn't export the wind energy, there would be no point in building the turbines.

It's actually not even an excessively long line. And it's only 345 kilovolts when some lines are 500 KV

Beebe. I built some of those lines.... Kiliwiggles from Idaho don't make it to Cali on the AC grid. AC current has line losses. I2R losses. You hear snapping under those big power lines that is power escaping. You watch them glow at night that is electricity being used, you touch that barb wire fence under runs under that big transmission line and get a small shock that is power escaping from that line. Those wires on those big lines aren't at air temp. They are warmer then the surrounding air.... Like a toaster as Aluminum in that wire has resistance and uses power just to push power. AC has it transmission limit length before it needs to go into a substation to be stepped back up and additional generation added to bring watts back up. Longer the extension cord is the lower the power is being delivered.... Imagine running a 500 ft extension cord off a 20 amp 120 volt circuit from your house and trying to use it to power a microwave.... Not going to happen. So what to do???? Build another generation point closer to the microwave..... Those lines out of downy Idaho running into Utah come from bridger coal plant into wyoming as well as a few others. There are some wind generation that contribute as well.... It goes to lighting Salt Lake and surround areas to each sub it stops at.... What does this mean less generation needs to come from West and South to feed Salt lake and less needs to come from coal. Those generation places closer to Cali have more capacity to send power to Cali as they don't have to send power to areas where there may be wind generation. The wind farm and the largest I believe in Idaho above my area.... Goshen wind farm and the other farms in the area... That power goes to goshen substation and goes out on the local grid. What does that mean???? The 345 kv line running into that sub has to deliver less capacity to that sub which that line fed from coal plants in wyoming can throttle back cause they don't have to send as much power on the that line to power the area with prevalent wind.

The wind killiwiggles don't make it to Cali from Idaho but by them californians paying more for green energy it allows other areas of the region to scale back on other sources of generation. and California will get its power from sources the closest to its state and if those sources are in the middle between Cali and Idaho now that those generation sources don't have to send power to Idaho they have more power to send to Cali.

So in a round about way yes Cali is buy wind but they aren't buying it for themselves.... They are buying it for other states so they have more capacity to use by generation points closer to there state..... Now when you get into DC transmission that changes the ball game on what Cali gets and where the killiwiggles come from.... See the Pacific DC intertie. Also See AC transmission line losses... I2R....

It make no sense to generate 500,600,700 miles away with an AC system. You lose to much power which is huge revenue lost for the generator. Lets say wind provider will generate 1 MW and put it on the grid.... By the time that 1 MWh generated from that turbine travelled to Cali from Idaho it would have a hard time even lighting a incandescent light bulb... Cause of all the loses it has to endure traveling 100's of miles of AC lines just to get to California. So that turbine provider wants his pay for that 1MWh he generated but in the end he didn't deliver anything to the end user in Cali. No body pays him cause the product wasn't delivered.

So what really happens that wind goes to the nearest substation and goes out on the local area grid and that wind turbine delivers the majority of its generated power and the wind generator gets paid. So the utility that MWh of wind ended up on can back down there need for generation from other sources and that other source of generation can back down its output (burn less coal) or send that MWh elsewhere close to its generation station. By doing that and sending it closer that next generation plant down the line can send power else where and eventually it gets to Cali even though it may be generated by coal or what ever. But to say power produced by a generation source 500 miles away makes it to an area is asinine.

Just like the first direction injection cars. Fca don't put direct injection on naturally aspirated cars like gm does because they don't wanna deal with the development costs and they are too cheap to buy technology. Idk if i would trust the first direct Injection cars from fca. I know Alfa and maserati use it already but they would "have to dumb it down" so to speak so that the car using it would not cost too much. And to all of the fca guys, I drive a mopar so don't get too mad. ;)


Posted by: Josh | Apr 25, 2016 7:52:07 PM


FCA is waiting for Low sulfur Gasoline to be produced in NA for Direct Injection engine.

