Ford F-150 Versus Rivian R1T Electric Truck: Let’s Take A Look: Video

DEC 18 2018 BY STEVEN LOVEDAY 87

How does the upcoming Rivian R1T electric pickup truck compare to a Ford F-150?

Our buddy Sean Mitchell at AllThingsEV.info obviously must forecast the future. As we sit and ponder what would make a fantastic article, along comes the new video from Sean. We were just talking last week about a much-needed comparison between the Rivian R1T and a current pickup truck, such as the F-150. Lo and behold, Sean’s terrific new video falls in our lap.

As we recently reported, Sean has turned a new leaf in his video coverage and content. While he made his way into the business as a small side gig after becoming a devoted Tesla fan, it opened his eyes to the EV segment as a whole. Now, Sean is providing more frequent videos and including coverage of many electric vehicles, comparisons, events, unveilings, etc. We believe he does a stellar job picking topics that will appeal to and assist people in their EV-related endeavors. In addition, Sean’s reports are heavily researched, detailed, and easy to understand. Not to mention the fantastic charts.

So, what did Sean learn as he compared the Ford F-150 to the Rivian R1T electric truck?

He takes a look at the two in the categories that matter most to pickup truck shoppers. Below, we’ve included a gallery of all Sean’s outstanding charts:

9 photos

Keep in mind, the Rivian truck was specifically designed to appeal to one of two primary breeds of pickup truck lovers. This truck is not for the group that buys a truck only for the work aspect. Instead, it’s for those who buy a truck for the versatility, power, and capability when they need it, but revel in the comfort, convenience, and tech features that make for a solid daily driver.

Check out the video and share your thoughts with us in the comment section below.

Video Description via Sean Mitchell on YouTube:

***I found the vehicle newton meters data for the 135 kWh and 180 kWh batteries: 1,120 nm or 826 lb-ft. For the 105 kWh battery it is: 560 nm = 413 lb-ft. The 14,000 nm was for ground torque, which clearly is different.***

Ford F150 vs Rivian R1T: How do they stack up?

Categories covered:

1. Powertrain / horsepower / Torque
2. 0-60
3. Towing
4. Payload
5. Range
6. Bed Length
7. Height
8. Passthrough
9. Frunk
10. Water Fording

Categories: Comparison, Ford, Rivian, Trucks

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

87 Comments on "Ford F-150 Versus Rivian R1T Electric Truck: Let’s Take A Look: Video"

newest oldest most voted

14,000 nm of torque = 10 325.870 062 pound foot of torque See: http://www.onlineconversion.com/torque.htm

So 510 lb ft of torque compared to 10,325 lb ft of torque. Hard to believe we are comparing vehicles that are in the same catagory

These are not comparable because Rivian numbers are post gearing and Ford’s are pre-gearing.
An F150 can produce over 20,000 lbs of torque at the wheels with the transmission in first gear, transfer case in 4 LO and tall gears in the axle.
470ft-lbs x 4.69 x 2.64 x 3.73 = 21706 ft-lbs at the wheels (3.5 EcoBoost)

so it’s twice as much up to 10 mph? then equal on second gear up to 20mph? & less on all 8 next gear?

Yep, and I’ve never needed more at speed so completely valid solution.

Torque drops at higher RPM on an electric motor so the latter 6 gears may or may not have higher wheel torque depending on the curve of both vehicles.

That’s because they’re not in the same category. The F-150 has 3,323 Nm at each wheel and the Rivian has 3,500 Nm at each wheel. Let me explain.

The Rivian is measuring total vehicle torque at 14,000 Nm, with the wheel torque being 3500 Nm per wheel. The F-150 spec is the engine torque. You can calculate wheel torque from the engine torque using the equation here:
https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/chassis/longitudinal-dynamics/calculate-wheel-torque-engine/

The HO 3.5 F-150 comes with a 4.10 final drive ratio and a 4.69:1 ratio in 1st gear. With 4WD we need to divide by 4 to get the wheel torque which would equal = 510 ft lb * 4.69 * 4.1 / 4 = 2,451 ft lbs of torque at each wheel. Converting to Nm gives 3323 Nm at each wheel.

