Jump to content

None






Harley Lover

Ranger PIH for Europe - Implications for Bronco?

Recommended Posts

First this report:

Quote

Australia’s Car Expert received the confirmation from a Ford spokesperson about the Ranger PHEV. The plug-in hybrid powertrain will be a new system, but we don’t have the official details yet. It’s being reported that it will feature a turbocharged 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine that’s mated to an electric motor to give it around 362 horsepower and 502 pound-feet of torque.

 

 

If that report is accurate, does that perhaps offer a prediction for a future Bronco drivetrain?

 

https://www.thetorquereport.com/ford/ford-ranger-plug-in-hybrid-headed-to-europe/

 

Mods: If this is already under discussion elsewhere, please move to the appropriate thread.

Edited by Harley Lover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why the bronco wouldn't get a hybrid. Electric tech isn't ready but a hybrid is a great alternative for someone who doesn't want a pure gasser.

 

Can someone explain to me why a hybrid needs to be plugged in? Is the battery is such vehicle s too big for the gas engine to charge during regular driving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, probowler said:

I don't get why the bronco wouldn't get a hybrid. Electric tech isn't ready but a hybrid is a great alternative for someone who doesn't want a pure gasser.

 

Can someone explain to me why a hybrid needs to be plugged in? Is the battery is such vehicle s too big for the gas engine to charge during regular driving?


The way I understand it is its not necessarily battery size it's how the system itself functions. A full hybrid utilizes more of the gas engine to power the vehicle whereas a plug-in drives more like a pure electric vehicle where the battery and electric motor(s) do a majority of the work and the gas engine doesn't operate nearly as much. 
 

Thats probably a vast oversimplification but hopefully it helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


The way I understand it is its not necessarily battery size it's how the system itself functions. A full hybrid utilizes more of the gas engine to power the vehicle whereas a plug-in drives more like a pure electric vehicle where the battery and electric motor(s) do a majority of the work and the gas engine doesn't operate nearly as much. 
 

Thats probably a vast oversimplification but hopefully it helps. 

I get it now, thanks.

 

So perhaps in that case, if ford is going for a PHEV, They don't think it would be adequate for the type of driving the bronco might face? Ford might prefer a regular hybrid they don't have or isn't ready yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.3EB PHEV makes a lot of sense for some markets like US and Australia. It may be overkill for Europe where 2.5 (non EB) PHEV probably will be sufficient.

 

But I'm guessing Ford is going for one PHEV powertrain for global use to maximize the volume. 

Edited by bzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's inevitable that Bronco will get one, just a matter of when.....I won't be surprised if it doesn't arrive until the refresh.  I think PHEV (or at least hybrid) was initially on the docket for Bronco, but it was dropped for launch to help with the (ever shifting) timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, probowler said:

I don't get why the bronco wouldn't get a hybrid. Electric tech isn't ready but a hybrid is a great alternative for someone who doesn't want a pure gasser.

 

Can someone explain to me why a hybrid needs to be plugged in? Is the battery is such vehicle s too big for the gas engine to charge during regular driving?

The high voltage battery is much larger in a PIH and allows for pure EV driving range limited by the size of the high voltage battery. Most seem to have 20 - 40 mile EV range, so in concept the vehicle could be used for short commutes or local errands and not use the gas engine. Then recharge the battery via plug overnight and repeat. 

 

It can also be used as a straight hybrid when the high voltage (EV dedicated portion) of the battery is depleted. Straight hybrids have much smaller high voltage batteries dedicated only to hybrid application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bzcat said:

2.3EB PHEV makes a lot of sense for some markets like US and Australia. It may be overkill for Europe where 2.5 (non EB) PHEV probably will be sufficient.

 

But I'm guessing Ford is going for one PHEV powertrain for global use to maximize the volume. 

All I’ll say is that, the T6 hybrid power train was more than likely grouped across several vehicles as a engineering module to improve the business case. Given the development time line, it's highly likely that  that the thought process for that hybrid  predates latest developments regarding European electrification moves.....

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that diesel is not going to survive Euro 7, I suppose Ford must have backup plan for next gen lower output T6 engine options. 2.3 EB or 2.3 EB PHEV can't be the only choice like it is in North America because displacement and CO2 tax in a lot of countries make it a non-starter. 

 

The obvious candidates are 1.5 EB, 2.0EB, 2.0 hybrid, 2.5 hybrid.

 

2.3 EB PHEV will have enough power to match 2.7 EB and way more powerful than the current top tune 2.0 EcoBlue diesel.

 

Edited by bzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bzcat said:

Given that diesel is not going to survive Euro 7, I suppose Ford must have backup plan for next gen lower output T6 engine options. 2.3 EB or 2.3 EB PHEV can't be the only choice like it is in North America because displacement and CO2 tax in a lot of countries make it a non-starter. 

 

The obvious candidates are 1.5 EB, 2.0EB, 2.0 hybrid, 2.5 hybrid.

 

2.3 EB PHEV will have enough power to match 2.7 EB and way more powerful than the current top tune 2.0 EcoBlue diesel.

 

That original leak was to do with a third engine choice for Australia and New Zealand.

The power levels rumoured make it an apex engine option, not general supply to Europe.