Maybe Ford should merge with Toyota and make one.

CVT is very cheap, doesn't last, has much more friction and it's not really something I admire from engineering point of view. It's bastard trany.

Beebe.... Maybe this will explain it a touch better then I can. This is what is going on with green energy. Its primarily used in local areas where it is generated and the states and there utilities get credit for it when they buy those credits they can claim they used green energy..... Even though the power they get for the REC's may be coming from a coal plant just outside there borders.... Rec's are openly trade certificates. If you want green energy as a utility for your portfolio you can buy REC's offered by a wind producer on the market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificate_(United_States)
If Warren Buffet and his mega energy holdings joins the California ISO (basically spot market) you may see a lot more coal power flowing into California on the market for utilities to buy.
http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/fossil-fooling-how-california-utilities-hide-dirty-power-news-energy-electricity-tesla-cal-iso-pacificorp-dirty-power-coal-fossil-fue/Content?oid=4626977
The utilities that provide there power don't care where they get there power if they can get a deal cause they have rec's they bought for there green portfolio. And they buy cheap power on the spot market. So if you are a utility that belongs to a CAL ISO and you have 1MW that you bought for x amount of dollars.... Electricity on the grid can't be stored efficiently so its a use or lose it item that you bought and own. Well as a utility your demand is down for said time period and you over bought or underbought from the generation marketers. So what to do... You have to go to the open spot market and get power or sell power depending on your need... Money to be made or lost depending on spot prices. REC's aren't megawatts on the California grid, they are certificates certifying that 1 MW was put on the grid somewhere in the US.

Also the utilities have to pay for the transmission capacity across various owners of the grid. The farther away the generation source is the more it cost. If you owned a chunk of transmission line, a substation that line goes to on its way of california you are not transporting that product (electricity) for free. You have to make your money for the use of your lines. idaho power and Rocky mountain power own most of the transmission system in Idaho. Then you jump to Nevada power when it enters nevada and may hit several other utilities that own the grid in California before Southern Cal edison "gets" there wind power from Idaho. Every body along the way makes there money and financially it is not feasible to run electricity that far when they have there generation needs already meet close to there local area.

@Scott
I understand. But you're still wrong about power making it to california. There is a line that goes directly out of southern Idaho toward California across the Nevada desert. near jackpot. This line was built for the wind turbines. There is more power generated than can be used in northern Nevada or southern idaho. It gets used in california. Where else would it get used and why would they build this new line straight from the turbines to California if it wasn't getting used there? Just tell me this. Where does that power get used? It sure isn't where I live cause we had excess hydroelectric capacity BEFORE the hundreds of wind turbines.

papa Jim

A cvt is a belt. There is a reason we moved away from timing belts to timing chains. If you notice what I first said to lou_bc is that it could be perfected over time. An engineer is supposed to find ways to "make bricks without straw", right? I do have faith in engineers. The only time I have seen a cvt in a truck was a 1500 silverado. Maybe weight and heat wear the belts down too fast. Ask the engineers why they abandoned it papa jim. It can be perfected its just if the companies are willing to give the engineers the money for research and development (quality assurance). Food for thought: what about something simplified like gears and chains on a bike. I'm pretty sure I read an article on here about multiple speed differentials too...If anyone wants to question or educate me feel free to, I'm too busy working my own job to be an engineer in my off time lol.


Posted by: Josh | Apr 25, 2016 7:23:55 PM

A CVT in an automobile does not use a belt. These transmissions uses a thick chain that is sandwiched between the variators. The problem with current CVTs that I am aware of is even though they a virtual infinite ratio spread they are limited on the final drive ratio and starting ratio. Nissan helped out with this issue by creating a 2 speed CVT. But my understanding is they still do not have the ratio spread as a 6 or 10 speed transmission. Didn't read all the comments but I seen talk after rear drive CVTs. The GM truck pictured is a ECVT. Which means that engine power is not directed through the transmission. The transmission has electric motors that provides the propulsion. The engine provides the electric generation. Just like a hybrid ECVT.