Not even close. Tesla pulled the same BS trick when they announced the Roadster 2 and everyone fell for it, but it was actually the same wheel torque a standard C63 makes in second gear.

I’ve very quickly pulled some ratio’s off google so I’m not 100% they are correct, but a 510lbft F150 with the 10 speed auto and a 3.55 diff is making 8900lbft to the wheels, or 12,000nm.

Is it a BS trick because it fool the uneducated? For me the BS was the engine torque at an undisclosed RPM . It’s time to switch to the real relevant metric for torque which is the wheel torque

Manufacturers always disclose their max torque at a specific RPM. They’re normally pretty proud of how wide and flat a torque spread they can get.

So, using torque as measured at the wheel, which is the industry standard measurement, is a “BS trick.” 🙄

Or maybe, just maybe, you need an education on the subject.

You guys are nuts. Vinny here made a perfectly valid point. 4 negative votes?

Don’t know who down voted (I did not) but maybe this statement:
“Hard to believe we are comparing vehicles that are in the same catagory”
was interpretted as suggesting the Rivian was well beyond an F150, as opposed to an alternative to it.

If they aren’t ‘comparing’ the vehicles what is the point of a comparison article?

It is a comparison and the comparison is valid. People were objecting to Vinny’s comment, not the article.

He’s comparing flywheel torque to wheel torque and trying to say it makes the EV superior when he doesn’t even understand the difference between the two numbers, that’s why the downvotes.

He is right though. They’re not even comparable. One is the most successful vehicle on sale right now, the other doesn’t even exist yet.

Because the only way to compare both is looking at the torque at the wheel vs speed graph for each gear.

Some more differences:
– The F-150 exists; the Rivian does not
– Most versions of the F-150 are affordable; the Rivian will be out of reach for most since it starts at $69K for the base version with the smallest battery.

If they didn’t own a factory and weren’t only making electric drivetrains, then they might be classified as vaporware. This truck is going to happen. Whether the company survives is still an unknown.

Their first generation vehicles will not be targeting the masses. It is a smart model proven by Tesla. Build a top end highly desirable product that matches your ability to manufacture as you grow the company. I don’t think this is their long-term model to build only luxury trucks.

For me, a truck isn’t a truck until its bed is 8ft. That might put me in a minority, but I just as soon have a hatchback for small loads. For now, I think Rivian is spot on in their entrance to the market. Good luck Rivian!

I have a truck with a 7 foot bed. That lack of one foot in length is really a pain when I want to pick up lumber or plywood. But it has also causes problems packing boxes and other items, I wish I had that extra foot of lenght.

The Rivian would make a great truck when I go camping, and probably makes a big difference compared to my present truck in city driving.

Work trucks however will need that longer bed.

Don’t you just drop the tailgate?

Yeah, my dad did that with a load of plywood in my short bed F250. Didn’t tie down the load and wound up dumping it on the road. Messed up the tailgate in the process. Yes, he should have tied the load, but a long bed would have prevented the stupidity and the damage.

It seems like a system to fold down the tailgate and then plug in some sort of gate might be a reasonable compromise, although you might feel that you can just choose another truck and be done.

For me, I usually don’t need a long truck- only sometimes, and a gate solution would work for me.

They’re called bed extenders and they already exist.

https://www.autotrucktoys.com/p/oem-ford-f-series-bed-extender/

This is one reason why I love my minivan. It can carry those 4 x 8 sheets inside a dry compartment, then carry 7 passengers later on, not to mention the capacity to tow 3500 lbs.

Yep, I grew up with a minivan for most of my younger years. Minivans are the perfect suburban and ex-urban vehicles ever made. Extremely versatile, and the newer ones with more power under the hood are even moreso, since you can tow with them. Even small businesses find them useful for taking tools and supplies around and for deliveries (even the Post Office!).

The only things they don’t have are muscle-car performance and handling, or “real” offroad capabilities. They weren’t intended for any of those things, though – they are perfectly designed for what they were intended for – essentially, to fit the needs of 90% of suburban households nationwide.

