News
I took a Ford F-150 Lightning to Tesla Superchargers: The Good and Bad
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.
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.
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:
- 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:
- 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:
Forgot how much I love driving the Lightning, honestly my favorite EV to cruise around in!!
Ford overnighted me the adapter for Superchargers as well! pic.twitter.com/0VGE0AKxj6
— Joey Klender (@KlenderJoey) March 11, 2024
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.
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.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
