STM317
UberDork
1/6/22 10:40 a.m.
Wonder what kind of range the $40k version will have.
This thing seems very similar to the Hummer, and while those are intended to be a bit more "upmarket" than the Silverado, I can't see them dropping too much in price relative to the Hummer with the same range. If the $40k truck only gets a 1 layer battery pack instead of two that could cut the price by a bunch, but it's also going to wreck the range. The Hummer has a curb weight of 9k lbs with the same batteries as this appears to use, so there will be a lot of weight to move around regardless.
Silverado:
Hummer:
John Welsh said:
The EV version looks to be Unibody?
Probably yes - a side effect of an EV "skateboard" although it's possible the body is still bolted to that, but just not with a separate bed like we're used to seeing.
I would like to see this EV in van form as well. Doesn't need to be a minivan - just something that I can get my bikes inside as well as use as a changing room. Granted, with that sort of battery capacity, building it into a local-distance camper might work as well.
The previous Avalanche was Suburban based, probably likely this Siverado EV is more like the Burb than the pickup as well.
I've already forgotten what article it was I read this morning stating the silverado is based on the same Hummer chassis so I guess it makes sense it looks unibody.
The bed may be short, but it's got a midgate so you can carry long things:
It's notable that in the 20 years since the Avalanche was introduced, the only other vehicles to offer a "midgate" have been the Subaru Baja and the Hummer H2 SUT ( I consider the Cadillac version of the Avalanche to be an Avalanche).
Keith Tanner said:
iansane said:
Incidentally, why don't bedsides fold down on new trucks for ease of loading? Like old vanagons.
I remember that being a very popular thing in Australia, and you can get beds like that in the US. Home Depot often has them on short term rental trucks. I suspect it's only viable for very light duty.
Our F350 had a flatbed with fold-down/removable sides and it was berkeleying amazing. You get all the advantages of standard bedsides.
If you need two pallets of whatever loaded? That's easy even with a standard bed. Need two pallets unloaded? Pain in the ass with a standard bed. Piece of cake with the flatbed.
The frunk is appealing. Ridgeline's storage bin becomes inaccessible as soon as you start filling the bed. And from a contractors standpoint, the frunk is almost like having sideboxes. You can store your valuable tools up front while filling the bed with materials which are much less likely to be stolen.
It's going to be very interesting to see how EV truck implementation goes in the commercial market.
bigeyedfish said:
Keith Tanner said:
iansane said:
Incidentally, why don't bedsides fold down on new trucks for ease of loading? Like old vanagons.
I remember that being a very popular thing in Australia, and you can get beds like that in the US. Home Depot often has them on short term rental trucks. I suspect it's only viable for very light duty.
Our F350 had a flatbed with fold-down/removable sides and it was berkeleying amazing. You get all the advantages of standard bedsides.
If you need two pallets of whatever loaded? That's easy even with a standard bed. Need two pallets unloaded? Pain in the ass with a standard bed. Piece of cake with the flatbed.
Come to think of it, the dump trailer my in-laws own has folding sides. And I've had over 11k lbs of gravel in it. Agreed, it's super useful.
So c'mon truck makers, why not?
This looks significantly more advanced than the Lightning with regards to state of the art EV manufacturing. The F150 has the battery between the frame rails which is inefficient to manufacture and probably weighs more. No wonder Ford is busy designing a new EV platform for the F150 lightning. It appears as though Ford is beating Chevy to market but is using a non optimal architecture to get there.
mattm said:
This looks significantly more advanced than the Lightning with regards to state of the art EV manufacturing. The F150 has the battery between the frame rails which is inefficient to manufacture and probably weighs more. No wonder Ford is busy designing a new EV platform for the F150 lightning. It appears as though Ford is beating Chevy to market but is using a non optimal architecture to get there.
I think that depends on what you're trying to optimize for. The Lightning appeals to many people because it's just an F-150 with an electric powertrain. They don't have details yet, but from the renderings it looks like the GM is a unibody construction, which has never been terribly successful in the pickup truck market.
mattm said:
This looks significantly more advanced than the Lightning with regards to state of the art EV manufacturing. The F150 has the battery between the frame rails which is inefficient to manufacture and probably weighs more. No wonder Ford is busy designing a new EV platform for the F150 lightning. It appears as though Ford is beating Chevy to market but is using a non optimal architecture to get there.
I'd love to see actual numbers on 1) inefficient to manufacture and 2) weighs more. Until you come up with a structural battery, you need to put the battery in a structure. And literally dropping a battery pack into a big open hole in the middle of a frame seems awfully easy and efficient to me. Especially since a non-trivial amount of that frame design and tooling is amortized over millions of units.
Keith Tanner said:
mattm said:
This looks significantly more advanced than the Lightning with regards to state of the art EV manufacturing. The F150 has the battery between the frame rails which is inefficient to manufacture and probably weighs more. No wonder Ford is busy designing a new EV platform for the F150 lightning. It appears as though Ford is beating Chevy to market but is using a non optimal architecture to get there.
I'd love to see actual numbers on 1) inefficient to manufacture and 2) weighs more. Until you come up with a structural battery, you need to put the battery in a structure. And literally dropping a battery pack into a big open hole in the middle of a frame seems awfully easy and efficient to me. Especially since a non-trivial amount of that frame design and tooling is amortized over millions of units.
As much as it pains me to say it, i think Ford is doing it the right way for a few reasons.
1. It shortens development time.
2. The running gear is a known commodity and as you pointed out completely amortized over the millions of trucks they have sold.
3. It's instantly recognizable as a Ford truck. So Ma and Pa Kettle won't have an aversion to try out the new technology.