Agreed. The biggest difference is cost. I can get an 4WD F-150 for half the cost of the Rivian. The Rivian is a nice vehicle but like the Tesla’s Model S how many buyers are there for a car in those price ranges?

Shockingly, a lot, particularly in the 4-door, short bed configurations. Mostly around cities.

Congratulations Sean! You just convinced everyone that the big value leader here is the ford F150. One correction to the video – Ford’s lead over GM is not quite as large as he mentioned since everyone else combines Chevy and GMC sales since they are basically the same truck. People don’t care about the stuff you are talking about. One big failing of the Modern Fords, and GM’s is people seem to be having much trouble with the eco-boost intercoolers and GM’s electronic controls of their engines, and many blogs suggest you would be better served to get a 15 year old FORD or GM, but to skip the new stuff. This is why RAM and the Toyota Tundra are doing so well, because other than problems with wheel bearings – both vehicles seem relatively reliable, and of course, are competitively priced. I don’t trust Rivian’s non-sensical figures since they show a great increase in hp, yet the torque remains the same. People worry about that kind of thing (I actually think buyers do not, but people who write about it over emphasize it) way too much anyway – but here it is just silly. The only way Rivian’s chart… Read more »

Unfortunately the video maker (and most EV bloggers) don’t and have never owned/needed the capabilities of a pickup. That means they’re starting from a very basic viewpoint on what a truck “needs” and what most owners want from one.

That’s not meant to be an offense. I’ve never owned/wanted a performance sedan and such don’t particularly know much about them, or the full requirements of most owners.

Hopefully Rivian will release some pre production models to actual truck reviewers in the future for us to see how they perform as proper vehicles, and how they match up with the competition.

I haven’t driven a truck since I was a teen, and it was a Ranger, so not a real truck. But, I spoke to the guy from Rivian at the Auto show. I asked about range while towing/ loaded, there was no information on that (I think this would be a huge deal, especially if you are towing a boat or something else that’s heavy and travelling long distances). I asked if they would be trying to work with tesla to use their supercharging network, they said they were defiantly interested in partnerships (also a huge deal as we currently don’t have a desirable alternative… part of why road trips in a tesla is not a huge deal, I usually need a break whenever I have to stop at a supercharger anyway). I asked if they build their own batteries, they said yes (they purchase the batteries, but make the packs and electronics). I asked how many they plan to produce, they said they will hopefully get close to the 200k vehicles that were previously produced there.

The choice of vehicle comes down to what the buyer values, and for pickups people are very opinionated when they have specific uses (i.e. unlike the office jockey who only owns a truck because he think’s it’s cool or makes him feel macho) My F150 is a 2.7 EcoBoost with 6.5′ bed. Although it’s at the lower end of the capability scale for full size pickups (I chose it for better fuel economy), I use it hard and it easily handles everything I need it to do. Hence, more capability has little value. There are a few things that I’d gladly give up when moving away from an ICE: – starting the engine for short trips. Heavy fuel use, exhaust in highly populated areas (including parking garages) Note that for long trips in the winter, the waste heat from the ICE is very useful. – transmission. New transmissions are quite good but still are often in the wrong gear in off-road driving. They are also expensive to replace if they fail outside of warranty – transfer case: great for providing more effective torque in 4-LO, but requires a shift to neutral to engage/disengage which completely ruins any momentum you might… Read more »
Good points Brian. I use my Ford F150 8 ft bed to hall my off-road device (ATV). Well, if I’m transporting one, otherwise I need the towing capacity to hall two or three ATVs. My primary use of the F150 is to hall building materials that so often come in 8 ft lengths hence the need (not want) for the longer bed. And I know all about sealed storage, that’s a check! My F150 doesn’t have 4WD though I have had it before in a Dodge Ram 1500 and miss it greatly. Not just as a whim, but useful tool. You are absolutely correct about driving on pavement in 4WD with an ICE transmission, though I don’t know if that is going to be a problem in the electric world. I have in the past been in the camp of PHEV truck due to the cost of the battery. This may unfold faster than we anticipated. Again as you stated right in the beginning, it depends on how you use it. I need to travel inside 300 miles about three times per year towing a load. So do I need a gasoline engine EREV for those trips or can I… Read more »