Another current limitation in CVTs is limited towing. Look at the Nissan towing numbers. They are low compared to standard style transmissions.

I can easily see an electric pickup truck in the USA's near future. Some readers and the article authour have expressed their concern about electic pickups with a heavy load might not have the range needed to go from one charging station to another. This may not be an issue because EV battery pack development continues to increase power density while decreasing in price. However, if it is an issue one solution might be to buy or rent additional add-on battery packs.

Not long ago, Telsa studied the possibity of having battery pack Swap stations however Tesla car owners weren't very interested in this option. Maybe it might make more sense for truck use as a way of reducing the trucks down time (time spent truckn" instead of chargen').

I hope a electric pickup truck does take off in a way, because maybe then people that really need trucks for truck work can get back to having a real truck. The yuppies can be happy in the city with their blinged up shock box trucks, with useless 22 inch rims with nav this, screen that, and camera this.

The only version I can see actually be viable to compete with current trucks is a diesel-electric version. Any actual plug-in version would be an expensive toy and have to be compact or midsize, and have no useful range under a load. Yeah maybe that would be okay for urban hipsters to haul their reclaimed pallet furniture in around downtown, but anyone like me that hauls tools and materials and equipment often hundreds of miles every day, it's not even an option. I'll bet the price tag would be insane too, you could probably get a loaded diesel HD for less.

If only it were possible to find an engine that can run on smugness, there would be enough fuel in Washington to power the world.

The author demonstrates limited knowledge of Tesla's Supercharger network; they are NOT located in urban centers but rather for the most part are readily accessible to freeways and placed about 120 miles apart on average at the moment. Tesla has already announced their intent to double the number of locations by the end of 2017 and increase the number of "Destination Chargers" by 4x. By the time a Tesla truck comes out, these numbers will probably be doubled again, if not twice over.

The advantage of electric is the simple fact that the electric motor can produce incredible torque from a dead stop. A little research into railroad history can show where the first electric locomotives literally yanked the coupler pins right out of the cars they were expected to pull when driven by a steam locomotive driver. They learned the hard way that they had to ease in on the power just to save the hardware. Imagine trying to do that with an electric pickup yanking on a 30 thousand pound trailer. The electric will be able to get the load moving much more quickly than a gas or diesel powered truck, but the torque will need to be moderated to avoid over-stressing the hitch and mounts.

Lots of interesting comments on this one... The scientists having the most interesting and then they trail off to the mindlessly blindly brand loyal drones who are delivering what they always deliver...

They way I see it (and I fall somewhere between the scientists and GMSRGREAT crowd) is Tesla can make things happen. Is it practicle? Are there challenges/issues? Do they want to? Is there even a market for it? all fair points.

I don't think an electric truck needs to work/function like a 3/4 ton diesel in a Minnesota winter puling a horse trailer full of freezing hippos up Mt Everest. I don't think an electric pickup needs to be like the Raptor off road. I don't think an electric "truck" needs to be body on frame or have a true 4x4 system... I think if Tesla built something about the size and stature with the capabilities of the Honda Ridgeline with tesla speed, engineering, safety, style, quality and cool for a good price then there would finally be the pretend truck that really makes sense for most of the pretend truck buyers. And not only would Tesla bring the speed, and engineering but it would bring the cool that something like the outback Baja/ridgeline are always missing. But what about those folks that tow 4K? F em... if youre towing 4K you should waste your time on a little truck anyway. Toyta's survey proved that towing doesn't matter to little truck buyers and it shouldn't. If you actually got something to haul on a regular basis you've already moved beyond little trucks. So for all but the serious off roaders the Tesla truck would be an incredible alternative to a pretend truck or the non turbo 6cyl full size 1/2 ton. No they wont make an impact in hauling freight to the north pole but they could take alotta other markets/market share...

Those dismissing them are the same or subscribing to the same crippled though process that did the same in the 70s when civic, and corolla crawled out of the ocean on our shores...

