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.

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

Advertisement
-

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:

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:

  • 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:

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

Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves

Tesla has begun building production quality Optimus robots in Fremont and revealed its training plan.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of Tesla Optimus in mass production

Tesla has started building Optimus on the high volume line it set up inside its Fremont factory, and the company says the robots coming off it are the first that meet the bar for a real product. “The bots coming off this line are the first production-quality bots that we have manufactured,” Tesla wrote in its third quarter shareholder letter, adding that it has “proven that the current manufacturing process for Optimus is suitable for a commercial product.”

The line sits in space that built the Model S and Model X until this spring. Tesla cleared the old vehicle line in 46 days, as Teslarati reported in July, to make room for robot production sized for one million units a year. On Wednesday’s earnings call, Elon Musk said most of the equipment for that capacity is already in Fremont, with output set to climb toward roughly 20,000 robots a week as the line ramps.

Musk described the ramp as a classic S curve. “The growth of Optimus is an S curve, but the initial curve is a shallow slope,” he said. The team is now refining the robot’s AI, electromechanical design, reliability and service life, and Musk expects that work to be finished by the end of next year, when Tesla plans to start delivering Optimus to outside companies for dangerous, repetitive and around the clock jobs.

The most interesting part of the call was how Tesla plans to teach the robots. Its cars send real driving data back to the AI team from millions of vehicles, but Optimus has no fleet like that yet. “A big difference with Optimus versus the cars is we don’t have this vast fleet of cars from which we can gather training data,” Musk said. Tesla’s answer is an Optimus Academy, where 10,000 to 20,000 robots will practice a wide range of tasks and feed what they learn into the next version of the model. Every unit off the Fremont line becomes a source of that training data.

Smarter hardware is on the way too. Tesla plans to put its AI5 chip into Optimus next year, and Musk said a new Optimus video should arrive within one or two months showing the robot completing tasks driven by AI rather than preprogrammed motions. He took aim at rival humanoid demos that only run scripted routines, saying those would not hold up in the real world.

Advertisement
-

The supply chain is lining up behind the program. In September, Tesla certified Tuopu, Joyson and Sanhua as mass production partners for Optimus components. A far larger Optimus factory is also rising at Giga Texas, where drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer showed the steel frame nearing completion, and Musk has pegged that plant’s long term target at 10 million robots a year.

Tesla executives also said Optimus production costs are trending toward the expected manufacturing cost of Cybercab, a sign the robot is being engineered for volume from the start. The hands remain the toughest piece of the design, a point Musk also made at the X Takeover event earlier this month, as Teslarati covered at the time, and that is where much of the current engineering effort is focused.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on

Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of SpaceX Starship landing on the moon via Grok

Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.

On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”

Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”

The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.

Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.

Advertisement
-

How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.

Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.

Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas

Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk stands in profile against a clear blue sky, with a bright overhead sun shining above a vast landscape of Tesla solar panels stretching to the horizon, and a smaller Texas flag flying on a pole to his right.

Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.

The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.

The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.

Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing

Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.

Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.

The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.

Continue Reading