No truck is perfect. The Rivian R1T has some great benefits and I’d be willing to haul ATVs and supplies with a trailer. I have hauled a large ATV in the bed and a boat on the hitch but not too often. We just got a side by side and that won’t fit in any truck (5’3 x 11’2) so I’m bound to be an owner of a toy hauler soon anyway.
Ford is supposed to have a PHEV for 2020 model year, so there may be some off lease in the 2023/24 timeframe.
If the Aviator hybrid solution is any indication, it won’t be solving items 2-5 on my list above. I’ll keep my fingers crossed and hope to see some details at the detoit auto show.
It should enable short trips on electric only and offer power take off for tools, camping gear and charging toys, which may be enough if the price is decent.

There’s no transfer case or variable transmission with the Rivian – it’s just 4 separate motors with their own fixed gear reduction. 4WD is not critically different than 2WD in the BEV world.

If you plump for the Lariat and above they come with an “AWD” option, so your fourth request is already available. I personally just use 4H in slippery conditions on road (as I have an XLT like you). To back up the point you were making about opinions and uses, I picked up a 5.0L w/ 6.5′ bed for a similar price to you. I wanted a bed I could sleep in and the largest payload possible without a HD payload package. I lose a couple of mpg, but gain a couple of hundred kg of payload. I too love the idea of the Rivian. The frunk would be great for small items, but it’s not a replacement for a longer bed. If I could do with a 4.5′ bed I may well have got a midsize. That’s why IMO it’s currently a competitor to the off road oriented mid size options, like the Tacoma TRD Pro. That’s not a bad thing for them however, as they seem to be aiming it at that sort of buyer. There’s also a lot of comparisons between the F150 Raptor going around. So far there is no evidence that its even in that… Read more »
F150 Brian: do the total cost of ownership (TCO) calculation. You are using 12.3 liters/100km and spending about $1 CAN per liter. For average driving levels we will go with 20,000 kilometers per year. That comes to about $2460 CAN per year in fuel. With off-peak charging, you are spending (chose Toronto Hydro ) $0.065 CAN per kWh. For range on the Rivian R1T, you are seeing 3.52 km/kWh. For the same distance of driving per year (is it called mileage???), that’s $369.30 CAN. This means you are saving $2090. CAN per year on energy costs, nominally less due to power conversion equipment efficiencies. I found wide ranges of price for oil changes, but going with $100 CAN per oil change every 5000 miles adds up to $400 CAN per year. There’s other fluids to deal with and I no longer remember them all, plus I have not owned a truck so I don’t know what else may be involved. I am going to assume the average owner figure at Edmunds.com is about right and call it $1553 CAN per year average. Going off Tesla numbers, the annual service/repair is $520 CAN. For total price, the Rivian R1T smallest battery… Read more »
Your numbers are off quite a lot in several parts of that. In most places electricity cost is around 0.16c kWh (remember to factor conversion loss which is around 1-2c kWh), not $0.065c kWh, which means your average electricity cost is going to be around $900, not $360. That reduces your fuel saving to $1500 a year. Still a good amount though. Oil and servicing costs are minimal. I’m getting my 2017 in next week and it’s $55 for the oil change, $95 with tyre rotation. Outside of oil an F150 does not need any other fluids or things changed until 160k km. Oil change needs to be done around 15,000km (10,000 miles), not 5,000 miles, while average travel distance per year for a Canadian is around 15,000km – so one oil change a year. So from a purely required maintenance perspective you’re looking at around $500-1000 over 10 years. Presumably Edmunds is including out of warranty repairs/tyres as well as with my previous f-150 I didn’t get near that figure for maintenance either. So to use your list, in my experience: The annual ownership cost for an F-150 is: Burny Stuff: $2460 Slimy Stuff: $55 Service: $40 (tyre rotation… Read more »
Andy, you should adjust that, the oil changes were 4x per year. I think Edmund’s shows more than tyre and brake work, as there are lots of fluids and moving parts; the expectation that maintenance on an F150 is <10% that of an electric is flawed. The dealership may include some service items for a certain number of years, for both brands. As for the range hit, on my Model S, I get (sorry about the units) 245 Wh/mi in summer, 325 Wh/mi in winter, and the EPA rating is 300 Wh/mi. Notably, I think the Rivian battery tech. is on par with Tesla (they did poach their talent in some cases), so better than a Nissan Leaf. For electricity, I used Toronto Hydro's off-peak energy figures. I pay $0.13 USD /kWh myself. Details notwithstanding, yeah, you can't make a pure price argument without doing things like depreciation. However, there was a good write-up at TeslaMotorsClub.com on a Model S versus a Honda Odyssey, but that was US-based and had the $7500 incentive baked in (and maybe a state incentive?). People in the media say that when battery pack prices reach $100 / kWh, there will be price parity with… Read more »
You don’t need four oil changes per year unless you’re doing 40,000 miles or doing a LOT of towing. I use the oil monitor on my vehicles and change the oil when required, at the service interval or after a year, whichever is first – funnily enough this year they are all almost exactly aligned (I’ve done around 15,500km, it’s almost exactly a year since last change and the oil monitor is telling me to change the oil soon. I’ll admit I do almost exclusively highway miles though, so really don’t stress the engine. I know some people, especially in the US, are pretty anal and treat their oil changes as if engines haven’t changed in 30 years though (the old 3,000-5,000 mile oil change even though it’s pointless with more modern engines). There may be lots of fluids and moving parts but they are not considered maintenance items. Oil change/inspection and lubrication axles/steering etc is all that is prescribed (at each oil change). Otherwise follow this: As the average first owner there are unlikely to be many maintenance costs involved. It’s only when you get to 6+ years and 100k that they start to ramp up. That’s generally when… Read more »