On fossil fuels:
* Coal generates approximately 30% of electricity in the US
* a) -- No new coal plants are being built
* b) -- Coal plants are being converted to natural gas OR shut down entirely
* c) -- Coal plants have the equivalent of 'catalytic converters' on their stacks to scrub pollutants.

* Natural Gas generates approximately 35% of electricity in the US
* "Renewable" sources now generate roughly 40% of all electricity in the US
* a) -- Hydroelectric, aka water turbines in dams, pumped storage reservoirs and tidal flow.
* b) -- Nuclear. Granted, not exactly a renewable but very long term capability with no atmospheric pollutants when properly handled.
* c) -- Wind. New wind farms are being built constantly. Zero pollution and zero fuels required to power them.
* d) -- Solar. Growing rapidly with costs for new installations down by 50% from as little as 2 years ago. Again, no cost for fuels as the sun itself provides the energy directly to the panels.
In essence, the argument about "dirty electric" is obsolete as even China is actively working to eliminate pollution from their coal plants.

On BEVs. I've already mentioned their overall advantages. However there is more to it than just that.
* Pollution -- In the most coal-intensive part of the US such as around Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio region, A Tesla Model S at its dirtiest puts out half the pollution through coal plants as a Fiat 500 while offering the size, comfort and performance of a high-end luxury car. Just taking vehicle size, weight and power into account, a Model S is roughly 20% as dirty as that Fiat 500 or about 5% as dirty as any 'equivalent' ICE car.
* Range -- Tesla has already achieved 300 miles of range with a BEV, so the commentary using 200 miles as their base range is already 33% under-estimated.
* Weather -- Doesn't have as much effect on the range in a Tesla as it does in other brands. Over the 2014 New Year's holiday, two Model S sedans drove from Fremont, Ca to New York, NY through a dust storm and two blizzards using nothing but available Supercharger stations--stations placed about 220 miles apart at the time. The two cars reached every station, in the depths of winter, with 20 or more miles range remaining on their charge running along I-80 for most of the trip. Despite running heater and radio, they had more than enough range to reach each station. Total trip time was 4 days.

My point is that most of the arguments against BEVs are due to a severe lack of knowledge of what BEVs are capable. I won't deny that for some purposes BEVs are not yet up to the task, but we're still in the infancy of modern electric vehicles. Who knows? In ten years you might really want that BEV for its power, performance and economy.

They way I see it (and I fall somewhere between the scientists and GMSRGREAT crowd)

Posted by: Clint | Apr 26, 2016 11:15:42 AM

Ahhh!

Ahhh Means Oh My Gosh But In A Good Way! HaHa.

@GMSRGREAT, he said in between, you are on the high end of that scale, that is not good :)

Some great comments! Man, we have many armchair specialists with some interesting takes on the energy market. Energy supply is simple, it's supply and demand.

Now to the EV pickup. My 2.7 EcoBoost is good enough because I am getting 24 MPG average all the time. Why do we need EVs?

Road Whale,
So what, Tesla has reached 300 miles. Does it mean that it is commercially viable? I mean just look at theat solar powered plane that just flew around the world. How long before we have solar powered bombers and fighter and commercial airliners.

Big Deal.

I own a 2.7 EcoBoost, best damn engine around getting over 24 MPG. Why do we need EV pickups.

@BIg AL, becasue 24mpg sucks and isnt actually good

@GMSRGREAT, he said in between, you are on the high end of that scale, :)

Posted by: Nitro | Apr 26, 2016 12:24:35 PM

Ahhh!

Someone earlier in the comments section made reference to the GM CVT, used in the hybrid pick-up, only being rated to pull 6000 lbs. That was accurate, however the transmission in the 2009-2013 hybrid GM twins did not utilize a belt or even a chain. It consisted of two very powerful electric motors / generators and a planetary gear set in the forward section or Bell housing area. Those motors could be operated at various speeds to provide the CVT operation. So at low speeds the vehicle was essentially electrically driven via the motors. At higher speeds and when towing, the 6.0 L engine started, and was mechanically connected to the driveline. At this point, the transmission worked more like a regular transmission by utilizing, I believe it was, 3 additional planetary gear sets to obtain 4 forward speeds. So again, that transmission was not a CVT in the traditional form and did not use a belt or chain.

