Eighteen Hours, Six Escalade IQs, and What the Comments Missed About EV Battery Fires!
A fire broke out on October 9 at Frank Kent Cadillac in Fort Worth. It started in one vehicle, spread to others parked nearby, and kept firefighters on scene for 17 hours and 33 minutes. Six electric SUVs were destroyed and two more were damaged. No one was hurt. The Fort Worth Fire Department noted what many departments have observed: the packs are sealed by design, which is useful for normal driving and water exposure, but it means external water streams have a hard time reaching the cells once thermal runaway begins.
The articles covering the event described what happened. A lot of the comments treated the long duration as proof that nothing better exists and that these vehicles are simply unmanageable. The comments that kept appearing included large water-volume claims, suggestions to just let the vehicles burn, statements about sticking with gasoline for firefighter safety, and versions of “this is stupid—fewer of these on the road.” Those comments can be matched against what controlled testing and operational uses have actually measured.
Thermal runaway is heat-driven. Modular packs use internal partitions to slow cell-to-cell heat transfer and create time for intervention. When crews can locate the hot zone with a thermal imaging camera and deliver water inside the enclosure—using tools such as a high-pressure abrasive lance—the measured outcomes change. Controlled full-vehicle tests have brought the battery portion under control in roughly four to five minutes of lance time with about 240 liters on the pack and around 750 liters total for the vehicle. Operational uses of the same approach have come in well under an hour with a few hundred gallons instead of tens of thousands. That is the difference between applying water to the outside of a sealed enclosure and putting the coolant where the heat is being generated.
Addressing the recurring comments
“Just clear out as many vehicles as possible and let the remaining ones burn.”
That approach matches the exposure-protection method used at the dealership with blankets while other vehicles were moved. It works when the site allows isolation. Where isolation is not possible—enclosed structures, tunnels, or adjacent occupied vehicles—internal cooling is a measured alternative. Controlled full-vehicle tests using thermal imaging to locate the hot zone followed by high-pressure abrasive lance injection interrupted pack propagation in approximately 4–5 minutes of lance time with about 240 liters on the battery and roughly 750 liters total. Modular internal partitions are designed to slow cell-to-cell heat transfer, creating a window for that targeted intervention.
Claims of 35,000–40,000 gallons expected for a single EV fire, plus concern that departments may simply let them burn due to water limits.
Those volumes correspond to prolonged external application against a sealed enclosure. When water is delivered inside the pack near the active zone, the same testing series reduced consumption to the low hundreds of liters and compressed the active phase to minutes. Field uses of the identical method have produced comparable reductions. The modular layout exists specifically to limit propagation while that internal contact is established. Thermal runaway is driven by heat generation exceeding dissipation; once coolant reaches the modules, the heat-removal rate rises sharply and the chain reaction can be interrupted.
“I will continue to use gas for the safety of the firefighters,” along with concern that a similar event could occur in a home.
External-only tactics on a sealed pack do extend duration and total water use. Internal delivery results already demonstrate shorter events and lower volumes once contact is achieved. Published frequency comparisons continue to show electric vehicles experience fires at a lower rate than internal-combustion vehicles after age adjustments in the studies that have performed them. Both powertrains produce toxic combustion products; the duration difference under current external practice is not fixed once coolant reaches the cells. Garage and structure risk exists for any vehicle fire; the mitigation path with documented results is faster heat removal by direct internal application.
“This is the issue with the current battery architecture in EVs and hybrids. Had this been traditional ICE vehicles, they would have been able to bring the fire under control faster and easier.”
Under external water streams alone, a sealed pack does require longer control times. When the same packs are addressed with thermal imaging and internal injection, the measured times drop to minutes and the water volumes drop into the low hundreds of liters. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency testing and subsequent operational uses of piercing lances produced those results by establishing flow inside the enclosure near the hot modules. The sealed design that limits external water entry is the same design the modular barriers and piercing tools are intended to work around.
“Was this considered environmentally friendly smoke? Asking for a friend.”
Combustion products from both electric and internal-combustion vehicle fires contain toxic species. The quantified differences under the tested methods are event duration and total water volume. Internal flooding shortens the active phase and reduces total runoff relative to multi-hour external application on sealed packs. Frequency data still indicate electric vehicles enter fire less often; the longer external-tactic duration is therefore a function of access method rather than an inherent higher emission rate per incident once coolant contact is achieved.
“F*** electric vehicles. This is just stupid. SIX brand new Cadillac Escalades on fire on the dealer's lot. Imagine if you driven that big POS home and parked it in your garage.”
Logically, the outcome of six large packs (approximately 205 kWh each) parked in close proximity follows from external-only tactics applied to sealed enclosures: one initiating event can involve multiple vehicles when coolant never reaches the modules. Controlled full-vehicle testing and operational uses of thermal imaging plus high-pressure abrasive lance injection have controlled comparable pack involvement in minutes with low hundreds of liters once flow is established inside the enclosure near the hot zone. Modular partitions exist to slow cell-to-cell heat transfer and create the interval in which that internal contact can be made. Garage or structure fires of any powertrain present elevated risk to the building; the measured reduction in duration and water volume occurs when coolant reaches the cells rather than remaining outside the sealed pack. The difference is therefore one of access method and heat-removal rate, not an inherent property that renders the vehicles categorically unmanageable.
The pictures are dramatic. The event was long under the tactics that were used. Neither of those things makes the vehicles unmanageable once you measure what happens when coolant actually reaches the cells. Modular design exists to slow the spread and create a window. Internal delivery uses that window. The data are already there for anyone who wants them.
Sources for the measured results
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) report, “Demonstration of Extinguishing Method of Lithium-Ion Batteries” (2023). This is the primary source for the internal flooding / piercing-lance results (approximately 4–5 minutes and ~240 liters on the pack in the full-vehicle test). English PDF and summary: https://www.coldcutsystems.com/scientific-reports/demonstration-of-extinguishing-method-of-lithium-ion-batteries/ (direct English PDF linked from that page). Swedish official publication page: https://www.msb.se/sv/publikationer/demonstration-av-slackmetod-for-litiumjonbatterier.-metodtillampning-pa-olika-aggregationsnivaer--modul-sub-batteri-elbilspack-och-fordonsniva/
UL Research Institutes Fire Safety Research Institute, “Full-Scale Electric Vehicle Fire Experiments and Recommendations for Fire Incident Response” (August 2026). This covers full-scale free-burn and suppression testing with conventional external tactics, blankets, and related considerations. Report page: https://fsri.org/resource/full-scale-electric-vehicle-fire-experiments-and-recommendations-fire-incident-response (download via the linked Figshare entry).
Sources for the irregular comments
The fact is - EVs are going to catch on fire. Most of the time, the fire is set deliberately. We do not know how this first started—yet. But we will. What needs to happen is fire departments need logical training on how to cool the battery to stop the thermal runaway. That is not happening. A lot of the misinformation about Lithium Ion Battery fires is being spread on social media by so-called “fire experts” who should know better. They have an agenda against the EV. This includes YouTube Channels like:
Thanks for reading this one all the way through. It is important that everyone understand the state of the industry. This is why I have my YouTube channel and this website…to help provide the truth when everyone else is out for the click!
Drive safe, charge smart, be happy, and treat others with kindness…and I will see you out there or somewhere along the route from Point A to Point B…take it easy, everybody!