Which F150 did you use though? There is a huge range of pricing and options for the F150, and for apples-to-apples comparison, you would need to choose an F150 with similar specs and interiors and safety tech (like adaptive cruise control and lane keeping).

I used F150 Brian’s vehicle as described.

Everyone should do the TCO evaulation for themselves, because everyone has different driving patterns, tax / rebate schemes, fuel costs, etc. I have run the numbers for me based on my best guess (since all of the numbers for the Rivian are pre-spec or unknown, especially resale). The result I came up with was that the 5 year TCO is essentially the price the dealer/manufacturer agrees to sell it for (by sheer coincidnce, but it aligned quite well). So for an exact replacement of my F150: about $40k CDN, Rivian: about $90k CDN (based on the base price of $69k converted to canadian dollars, which is $93k). Is the Rivian more truck, sure. Is it worth $10k CDN per year more. Maybe not. And please don’t question my numbers because they don’t line up with yours. I really want to buy an EV truck and have been totally honest with myself during the comparison. The one thing most people get wrong is maintenance costs. Ford offers a 5 yr/100k service package for $2800 that covers everthing the warranty does not, except tires and damage. Yep, it covers brakes, shocks, wipers, filters, lights, etc, etc, etc in addition to the regular… Read more »

Update to my post about TCO. I was going from memory as my calcs were not at hand. I double checked and the numbers I came up with were $45k CDN for my current truck (I also included $1800 extended warranty in the calc so no additional repair costs) and $87k CDN for the Rivian. Note that I also used $75k US for the price of the R1T assuming the base only had the smallest battery.
So the additional cost per year for her Rivian would be about $8k CDN

The R1t concept was bound to be compared with Ford’s bestseller that along with the rest of the rest of the F series is good for 90% of Ford’s global profits. For that reason R1T should have been a Ford concept, to show investors that Ford is ready for the future despite being (too) dependent on trucks. Could have done wonders for Ford’s stock value. Incredible that Ford seems asleep at the wheel like that. Well, maybe this woke them up and maybe it’s not too late for Ford to buy Rivian and tap into the love its concepts are getting.