4. Since development costs are lower, they can bring it to market at a lower price point even though many they sell will be the high-margin "platinum" models, so win-win.
GM decided to take their new gee-whiz high-zoot Ultium platform and de-content it for work truck duty. Which will make it more expensive at first, and potentially not as attractive as it's not a known commodity as the old faithful GMT platform. In the end it will be better, but for putting butts in the seats and moving metal Ford wins the first round of the EV truck wars.
Ive never been a fan of the midgate idea. Just one more moving part to leak and rattle plus weakening the cab.
Having that open on a cold wet day must be a joy as rain and snow blow
into the cab when you are trying move something big. Not to mention the debris that will have to be carfully cleaned up before it ruins the seats and carpet.
If I am reading the graphic right, the bed is nearly 6' with the gates closed. Better than I thought. The buttress styling makes it look smaller.
STM317 said:
For a half second I thought it had portal type axles but then I realized there were no cvs in view.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:
Ive never been a fan of the midgate idea. Just one more moving part to leak and rattle plus weakening the cab.
Having that open on a cold wet day must be a joy as rain and snow blow
into the cab when you are trying move something big. Not to mention the debris that will have to be carfully cleaned up before it ruins the seats and carpet.
If I am reading the graphic right, the bed is nearly 6' with the gates closed. Better than I thought. The buttress styling makes it look smaller.
I don't think you buy a truck like that expecting to use the midgate all the time in all weather. You'd just buy a truck with an 8 foot bed at that point. But for someone who typically just needs a 6 foot bed, but only occasionally needs to move something longer, it works.
In reply to rslifkin :
So does the tailgate :) I think the midgate is solving a problem that is already solved.
Erich said:
The above is the RST model which will probably top out above $100k. The $40k entry-level model is the WT, which should look like this:
I read that the $40k version will only be for fleet sales?
06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:
Keith Tanner said:
mattm said:
This looks significantly more advanced than the Lightning with regards to state of the art EV manufacturing. The F150 has the battery between the frame rails which is inefficient to manufacture and probably weighs more. No wonder Ford is busy designing a new EV platform for the F150 lightning. It appears as though Ford is beating Chevy to market but is using a non optimal architecture to get there.
I'd love to see actual numbers on 1) inefficient to manufacture and 2) weighs more. Until you come up with a structural battery, you need to put the battery in a structure. And literally dropping a battery pack into a big open hole in the middle of a frame seems awfully easy and efficient to me. Especially since a non-trivial amount of that frame design and tooling is amortized over millions of units.
As much as it pains me to say it, i think Ford is doing it the right way for a few reasons.
1. It shortens development time.
2. The running gear is a known commodity and as you pointed out completely amortized over the millions of trucks they have sold.
3. It's instantly recognizable as a Ford truck. So Ma and Pa Kettle won't have an aversion to try out the new technology.
4. Since development costs are lower, they can bring it to market at a lower price point even though many they sell will be the high-margin "platinum" models, so win-win.
GM decided to take their new gee-whiz high-zoot Ultium platform and de-content it for work truck duty. Which will make it more expensive at first, and potentially not as attractive as it's not a known commodity as the old faithful GMT platform. In the end it will be better, but for putting butts in the seats and moving metal Ford wins the first round of the EV truck wars.
I agree that Ford's approach is getting them to market in advance of the Chevy, but even Ford has indicated that this platform is a dead end. They are working on its replacement now. I am waiting to see how the architecture of both the Ford, Chevy and Rivian compare to the Cybertruck. Interesting time to be alive and see a mature market being disrupted.
The buttress styling makes it look smaller.
It makes the truck look more trendy and less serious. Not sure that's a good idea.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:
The buttress styling makes it look smaller.
It makes the truck look more trendy and less serious. Not sure that's a good idea.
But at the same time, it follows the basic styling of a truck they've sold previously. So it's not a radical departure from a known working formula.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:
The buttress styling makes it look smaller.
It makes the truck look more trendy and less serious. Not sure that's a good idea.
I was referring to the size of the box. Just phrased it poorly.
mattm said:
I agree that Ford's approach is getting them to market in advance of the Chevy, but even Ford has indicated that this platform is a dead end.
The F150 platform for the Lightning being a dead end really doesn't hurt it (or Ford) at all though. It gets the product to market sooner in a package that is more appealing to the masses that are naturally resistant to change. Then once established it can change over to a new better suited EV platform once the larger market is ready for that next evolution.
GM is either betting on a creating a sudden seismic shift in the market, or targeting it as more of a niche vehicle than the Lightning. Crossbreeding a low sales volume new product with a low sales volume old product is an extremely risky gamble if the goal is creating a high sales volume new product.
Crossbreeding a low sales volume new product with a low sales volume old product is an extremely risky gamble if the goal is creating a high sales volume new product.
I don't know why you say that, given GMs massive success in being the domestic early adopter In electric and hybrid systems......
Driven5 said:
mattm said:
I agree that Ford's approach is getting them to market in advance of the Chevy, but even Ford has indicated that this platform is a dead end.
The F150 platform for the Lightning being a dead end really doesn't hurt it (or Ford) at all though. It gets the product to market sooner in a package that is more appealing to the masses that are naturally resistant to change. Then once established it can change over to a new better suited EV platform once the larger market is ready for that next evolution.
GM is either betting on a creating a sudden seismic shift in the market, or targeting it as more of a niche vehicle than the Lightning. Crossbreeding a low sales volume new product with a low sales volume old product is an extremely risky gamble if the goal is creating a high sales volume new product.
Exactly my point. Folks in the heartland who wouldn't look twice at anything with a Tesla badge will jump at the chance to be the first one on the block with an Electric F150