I appreciate being intelligently corrected gmsgreat. I appreciate knowledge sharing, papa spambot angry manor.

Not*

"I own a 2.7 EcoBoost, best damn engine around getting over 24 MPG. Why do we need EV pickups."

80 to 120 mpge. That's why. Four to six times the distance for the same cost in 'fuel'

Clint - valid points. I do see EV pickups having a place in the grand scheme of things. We tend to assume that pickups using this technology will follow the same architecture of current trucks.
@RoadWhale - what are the charging rates for those "superchargers"? Tesla's site says 30 minutes for roughly 80% charge. How many people are going to want to have down time of 30 minutes (conservatively) every 2 hours assuming 60 mph?
Commercially does it make sense?
My comments about EV trucks only being sensible in more urban dense areas still stands. High population areas will have distances between settlements of less than 60 miles and often have boundaries abutting each other.
I've been in the back country 120 miles from a town. Last weekend my son and I were 145 km (90 miles) from town.

Josh - my understanding of that transmission was that it was susceptible to overheating under load therefore the lower tow rating.

@Josh - I never did understand why GM chose to go with the 6.0 since it isn't the most fuel efficient unit out there.

I appreciate being intelligently corrected gmsgreat. I appreciate knowledge sharing,

Posted by: Josh | Apr 26, 2016 2:00:56 PM

Your welcome, and remember, knowledge is power.

Am I the only one who thinks that Big Al has a new ID?

@Lou BC re: the Silverado hybrid. the Atkinson cycle engine (?) may have been a part of the lower rating, they just don't pull as hard.

papa jim - I don't think that's it. The new Tacoma is Atkinson and has the same tow ratings as before.

Oh and I do believe that BiGal from Ozz is back and DenverDud.

@Scott- current in barbed wire fences etc. under "high voltage" lines is due just as much to an induction current created due to electromechanical forces as opposed to the loss of "power" from the transmission line. (At least that it is what was explained to me when we received training in EMS safety around electrical lines.

And now for some real news....

Today Ford recalls certain Lincoln MKCs, Ford Exploders due to engine cooling problem. The vehicles are equipped with 2.3L GTDI engines and engine block heaters. These engine block heaters have elements that may overheat while plugged in.

The automaker says overheating of the engine block increase the risk of a FIRE.

Wow that's unusual a Ford on fire....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1UZfzICi4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30AbH74uxdU

lol

"@RoadWhale - what are the charging rates for those "superchargers"? Tesla's site says 30 minutes for roughly 80% charge. How many people are going to want to have down time of 30 minutes (conservatively) every 2 hours assuming 60 mph?
Commercially does it make sense?"

Think about it, my friend. 80% of 300 miles is 240 miles. At 60mph you're talking about 4 hours of driving, not two, and that's assuming steady driving and not an in-town delivery, HVAC, plumbing, pest control, etc. pickup which spends more time parked than driving, excepting maybe delivery. Since the average speed will be slower, it's very possible you could achieve a full shift before needing to plug it back in. That makes very good commercial sense as the cost of electricity is less than 50% that of Regular gas at current prices per mile.

It might not serve as well as an over-the-road hauler, but even there it wouldn't impose that much of a hassle on a family taking a vacation. The Federal government recommends you stop every two to four hours to stretch and work out the kinks for safety's sake so having a half-hour to 45 minutes break for restroom, food and drink helps keep you alert and ready to take on the next stretch of highway. Commercial trucks have 8-hour limits behind the wheel, so I'll agree that it wouldn't, yet, be ideal for OTR commercial hauling.



The comments to this entry are closed.