I don’t think Ford is asleep at the wheel. I think they are waiting for battery prices to fall.
The Rivian will challenge their F150 Raptor, but that’s less than 2% of the full size truck market.
It’s not clear at this time that Rivian (or Tesla) can challenge the full size market in large volume until the battery pack is under $100/kWh as part of the retail price (not cost to build), since the packs would then be $13k-$20k as part of the price of the vehicle, which is still almost half the price of a mid market ICE truck.

See my comment above. There’s currently no evidence that this is a Raptor challenger, other than as a status symbol outside someones house. It’ll be a capable machine sure, but so are most 4×4 Pickups, especially the more off road oriented ones (like the Power Wagon, TRD Pro and the Rebel). The Raptor is in a league of it’s own, even in that crowd.

Actually, thinking some more it’s most direct current competitor is probably the Rouch F150, which will be very similar in capacity and performance, for a not dissimilar price.

Agreed on everything else though.

It’s also probably worth discussing the fording depth here too. The main reason US pickups have such poor fording depths (most internationals have a depth of around 3ft, along with most international oriented 4×4’s like the Land Rover and Land Cruiser) is largely due to the diff breathers. That can be fixed by simply extending the existing tubes up behind the cab (the rear one can be seen ending just below the bottom of the bed). Usefully the air intake is already 4+ft up at the top of the engine compartment anyway (at least in the V8’s).

This thing will beat the Raptor, hands-down. Just not likely at the same price point. The R1T will most likely have a 5-figure premium on a loaded Raptor.

Yeah. I suspect that’s why Tesla’s first pickup is going to be a niche high end, “cyberpunk, Blade runner inspired” design instead of a truck that would appeal to the mass market truck buyers. Batteries currently to heavy and expensive with today’s tech to be competitive at the mass market price level.

“waiting for battery prices to fall” = they will lose 20-30% of the pickup truck market, and stock price will be $1. But, ok, whatever.

They’re not going to lose 20-30% of their market when the competition is releasing $100k “competition”.

While Ford is busy filling its pockets with the F series a new competitor is establishing a name for it self in the BEV truck market. Every year Ford ignores that challenge that new competitor will get deeper entrenched. Notice how much love Rivian is getting, it’s quickly establishing a name for itself so Ford is risking to get stuck with a competitor that won’t go away anymore once its finally doing its own BEV trucks.

Also Ford stock is trading at low values, showing Ford is not just an ICE age dinosaur but all ready for an electric future would no doubt change that, while hip new BEV truck start ups will put more pressure on Ford stock value. I don’t seen Ford’s wait and see attitude do its investors any favors.

There isn’t a comparison on price listed, which I think would be highly relevant to determine the comparison vehicle used. If the Rivian ends up being substantially more expensive than an F150, then it should be compared with a similarly expensive truck.

Price wise, it can only compare to a fully loaded F150 Raptor.

When you consider fuel consumption, Rivian is cheaper than Raptor, at least here in Quebec, Canada.

Gas is at 4.20$/gal in Canadian dollars.
Electricity is at 5,91 ¢/kWh for the firsts 36 kWh/day then at 9,12 ¢/kWh the rest of the day in Canadian dollars

Unfortunately, most Canadians don’t have access to the HYDRO you do any more (that’s why they still call all electricity HYDRO). Ontario would love to have electricity for under 1/3 rd the price of what they now pay. (Actually, before bone-headed decisions were made – that used to be what they DID pay – it was much cheaper than our juice just across the border – but that is ‘gone with the past’).

There have been several articles detailing the mistakes Ontario has made resulting in astronomic electricity pricing – No comment here – other than I’m just stating what is, IS.

No evidence it has anywhere near the same capacity though.

