Ford F-150 Lightning Tows Loaded U-Haul, Accumulates Six Charging Hours

The electric pickup handled the towing assignment well; the charging system turned it into a time-consuming journey. A 2025 Ford F-150 Lightning XLT Standard Range completed a loaded U-Haul tow from coastal British Columbia to Canmore, Alberta, but its owner reported accumulating approximately six hours at chargers along the mountain route.

The driver praised the truck’s comfort and towing performance while averaging about 1.5 miles per kilowatt-hour. Yet some stops used chargers rated at only 50 kilowatts, several sessions continued to 100%, and at least one location presented difficult trailer access. The account offers a useful example of how a capable electric tow vehicle can still be constrained by the charging equipment and station layouts around it.

The Lightning pulled a loaded 6-by-12-foot U-Haul through several mountain passes, with reported stops near the Coquihalla summit, Merritt, Kamloops, Revelstoke, Rogers Pass and Field. The driver kept the truck at or below roughly 56 mph in temperatures ranging from 50 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. U-Haul recommends a maximum towing speed of 55 mph for this trailer.

The trailer weighs 1,920 pounds empty and can carry as much as 2,480 pounds, for a maximum gross weight of 4,400 pounds. The owner did not disclose its loaded weight, so the trip cannot establish performance for a precisely defined towing load or for every Lightning owner. Exact trip distance, charging receipts, battery readings and a session-by-session schedule also were not published. The reported six hours describes time spent charging, rather than six hours of measured additional travel delay.

Why 50-kilowatt charging consumed so much time

Ford lists 98 kilowatt-hours of usable battery energy for the 2025 Standard Range model. Moving from a 15% battery level to 80% represents approximately 63.7 kilowatt-hours. Even if a 50-kilowatt charger maintained its full labeled output, delivering that energy would take about 76 minutes before accounting for conversion losses or any reduction in power.

Ford’s estimate for the same 15%-to-80% window is 32 minutes on charging equipment rated at 150 kilowatts or higher, based on computer engineering simulations. The comparison explains much of the trip’s time penalty: a charger’s power rating can matter as much as the truck’s own charging capability when the battery needs a substantial refill.

Charging to 100% added another constraint. Battery-management systems reduce charging power as a pack approaches full capacity, limiting heat and high-voltage stress. Ford warns that the Lightning’s charging rate declines near full. A high departure level can provide useful operating margin before a remote or mountainous segment, but the final portion of the charge generally buys that margin at the slowest rate.

The owner acknowledged that stops often began with 20% to 40% of the battery remaining and that some full charges substantially increased total time. At Rogers Pass, he charged for reassurance even though he believed the truck could reach Golden. That was a conservative operating choice rather than a demonstrated range failure, but it shows how route spacing and uncertainty influence actual charging behavior.

Towing range depended on more than trailer weight

At the reported average of 1.5 miles per kilowatt-hour, using the battery between 80% and 20% would provide approximately 89 miles. That is an illustrative working range based on this owner’s overall consumption, not a universal Lightning towing figure.

Speed, terrain and aerodynamic drag all shape the result. The owner reported a sharp increase in energy consumption when wind intensified after Kamloops. An enclosed trailer presents a substantial frontal area, so a headwind raises the relative air speed across the truck-and-trailer combination. Because aerodynamic drag rises rapidly with air speed, changing wind can erase a comfortable energy margin without any change in trailer weight.

Physical access introduced a separate systems problem. The owner found trailer access satisfactory at the first three charging locations but more difficult in Revelstoke. Conventional nose-in charging stalls may require careful positioning or unhitching, while pull-through layouts let a truck and trailer remain connected. Charger availability therefore includes more than whether a dispenser works: its placement, cable reach and surrounding maneuvering space determine whether a towing combination can use it efficiently.

BC Hydro applies the same posted energy tariff to fast chargers rated at 25 kilowatts or higher. Under its tariff effective April 1, 2026, a 60-kilowatt-hour purchase costs C$23.81 before tax at either a 50-kilowatt or faster BC Hydro charger, although roaming and idle fees can alter the total. On that pricing structure, a faster compatible unit can deliver a large time benefit without a higher posted per-kilowatt-hour rate.

Infrastructure is beginning to address that mismatch. BC Hydro’s June 2026 expansion at Britton Creek added two 400-kilowatt and two 350-kilowatt chargers, with power sharing allowing the four units to serve as many as eight vehicles. The Lightning cannot necessarily absorb a dispenser’s full rating, but higher site capacity can reduce the chance that the charger itself becomes the dominant bottleneck. For long-distance electric towing, the completed trip shows that traction performance is only one part of the system; charging power, battery taper, weather and trailer-compatible access collectively set the schedule.

By Thomas Caldwell — AMI’s senior editor for mechanical and mobility engineering, covering vehicle electronics, systems integration, electrification, chassis systems, propulsion, and safety policy.