Connect with us

News

I took a Ford F-150 Lightning to Tesla Superchargers: The Good and Bad

Published

on

Update 4:33 pm: Charge rates updated for accuracy. FordPass statistics were incorrect. Added paragraph 7 to add detail regarding use of Ford App to charge.

Ford and Tesla unified the electric vehicle community by announcing a strategic decision to collaborate.

Last month, Ford gained access to Tesla’s Supercharger Network, giving non-Tesla EV drivers their first opportunity to charge at its piles across North America.

Ford was pleasant enough to send an F-150 Lightning to my house, drop it off, and allow me to drive it for three days. They also sent a Charging Adapter, which was necessary for using Tesla Superchargers.

Advertisement

The truck arrived at my house early Monday morning, and I was sure to take it for a spin to deplete some of the range before I drove it to my nearest V3 Supercharger. This was my first bit of criticism, as the closest Supercharger that would enable the F-150 Lightning to charge was around 45 minutes away. It is not the closest Tesla Supercharger to me, as there is one just ten minutes away, but its V2 capabilities would not allow me to charge a non-Tesla EV.

Ford announces Tesla Supercharger access to F-150 Lightning, Mustang Mach-E drivers

The truck was great, but that’s another story altogether.

First Impressions

I arrived at the first Supercharger on Monday evening, ready to give this a first go. I pulled into a spot in a row of unoccupied superchargers; the Lightning’s charging port is located just behind the left front tire, so you need to take up two spots, something that Tesla is working on.

Advertisement

I logged into the Ford app and selected the charger in front of me. This ” unlocked” the Supercharger, enabling me to grab the cable and attach the adapter. Charging was ready, and it was as simple as plugging in and sitting back in the driver’s seat, where the heads-up display told me my current percentage, and an estimated time to 90 percent state of charge.

It was super tight to get the cable to reach. I had some room to pull forward, admittedly, but I was driving a truck that I didn’t own, and I didn’t want to take the chance of scraping the underbody of the vehicle. Even with repositioning myself and trying to angle the truck in order to reach the cable comfortably, it was hard to get the cable to get to the connector.

A few extra feet would help even the most cautious drivers charge more easily, which I believe is important.

Overall, it was a good experience. My charging statistics for this session were:

Advertisement
  • Charging Power – 106 kW
  • Energy Added – 37.4 kWh
  • Time Charged – 21 minutes
  • Distance Gained – 96 miles
  • Cost – $21.16

It was not an overwhelmingly time-consuming process. It was quick, it was easy, and it was nice to have access to a Supercharger. When I have Ford EVs, I usually have to charge at my local grocery store on a low-speed Volta charger, which will give me around 10-12 miles per hour.

Second Charging Session

My second session was much better. I was able to get into a Supercharger stall that was put on the side of the spot as it was an end space, so it was easier and much more reasonable to pull into.

There was significantly less tension on the Supercharger cable, which I think will increase longevity and keep the number of operable stalls up.

This session was smoother in terms of pulling in and charging. While longer cables will eliminate a lot of the problems I had during the first charging session, Tesla’s end-spot Superchargers are super ideal for non-Tesla EVs. This was my preferred space, and I would have used it the day prior if another vehicle wasn’t already utilizing it.

My charging stats for this session were:

Advertisement
  • Charge Power – 106 kW
  • Energy Added – 48.3 kWh
  • Time Charged – 33 minutes
  • Distance Gained – 115 miles
  • Cost $22.08

Quality of the Adapter

The adapter Ford sent along was super quality, solid, and heavy. It felt like a piece of necessary equipment that is designed to last several years and won’t break on you due to inferior quality.

It was packaged nicely and included a nice message from CEO Jim Farley. It simply attaches to the Tesla Supercharger Cable and goes into the Ford EV, locking in place:

Advertisement

I was impressed by the quality of the adapter and I believe it would last years for Ford EV owners who plan to use it to access Superchargers.

Final Thoughts

Ford EV drivers are going to use Tesla Superchargers for years to come, and I think that what I experienced was a good start of the overall charging experience.

Everything was high-quality, fast, effective, and easy to use. It felt nice to roll into a Tesla Supercharger and gain adequate of range in a short period of time, and it was something that I feel a lot of EV drivers will appreciate, even if it is a tad pricey at this point in time.

I think that the lengthening of Supercharger cables will pay dividends, but I also think that Tesla could build new Supercharger stations with mandatory end spot positioning. This enables easier access to the Superchargers for non-Tesla EVs.

Advertisement

I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling

ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.

Published

on

By

ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.

The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.

Additionally,  ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.

SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise

Advertisement

The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.

The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Published

on

elon-musk-jim-farley-tesla-ford

Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.

The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.

Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):

“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”

Advertisement

Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.

Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:

“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges

Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.

Advertisement

Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.

Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch

NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.

Published

on

By

NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.

Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.

Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.

SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket

Advertisement

Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.

The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.

The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.

Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.

Advertisement

The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.

Continue Reading