This is the same argument we had with the first BEVs – “well I can get a Prius for much less”. I guess it is progress that there will be a Pickup even in the conversation. The comparison based on price is still a few years away even with BEV sedans (which are closer to their counterparts that pickups since there isn’t even one on the road yet). Personally I ask anyone considering a BEV of any kind to focus on the superiority of the drive train, the lower maintenance costs, and the less severe impact to environment. When we focus on price, BEV will lose for a few more years. Add the fact that fossil fuels are artificially subsidized and there is a negative environment for renewables in our current political structure. If we were to pay at the pump the actual costs for fuel including environmental cleanup and military defense of supply sources, gas would be the loser price wise and in turn in the cost comparison between ICE and BEV.

While it can be said that there needs to be a first of each vehicle type to go electric, price is still relevant to the discussion. Tesla is succeeding not because they build electric cars, but because they build compelling cars that offer performance, technology, comfort, and style at or above their price point. The fact that those cars are electric factors into their popularity, but is far from the only factor. So Rivian likewise is responsible for pricing their trucks competitively and for providing a compelling value for the money, or they won’t sell more than a few thousand to rich environmentalists.

The 55″ bed would be a deal breaker for me.

Yep, need the no back seat, longer bed version.

Since we’re talking about an electric truck comparison, why couldn’t Rivian (or any electric automaker) design a sealed compartment to accept sheets of 4×8 goods while maintaining short bed lengths. The 4×8 compartment could reside above the battery skateboard, then the short bed above that for bulkier goods. Granted, it’s a not a real work truck solution, but for the do-it-yourselfer, it could work. Or do the Chevy Avalanche mid-gate thing.

For a do it yourselfer it’s not really an issue if you have a full size truck . Even with the 5.5′ short bed you can transport a few pieces of ply/lots of 2×4 easily, either with the tailgate down or just with it resting on the tailgate up. I have a 6’5 bed and regularly transport ply and lumber around in just this fashion. With a 4.5′ bed it’ll be a lot trickier though as half the material will be behind the pickup, no matter what, which means there’s a lot of weight behind the rear axle.

The simple solution would be to have a longer wheelbase, but they obviously wanted a truck with a shorter wheelbase – again, presumably to satisfy generally more mid size oriented trail/overland type/camping people.

Hmmm. If they had a 2′ extension to the back of the bed that slide out into place, I might consider that, but I don’t think that exists and don’t know how sturdy it could be.

They will sell well. There is a huge market for 4-door, short-bed full-size pickups in well-heeled areas, like around cities. Here in the DC area, there are easily 10s of thousands of full-size trucks with that type of configuration (probably over 100k, there are a lot of people here with a lot of money, and these trucks are EVERYWHERE). If you include the significant percentage of mid-sized pickups with the 4-door, short-bed configuration, and there’s going to be much more demand than Rivian can supply for a while.

kWh at the battery does not convert to horsepower. It’sike saying a truck with a bigger gas tank is more powerful than a truck with a smaller gas tank.

Who said it does? But all things being equal, a larger battery pack can output more power than a smaller battery pack made of the same cells.

Actually it does. Lithium cells have a maximum current capacity, burst and continuous, usually rated in C. So a larger capacity pack can provide more amps, thus more power. Thus a bigger pack makes more hp. Just like on the tm3.

Why is it that 95% of automotive journalists cannot understand that Ford lists F-series sales not F-150 sales? Ford did not sell almost 900,000 F-150s in 2017, that figure includes F250, F350 and F450.

I actually have a Rivian deposit down, so don’t throw the GM fanboi thing at me but GM has outsold Ford in pickup trucks for the last 4 years.

Ya, I dare you to research it.

Not to mention a raptor or lariat is much much different truck than a base F150.

14000n = 3147 lbs
3147 lbs / 3.2 (3.2 ft in a meter) = 984 lb-ft

1 N = 1/4.4482 lbs = 0.2248
1 m = 1000 mm = 1″ / 25.4 mm = 39.37 inch = 39.37 inch * 1 ft/ 12″ = 3.2808 ft
so 1 N-m = 0.2248 lbs * 3.2808 ft = 0.73753 ft-lb
or 14000 N-m = 14000* 0.73753 ft-lb = 10325 ft-lb
as others have said

Longer winded:
gravitational force of a 1 kg weight at the surface of the earth (F= G*m(object)*m(earth))/(radius of the earth)^2
6.67 x 10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2)* (1 kg) * (5.976 x 10^24 kg)/(6.378×10^6 m)^2 = 9.7987 kg-m/s^2
by definition, 1 N = 1 kg-m/s^2.
So the force on a 1 kg object at the surface of the earth is ~9.80 N.

