A Ford F-150 Lightning completed a 400-mile round-trip tow at a reported 1.0 mile per kilowatt-hour. At that consumption rate, the truck’s theoretical full-to-empty towing range falls to roughly 98 to 131 miles, depending on which battery it carries.
The driver still came away calling it the smoothest, most capable truck he had used for this trip in 30 years.
Denver Morford shared the result in the Ford F150 Lightning EV Enthusiasts Facebook group, along with a photograph of a silver Lightning towing a large Custom Weld boat on a tandem-axle trailer.
“Never have I had such a smooth, capable truck for this,” Morford wrote.
That sentence triggered a familiar argument. One commenter said a modern gasoline F-150 would be just as smooth and far more efficient. Another converted the Lightning’s result to 33.7 MPGe and argued that it still beat a gasoline truck. A third owner said he borrows an internal-combustion truck whenever he tows.
Each person was measuring something different.
The Lightning can use less energy while stopping more often. It can tow with little noise or shift drama while taking longer to complete the trip. It can cost less on home electricity and more at an expensive highway charger. Its motors can pull the load confidently even when the truck’s exact configuration or payload leaves a separate ratings question unresolved.
Morford’s trip is useful because it puts all of those tradeoffs in the same frame.
What 1.0 mi/kWh means on a 400-mile tow
At a displayed 1.0 mi/kWh, the simple energy ledger is about 400 kWh for 400 miles. The figure is approximate because the truck’s display may round its average, and the public post does not show its trip meter or charging records.
Ford lists 98 kWh of usable capacity for a standard-range Lightning and either 123 or 131 kWh for extended-range versions, depending on model year. That translates to theoretical full-pack distances of 98, 123, or 131 miles at Morford’s reported efficiency.
Those are full-to-empty calculations, not sensible charging intervals. A driver using a 15-to-80-percent fast-charging window would add only about 64 to 85 miles at 1.0 mi/kWh, depending on battery size. Headwinds, cold, speed, elevation, battery temperature, and a safety reserve can shorten the next leg.
Morford said he made a couple of roughly 20-minute quick-charging stops to reach 80 percent and found them easy to accept. The statement needs one important qualifier. Charging to 80 percent in 20 minutes says little without the arrival state of charge. A 20-minute session beginning at 55 percent is a different event from a 20-minute session beginning at 10 percent.
Ford says an extended-range Lightning can take about 38 minutes to move from 15 to 80 percent on a suitable DC fast charger. That does not contradict Morford’s account. It means the Facebook post is missing the starting percentage, kilowatt-hours delivered, charger power, destination charging, and the number of stops on each leg.
If “a couple” means two charging sessions for the entire round trip, a full battery plus those two ordinary partial charges would still fall short of the roughly 400-kWh ledger. Destination charging or additional energy would have to appear somewhere. Morford may have meant two stops on each leg, but the post does not say.
The towing result remains plausible. The charging narrative is incomplete.
Why 33.7 MPGe does not settle the argument
Advertising
One commenter correctly identified the basic conversion behind 33.7 MPGe. The EPA treats 33.7 kWh as the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. A truck traveling one mile per kWh therefore travels 33.7 miles per gasoline-gallon-equivalent in a simple battery-side calculation.
That number is useful, but it is not an EPA-certified 33.7 MPGe result. EPA label values come from standardized testing and account for electricity drawn during charging. A dashboard reading from one tow occurs under real traffic, weather, speed, grade, and trailer conditions, and it generally excludes charging losses.
MPGe also says nothing about how quickly energy can be added. A gasoline truck traveling 11.7 miles on a gallon can cover fewer miles per unit of energy and still refuel much faster. Energy efficiency and travel convenience are separate measurements.
The percentage comparisons in the comment thread have another trap. A drop from 2.2 or 2.4 mi/kWh when unladen to 1.0 while towing is a 55 to 58 percent decline in miles per unit of energy. Viewed as consumption per mile, the same change is a 120 to 140 percent increase.
A gasoline truck falling from 20 to 22 mpg to Morford’s reported personal best of 11.7 mpg loses about 42 to 47 percent of its miles per gallon. Its gallons consumed per mile rise by roughly 71 to 88 percent.
Both descriptions can be mathematically correct. Choosing miles per unit or units per mile changes the percentage, which is why “the EV lost more efficiency” cannot carry the whole comparison.
Cost depends on where the electricity came from
At exactly 1.0 mi/kWh, the arithmetic becomes unusually transparent. An electricity price of 15 cents per kWh means about 15 cents per mile before charging losses. A highway price of 60 cents per kWh means about 60 cents per mile, again before losses or session fees.
At Morford’s best reported gasoline-truck result of 11.7 mpg, every $1 per gallon adds about 8.5 cents per mile. Gasoline at $4 per gallon would work out to roughly 34 cents per mile.
In that illustrative comparison, the Lightning would cost less anywhere electricity remained below about 34 cents per kWh and more above it. The real trip could blend inexpensive home energy, destination charging, and costly DC fast charging. Without the charging receipts and local gasoline benchmark, “cheaper” and “more expensive” are both unsupported conclusions.
