Ford Plans To Use The Earth’s Most Common Element To Make EVs Cheaper

Ford Lfp Battery Topshot
ADVERTISEMENT

Care to guess what was the second-most-popular EV manufacturer in America last year? That’s right, it was Ford. Between the Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning, and E-Transit, Ford sold more EVs than Hyundai, Kia, Volkswagen–every manufacturer other than Tesla. In a bid to gain even more market share, Ford plans on making its EVs cheaper using one of the most abundant elements contained beneath the earth’s surface: Iron.

Mustang Mach E Gravel

Ford EVs currently use NMC batteries, which use lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide as cathodes. That’s a proper mouthful, but here’s what it actually means: These lithium-ion batteries are very power-dense, but also very expensive due to the resources required for their construction. Cobalt, for example, is pricey and difficult to source.

LFP batteries use lithium iron phosphate as its cathode material, which is great because it avoids the environmentally-sensitive use of cobalt entirely and comes in at a much lower cost. The major downside to this battery technology is reduced energy density compared to NMC, but that’s somewhat mitigated by increased depth of discharge. Simply put, you can pull a greater percentage of charge out of an LFP battery without damaging it, which sounds pretty great.

Mustang Mach-E Car Wash

Ford is putting CATL prismatic batteries in base Mustang Mach-E models later this year. That’s a few months ahead of schedule and a great way to save a little money on lower trims. What’s more, Ford’s on track to put CATL prismatic cells in base F-150 Lightning models in 2024, which should help fight off newer, cheaper competition. In case you’re wondering what prismatic cells are, imagine little rigid boxes rather than cylindrical cells or soft pouches.

Although cells will be outsourced at first, Ford is planning a ground-up New Marshall, Michigan battery plant for LFP batteries to go online in 2026. With initial capacity of around 35 gWh, it should produce batteries for hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year. As we reported in today’s Morning Dump, Ford doesn’t know everything about making batteries, which is why it plans to license CATL technology and hire CATL for assistance in certain processes. Ford insists that it will own the facility, but it’s not strictly a solo project.

2022 Ford F 150 Lightning Alaska Bft Testing 04
Photo credit: Ford

In a media presentation, Ford claimed to use aggregated anonymized vehicle data to find that the median Mach-E owner drivers 32 miles a day, and the median F-150 Lightning owner travels even less at 28 miles a day. It’s a bit creepy, but it’s part of opting in to vehicle diagnostics through the infotainment systems and whatnot. Isn’t the future of cars exciting? Either way, this data suggests that most Ford EV owners should be fine with reduced energy density as day-to-day electricity needs aren’t tremendous.

While practicality and cost certainly take priority for most consumers, car enthusiasts need a certain romance. For instance, the Lexus ES300h is objectively one of the best cars in the world. Efficient, well-insulated, cheap to run, reliable, and luxuriously-appointed, it’s one of the best new mile-munchers you can buy for the money. Most car enthusiasts couldn’t care less about it. It’s a similar deal with many EVs, but the use of iron in battery packs might tilt things a bit.

F150 Lightning Rouge Plant
Photo credit: Ford

Iron put America in cars with the Model T. It was used in the Ford V8s that helped build the Bonnie and Clyde mystique. Iron was in the Windsor V8s that made the Mustang famous, and in the engine block of the GT40 when it beat Ferrari at Le Mans. Even today, iron is used in the engines of trucks that help haul lumber to job sites and pull race cars to the track. American car culture was born from iron. Long may it live.

(Photo credits: Ford)

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.

About the Author

View All My Posts

29 thoughts on “Ford Plans To Use The Earth’s Most Common Element To Make EVs Cheaper

  1. The LFP batteries are also much, much safer with respect to fire – which means your packaging can have much less armor on it, improving packaged density and cutting the gap with NMC or other Li ion battery designs. Look up the fire tests for fixed storage and the only Lithium battery you will want anywhere near your house is LFP. – and even then at least 6 feet away.

  2. Iron in the battery?? Why that a whole new world of Rust for David to explore!
    I look forward to the “I am travel some absurdly remote country to fix this rusty Holygrail Iron battery” articles Im sure will follow.

  3. What is not front and center in this is the fact that the LFP battery takes up the room and weight of the Extended range battery to get the same range as the old, smaller, standard range battery. Part of the reason why the Pro versions of the truck no longer offers the long range battery. That was kind of a steal if you got long range in the 1st year Pro Model.