If 2.2 lbs = 1 kg, then the force on a one lb object is reduced by a factor of 2.2
or 1 lb (force) = 9.7987 N / 2.2 = 9.7987 / 2.2 = ~4.45 N
———————————————————-
1 N = 1/4.4482 lbs = 0.2248 lbs (force)
1 m = 1000 mm = 1″ / 25.4 mm = 39.37 inch = 39.37 inch * 1 ft/ 12″ = 3.2808 ft
so 1 N-m = 0.2248 lbs * 3.2808 ft = 0.73753 ft-lb
or 14000 N-m = 14000* 0.73753 ft-lb = 10325 ft-lb
as others have said

Convert 14000 newton meters to foot pounds
10325.87009 ft-lb

I like the looks of the Ford better. Rivian should have dumped the weird headlights, and replaced them with headlights looking like the Rivian logo – if they wanted to look different.
Maybe the front headlights will grow on me.

Also.. he called normal pick-up trucks slow. Then I looked at the Ford 0-60 times, and that was plenty quick. If he takes a trip to Europe once, I’ll make a list of vehicles he has to test. Many are in the 12-21 second range for the 0-60. That IS slow, and you really feel the need for more power when you merge with motorway traffic.

In the EV world <5s is slow apparently, so 0-60 of 5.6-6.5 seconds just not good enough…?

Kevin loyal ford owner

Id like to know if thr R1T can handle lift kits and larger tires . not to mention how the frame and unibody will with stand differt terrains vs the f150

I’m all for the Rivian I want one, however dude you made up some categories that obviously the F-150 couldn’t compete in.

You should have compared it to the Ford F150 V8 models. I live in area of the country were V8’s are the majority.

Its too premature to compare Rivian which is not even in market to a #1 player F-Series.
I am sure the price of Rivian will be above $80,000 and will appeal to only a niche while F-Series will keep selling like hot cakes.

I think the Ram Trucks have beaten Silverado in last month sales, thanks to its mild hybrid engine which probably gives slightly more mileage. The Silverado’s truck with 4 cyl engine is another low volume product or more like compliance truck to show that we also have some with fuel efficient engine.

This is the last year for the current generation of F-150 trucks and there will be a redesigned version in 2020.
For sure, there will be a plugin version since many electric pickups are coming in including Tesla.
I wish there are multiple ranges: 10 mile, 30 mile, 50 mile to cater to different customers needs.
If they ignore plugin, their lucrative business will be in trouble.
Already GM’s truck segment seems to be suffering despite a new launch. Their cylinder deactivation is not enough.

0-60 number is enough for the useable torque comparison, IMO.

With greater horsepower and torque, why can’t the Rivian pull far more weight and carry more bed payload? Did they skimp on the frame strength? This design seems sub-optimal to me. The pass-through might be useful to a smuggler, until the local cops catch on.

Because there’s a lot more to towing and payload than torque. Everything from brakes to tyres/wheels to suspension would have to be redesigned and re engineered making the vehicle heavier and less maneuverable. Chassis may have to be redesigned, but it may not as it’s relatively simple. GWVR would have to go up too, and it’s already way higher than the comparable trucks (whether mid size or full size). It would be a totally different vehicle.

Think of it this way. Both the V6 ecoboost and the V8 can be retuned/modified to produce 600-700+ HP and torque quite easily, yet that doesn’t mean they can tow or haul more, due to the problems above.

“nm” ist nano meter (1e-9m); “Nm” ist Newton meter.
1Nm = 0.738 pound-force foot

Wait, does Ford sell over 900k F150s a year or F-series trucks total?

It’s F-Series and the over 900k total includes both USA and CDN.