The weight answer still needs a scale boundary
When a commenter asked for the total weight, Morford replied, “My Custom Weld is 6257 with 70 gallons of fuel.”
That figure is central, but its boundary is unclear. It might describe the boat with fuel, or the entire loaded boat-and-trailer assembly. It may come from a scale ticket, a specification sheet, or a calculation. The thread does not establish which.
Ford’s published ratings make that distinction important. The 2023 Lightning towing guide lists maximum loaded-trailer ratings from 5,000 to 10,000 pounds, depending on battery, trim, wheel and tire combination, and towing package. The 10,000-pound maximum requires a qualifying extended-range XLT or Lariat with the Max Trailer Tow Package and specified tires.
The same guide requires the driver to remain within gross combined, vehicle, and axle weight ratings. It also says trailer tongue load, passengers, and cargo all count against the truck’s payload.
If 6,257 pounds is the loaded trailer weight, it sits below the advertised maximum for some Lightnings and above the basic rating for others. The truck’s model year, trim, battery, towing package, door-jamb payload figure, actual tongue weight, and scale ticket determine the answer. The photograph alone cannot.
Why the Lightning felt so different on the Lewiston Grade
Morford said he has made the run from central Washington to Lewiston, Idaho, for 30 years in trucks of many makes, engines, cabs, and configurations. His best gasoline result was 11.7 mpg from a 3.5-liter EcoBoost. His worst was 8.2 mpg in a 2024 Toyota Tacoma TRD, which he also remembered for the poorest ride.
Advertising
He singled out the Lightning’s silence, immediate torque, and lack of gear hunting on the Lewiston Grade. The highway climbs more than 1,000 feet from the Clearwater River valley, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Those observations fit the Lightning’s hardware. Ford lists 775 pound-feet of torque from its dual motors, delivered without a conventional multi-speed transmission. The truck also uses independent front and rear suspension. A gasoline engine and automatic transmission must change speed and gears as load and grade vary; the Lightning’s motors do not create the same audible sequence.
Morford attributed some of the calm ride to the battery pack’s contribution to frame stiffness and sound isolation. Ford’s published material gives the fully boxed high-strength-steel frame credit for torsional rigidity and separately describes the independent suspension. The available documents do not establish the battery as the primary source of frame stiffness, so that part of his explanation should remain an owner interpretation.
The photograph adds another clue to the 1.0-mi/kWh result. This is not a low, enclosed aerodynamic shape. The boat has a tall cabin, open rails, roof hardware, and an exposed stern. Aerodynamic drag rises with frontal area and the square of speed, so wind and highway pace may matter as much as a few hundred pounds once the combination is moving.
Commenters suggested a full cover or wrap. That is a testable hypothesis, not a guaranteed improvement. A credible answer would require the same truck, load, route, speed, weather, tire pressure, and state-of-charge window before and after the change.
One successful tow is a case, not a denominator
Torque News has documented Lightning towing results ranging from 0.8 mi/kWh with a 6,500-pound camper to 1.0 mi/kWh with an approximately 8,000-pound load and 1.5 mi/kWh while towing horses at no more than 50 mph.
Those cases reveal possible outcomes. They do not define the average. Owners who post a successful trip are a self-selected group, trailer shapes differ, and speed can transform the result. No representative dataset in these reports tells us how all Lightning towing trips are distributed.
Morford’s account supports a narrower and more valuable conclusion. The Lightning can make the physical act of towing feel quiet, stable, and effortless while making the travel plan more dependent on charger spacing and dwell time.
That combination can suit an owner who tows occasionally and charges at home most days. A driver hauling long distances several times a week may value fuel-stop speed more heavily. The right answer follows the duty cycle.
The gas truck has the clearer advantage in refueling speed and practical range between stops. The Lightning can hold advantages in energy conversion, low-speed torque response, noise, and daily charging convenience. Trip cost depends on where the kilowatt-hours are purchased. Safe, rated capability depends on the exact truck and measured weights.
Morford chose the Lightning after living with those tradeoffs on a route he knows. His final description of the climb explains why: “zero drama, zero sound and just power.”
If you tow with an electric pickup, share your model year, trim, battery, payload-sticker figure, loaded trailer and axle weights, speed, route, weather, starting and ending state of charge, kilowatt-hours delivered, charging time, and price.
One photo by Denver Morford
About The Author
Noah Washington is an automotive journalist based in Atlanta, Georgia, covering sports cars, luxury vehicles, and performance culture. His reporting focuses on explaining the engineering, design philosophy, and real-world ownership experience behind modern vehicles.
Noah has been immersed in the automotive world since his early teens, attending industry events and following the enthusiast communities that shape how cars are built and driven today. His work blends industry insight with enthusiastic storytelling, helping readers understand not just what a car is, but why it matters.
Noah is also a member of the Southeast Automotive Media Association (SAMA), a professional organization for automotive journalists and industry media in the Southeast.
His coverage regularly explores sports cars, luxury vehicles, and performance-driven segments of the automotive industry, including the evolving culture surrounding Formula Drift and enthusiast builds.
Read more of Noah’s work on his author profile page.
You can also follow Noah here:
Follow us today…