    1. Also, the extended range Lightning Pro was fleet-only, so I’m guessing there are a very small number of them in existence.

      The NMC, Standard Range Pros and XLTs will probably be the last to be almost as quick as the Extended Range trucks, too.

  4. Pedantry alert. Iron is the 4th most abundant element in the earth.

    Strange article overall. Lithium is the limiting element in LPF; iron isn’t the issue.

    Actually, if you wanted to be thoroughly dramatic but just as meaningless, both NMC (oxide) and LPF (phosphate) contain oxygen, which actually is the most abundant element in the earth’s crust.

    “Ford Plans To Use The Earth’s Most Common Element, and the Very Air You Breath, to Power EVs”

    1. Iron is the fourth most abundant element in Earth’s crust but for the planet in its entirety iron is, in fact, the most abundant by mass. Since the article refers to “elements contained beneath the earth’s surface” we should include the whole thing, particularly since I’m a mantle mineralogist.

      My own pedantry in this situation is to note that the currently preferred usage is to captialize Earth and leave off “the” just as we do with the names of other planets.

      1. I fully appreciate your pedantry, but I must admit I now have a cheeky desire to instead add “the” when saying the names of other planets.

        For example, “I sure do love looking at those rings around the Saturn,” or, “I wonder if humans will ever successfully colonize the Mars.

          1. That’s a Southern California thing, where “The Interstate 5” became “the five” and “the 680 freeway” became “the 680.
            It still jars me, but new slang (such as “that was bomb/the sh**!” meaning it was the best) does as well – and it also sounds like an uneducated idiot is speaking.

      2. They buy Chinese buicks and cover them in patriotic stickers. Please let’s not overestimate the knowledge or intelligence of the average new car buyer.

      3. Dunno where that double post came from, this comment software needs to be dropped off in a trench so it can end up as an eclogite in half a billion years.

  5. Odd focus on elemental iron to make an emotional connection to an EV… it just Fe-ls forced…

    Well if you don’t like iron now you’d better get used to it. Isotopes of iron and nickel are at the tippy top of the nuclear binding energy curve:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_peak

    The most favored isotope is Fe-56, therefore the heat death of the universe will be the ultimate Iron Age.

  6. Another idea for an article I would gladly read:

    Deep dive into the recyclability of current battery tech. Would iron improve that? Is something like cobalt recyclable? What happens in the future when all these Tesla & Mach-E batteries are end-of-life?

    1. I agree this would make an extremely interesting article. My understanding is that current NMC (i.e. cobalt) batteries are very recycleable (lookup Redwood battery recycling). I wonder if iron would be similar, or make it easier or harder to recycle? I wonder if the lower cost of the minerals would make it less economically worth-while? If recycling is less profitable, combined with LFP’s longer lifespan, would it mean more aftermarket reuse of “aged” batteries (grid-ties storage, home power backup, or EV conversions)?

    1. Another benefit is that LFP batteries like being charged to 100% rather than the 80% of Li-ion for daily driving. That 20% difference typically negates the range penalty of LFP for day to day use.

      For road trips, it’s hard to beat the range of a fully charged Li-ion battery and the charging speed. I’ve played around with ABRP (A Better Route Planner) with LFP and Li-ion Tesla vehicles. That’s the standard range vs long range model 3. With both starting at 100% charge, the long range always gets to the destination earlier with fewer charging stops and less time charging.

    1. To satisfy the US EV rebate requirements that are in place to prevent the Chinese domination of the market, either way China wins directly or indirectly, great job politicians. So will all the old grumpy guys that say they only buy American made, still buy a Ford with a battery made by a Chinese company?

      1. They buy Chinese buicks and cover them in patriotic stickers. Please let’s not overestimate the knowledge or intelligence of the average new car buyer.

  7. Odd focus on elemental iron to make an emotional connection to an EV… it just Fe-ls forced…

    Honestly though, LiFePo batteries should be much more common – not everyone needs the huge range that NMC or NCA batteries provide, nor does everyone need to pay the huge price for the Co and Ni in those types of cathodes. Plus, the LiFePo chemistry is much more temperature-tolerant, making thermal runaway propagation within a pack much less likely. This allows for better pack-level energy density and lower costs since many of the provisions to prevent TRP in NMC/NCA packs can be dispensed with.

Leave a Reply