Connect with us
Ford f-150 lightning Ford f-150 lightning

News

Ford study shows pickup truck electrification has substantial greenhouse gas reduction rate

Credit: Ford Motor Company

Published

on

Ford and University of Michigan researchers conducted a new study that evaluated the savings in greenhouse gas emissions in battery-electric pickup trucks relative to gas-powered pickups. It also assessed the reductions in other light-duty vehicles when compared to their gas-powered counterparts.

According to the study, sedan, SUV, and pickup truck battery-electric vehicles have approximately 64 percent lower cradle-to-grave life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than the same vehicles with combustion engine powertrains. On average, replacing a traditional gas engine with an electric powertrain can save up to 74 metric tons of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of a vehicle, the study says.

Automakers are utilizing the transition to electrification as a main strategy to combat rising greenhouse gas emission rates. Ford says light-duty vehicles, including sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks, are currently responsible for 58 percent of the United States transportation sector’s emissions. Pickups made up 14 percent of light-duty vehicle sales in the U.S. in 2020, with increases in the sales of SUVs and pickups since that data was released, meaning more emissions are released every year.

Ford is one of the most committed automotive companies in terms of transitioning to electrification. The Mustang Mach-E, which hit the market first for Ford, has quickly become one of the best-selling EVs in the United States. Last year, it trailed only the Tesla Model Y in the all-electric crossover sector. The F-150 Lightning, Ford’s electrified take on its popular pickup truck series, is set to begin deliveries this Spring. Additionally, Ford has started shipping the E-Transit to fulfill commercial demands, including one 1,110-unit order for Wal-Mart.

Ford’s Farley commits to 600k units in 22 months: ‘I think we’re one of the first to scale’

The study gave more evidence that transitioning to electric powertrains is more sustainable than gas-p0wered options, especially from the vehicle’s first mile to its last.

Advertisement
-

“This is an important study to inform and encourage climate action. Our research clearly shows substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions that can be achieved from transitioning to electrified powertrains across all vehicle classes,” Greg Keoleian, a professor at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, said. Keoleian was the study’s senior author.

The Study

Researchers conducted a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of pickup tucks and compared it to an assessment of electrified versions of pickups, sedans, and SUVs. The study used three different model year 2020 powertrain options, including ICE engine vehicles, hybrid-electric vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles. The study looked at midsize sedans, midsize SUVs, and full-size pickups, accounting for differences in fuel economy, annual mileage, vehicle production, and vehicle lifetime across vehicle classes.

“This study expands upon previous studies that have focused on comparing battery-electric vehicle sedans to their internal-combustion-engine or hybrid counterparts,” Keoleian added. “We report emissions for vehicle production, use, and end-of-life stages on a per-mile basis and over the total vehicle lifetime. In addition, we analyzed the regional variation in emissions considering differences in electricity grid mixes and ambient temperatures, and we also explored the effects of the rate of grid decarbonization on emission reduction.”

Researchers found that switching to an electric vehicle results in great total tonnage of emissions reductions as the vehicle size increases. This is due to greater fuel consumption from larger-classed vehicles.

RELATED:

Ford doubles its F-150 Lightning production target again to 150k units per year

Advertisement
-

“Though the percentage savings is approximately the same across vehicle classes, on average replacing an internal-combustion-engine sedan with a battery-electric sedan saves 45 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, replacing an internal-combustion-engine SUV with a battery-electric SUV saves 56 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and replacing an internal-combustion-engine pickup with a battery-electric pickup saves 74 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent over the lifetime of the vehicles,” Max Woody, Center for Sustainable Systems Research Specialist, said. Woody is listed as the study’s first author.

Researchers also concluded that BEV manufacturing has larger emissions rates than ICE vehicle manufacturing. Battery-electric sedans had a breakeven time of 1.2 to 1.3 years, while SUVs sat at 1.4 to 1.6 years, and pickups sat at 1.3 years, based on the average U.S. grid and vehicle miles traveled, the study said.

Officially published on March 1 in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the full study is available here.

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

Lifestyle

Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi’s real advantage won’t be the ride service

Published

on

By

Concept art of a Tesla Cybercab in Las Vegas Strip as rendered via Grok

For a century, the car has asked the same thing of its owner, which is basically to pay attention. Even the best ride-hailing app like Uber or Lyft only moved the problem into someone else’s hands. You stopped driving, but you still sat in a stranger’s car, while half listening, and wondering whether to take a phone call in the car without being rude. The Cybercab has no wheel, no pedals and no driver. With Grok @bot now live inside it, it becomes something else entirely, and I think that matters more than the fleet count that everyone is tracking.

Grok @bot is an agent, not a voice assistant. A rider signs in once, and from then on can say what they need and watch it happen. Order dinner from a favorite restaurant. Fill the grocery cart. Move money, answer email, adjust a calendar, push a work project forward. Tesla engineer Yun-Ta Tsai confirmed it is enabled across every Cybercab and the rest of the Model Y fleet, and Tesla’s own pitch is that Full Self-Driving handles the commute while Grok handles the errands.

Think about what that does to a thirty minute ride. Uber sells you a trip, while Waymo sells you the same trip in a more private setting. Tesla is selling the thirty minutes themselves, returned to you with an assistant attached. Errands that used to eat a Saturday get done between pickup and drop off. The ride stops being dead time between two places and becomes a place of its own.

Tesla integrates Grok Bot into its vehicles for the ultimate personal assistant

Best of all, your Bots follow you into any Cybercab, and presumably your own Tesla, then logs you out automatically when you step out. Anyone can bolt a chatbot onto a screen, but much harder to own the vehicle, the autonomy stack and the assistant at once. It also quietly ties SpaceX’s Super Intelligence business to Tesla’s fleet, after Tesla converted its xAI stake into SpaceX equity. The relationship between those two companies is getting harder to describe as separate.

This is also where the hard questions start, because an agent that can spend your money in a vehicle other people also ride in needs some answers. How does it handle a voice it shouldn’t trust? What gets recorded, who can see it, and for how long? What happens when a rider leaves halfway through a task?

Advertisement
-

If Tesla gets those answers right, the scoreboard changes. We have been counting Cybercabs and wait times. The more telling number may be what riders accomplish per trip. That is data almost no one else will ever have, and it is the real reason to watch Grok @bot.

What do you think? Leave me a comment.

Continue Reading

News

Why Elon Musk’s target date for buying an Optimus robot is harder than it sounds

Musk says China’s magnet export ban cost Optimus months, and robot hands remain shockingly hard.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of Tesla Optimus in mass production

Elon Musk says China’s export curbs on magnets used in electric motors set back Tesla’s Optimus program by two to three months, and that the robot’s hands remain the hardest part of the project. He made the comments Saturday during a live interview with Tesla Owners Silicon Valley at the X Takeover event at Giga Texas, in front of roughly 2,000 attendees. The Optimus discussion begins around the 49 minute mark of the stream.

On the hands, Musk was blunt and noted that a general purpose humanoid needs fine motor skills that are “incredibly difficult to get right. Shockingly difficult,” he said in the interview. He pointed to a problem he says no one has demonstrated yet: “One of the hardest things also generally is to do precision and force at the same time,” such as driving a small self tapping screw into wood. Touch sensors add another layer, since it is “actually kind of hard to get touch sensors that elastically deform and can handle high cycle life and it won’t just break after a few thousand cycles.”

He also took aim at rival robot videos. “Any complicated looking robot demo, it’s a canned demo. It’s not real,” Musk said, adding that real AI means showing a robot something it has never seen and watching it still cope, the way FSD handles a city it has never driven.

Musk expects the Optimus ramp to be slower than a new vehicle production ramp. “The initial part of that S curve of production ramp is going to be very slow at the beginning,” Musk said, partly because “unlike cars, there’s no pre existing supply chain for robot stuff.” That echoes his July reply on X that Optimus production “will be extremely slow at first, as everything is new.”

The magnet disclosure puts a number on a problem Musk first raised in 2025. He said China “prevented the export of magnets for use in electric motors” and that it “set back the Optimus program by like two or three months.” Then he added: “We had robots with no arms.” Tesla’s fix is to bring the supply chain home. “You’ve got to be able to make all the parts domestically,” he said. Teslarati reported in April 2025 that Musk tied the issue to permanent magnets in the arm actuators, where motors have to be as small as possible.

Advertisement
-

Tesla Optimus V3 hand and arm details revealed in new patents

Production is moving regardless, with a reported internal goal of more than 1,000 a week by the end of 2026. Teslarati recently covered how Tesla is certifying supply partners in China for Optimus parts, while the company’s hand design has been the subject of new patent filings.

Musk has said he wants Optimus available to the public by late 2027, though Tesla has not confirmed that date or published updated production figures.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Elon Musk drops a Thanksgiving hint about Starship’s biggest test yet

Elon Musk says Starship Flight 15 will try to catch the ship itself, a first.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk says SpaceX’s next Starship flight will try something nobody has done before, by catching the ship itself. Speaking to roughly 2,000 people at the X Takeover event at Giga Texas on Saturday, Musk said Flight 15 is about four to six weeks away and “probably launches a little bit before Thanksgiving, is my guess.”

That is a slip from earlier reporting, which had pointed to a launch as early as October 19. Musk explained why the date keeps moving. “We’re making a bunch of improvements to the rocket between every flight,” he said, adding that there are often hundreds, sometimes thousands, of small changes. This time the list is short, “but some of them take a fair bit of work and we’ve got to go inside the tank to make some of these changes.”

“We’re going to try to catch the ship, which is a super big deal,” Musk said. “If we do so, that’ll be the first time that there’s been full recovery of an orbital class rocket.” SpaceX has already caught the Super Heavy booster with the tower’s mechanical arms, and has talked about catching the ship since late 2025, but the upper stage has never been caught.

Musk also laid out what comes after. “The next big milestone would be to refly both the booster and the ship,” he said, describing a Flight 16 where “all parts of an orbital rocket are reflown.”

The reason SpaceX wants this comes down to cost and cadence. Every Starship ship so far has ended its flight in the ocean, and SpaceX expects most of those water landings to end in fireballs. A ship that returns to Starbase intact can be inspected and flown again. SpaceX’s IPO filing, says Starship V3 is designed to deliver 100 metric tons to orbit in a fully reusable configuration, that SpaceX aims to cut the cost to reach orbit by 99% or more versus the historical average, and that tower catches should allow “multiple launches per day.”

Advertisement
-

The payoff goes beyond cheaper launches. The next generation Starlink V3 satellites are too large for Falcon 9 and can only fly on Starship, which can carry up to 60 per flight. Flight 14 on September 28 deployed the first 26 of them after Starship reached orbit despite an early engine shutdown, as Teslarati reported. Musk blamed engine computer software, and said the heat shield “was extremely robust,” which he claimed in August had solved Starship’s biggest challenge.

NASA’s Moon plans depend on the same capability. NASA’s inspector general has described a lander mission that needs a propellant depot in low Earth orbit and more than 10 tanker flights, with SpaceX targeting one tanker launch every six days. That schedule only works if ships and boosters come back fast and fly again. Also, ship to ship propellant transfer has not been attempted yet.

One interesting hurdle yet to be explored is bringing the ship back to the launch site, with reentry over land, which will undoubtedly come with a lot of aviation safety reviews.

Continue Reading