Whatever is planned for Europe has to move the conversation away from 2.0 diesel to 

a hybrid or a PHEV to meet emissions. Least possible changes to an already developed

2.3 EB PHEV might actually be another engine in front of the PHEV driveline and batteries,

so something like a 2.0 EB PHEV might actually fill the bill of efficiency and capability....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

That original leak was to do with a third engine choice for Australia and New Zealand.

The power levels rumoured make it an apex engine option, not general supply to Europe.

Whatever is planned for Europe has to move the conversation away from 2.0 diesel to 

a hybrid or a PHEV to meet emissions. Least possible changes to an already developed

2.3 EB PHEV might actually be another engine in front of the PHEV driveline and batteries,

so something like a 2.0 EB PHEV might actually fill the bill of efficiency and capability....

 

I haven’t looked into it, what role does the displacement taxes play with hybrids and plug in hybrids?  Are they relaxed?  If not, I could  see the 1.5L EB being used just to get in a lower tax bracket for affordability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, slemke said:

I haven’t looked into it, what role does the displacement taxes play with hybrids and plug in hybrids?  Are they relaxed?  If not, I could  see the 1.5L EB being used just to get in a lower tax bracket for affordability.

In terms of UK  registration costs, passive hybrids, hybrids and PHEVs are all classes as alternate fuel vehicles 

which means  no tax in first year and a flat £140 per year after that regardless of the CO2 banding. So the

engine size doesn't come into it with hybrid/PHEV so I'm thinking the 1.5 EB I not needed for this application.

 

By comparison, petrol and diesel vehicles in their first year of registration are taxed on their CO2 band 

which becomes quite expensive with high CO2 emitters but all go to single £150 in the second year.

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Displacement taxes are actually be coming fairly rare now, most countries have moved to a CO2 and NOx. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Europe, vehicle and fuel taxes raise money money for government while forcing buyers and operators to make 

choices so they pay less for vehicles and fuel. The American economy runs contra to that by encouraging low fuel 

and vehicle costs to keep down costs that would otherwise permeate through society as higher transport costs that 

multiply to costs on everything. I don't know what the answer is for America without disrupting the economy and bring 

financial consequences in other areas.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

In Europe, vehicle and fuel taxes raise money money for government while forcing buyers and operators to make 

choices so they pay less for vehicles and fuel. The American economy runs contra to that by encouraging low fuel 

and vehicle costs to keep down costs that would otherwise permeate through society as higher transport costs that 

multiply to costs on everything. I don't know what the answer is for America without disrupting the economy and bring 

financial consequences in other areas.

 

 

An answer is to continue to let individuals make their own decisions as to what works best for them.  My old truck costs me very little to operate since it isn’t driven much.   Not worth investing in a newer more efficient model to save fuel.  There is no way I would recover the cost savings of using electricity vs what I currently pay for gas.  We still make purchasing decisions based on ownership costs.  Government regulations interfere with that rational decision making and introduce additional societal costs.  It isn’t that our fuel is directly subsidized (or vehicles with large engines), but the fuel tax is primarily to maintain the infrastructure associated with operating those vehicles and not other pet projects of government.  Even so, funds are still siphoned off for other things and leads to folks resenting higher fuel taxes.  Drilling for oil is subsidized as energy independence was deemed a plus to society.

 

To me, Europe doesn’t want private vehicle ownership by the masses and sets up a tax structure to ensure that.  The US is also different in how the population is spread over large areas.  What might be appropriate on the more densely populated coasts doesn’t work well for the wide open spaces of the Great Plains.  Private vehicle ownership is much more cost effective in rural areas and they will resent paying more to subsidize the wealthy cities on the coasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, slemke said:

An answer is to continue to let individuals make their own decisions as to what works best for them.  My old truck costs me very little to operate since it isn’t driven much.   Not worth investing in a newer more efficient model to save fuel.  There is no way I would recover the cost savings of using electricity vs what I currently pay for gas.  We still make purchasing decisions based on ownership costs.  Government regulations interfere with that rational decision making and introduce additional societal costs.  It isn’t that our fuel is directly subsidized (or vehicles with large engines), but the fuel tax is primarily to maintain the infrastructure associated with operating those vehicles and not other pet projects of government.  Even so, funds are still siphoned off for other things and leads to folks resenting higher fuel taxes.  Drilling for oil is subsidized as energy independence was deemed a plus to society.

 

To me, Europe doesn’t want private vehicle ownership by the masses and sets up a tax structure to ensure that.  The US is also different in how the population is spread over large areas.  What might be appropriate on the more densely populated coasts doesn’t work well for the wide open spaces of the Great Plains.  Private vehicle ownership is much more cost effective in rural areas and they will resent paying more to subsidize the wealthy cities on the coasts.

 

You can't argue this only on the one side. Govt regulation interfere with rational decision making in favor of cheap oil and excessive driving now. Why is it a problem for Govt to subsidize electric vehicle as a path to energy independence but not a problem for Govt to subsidize oil extraction to achieve the same result? And the current policy of favoring fossil fuel over all other energy exact a societal costs too, just ones that you are not willing to recognize. Climate change probably already cost you more now than you will save by switching your vehicle from gas to electricity. 

 

Your old truck cost you very little to operate because the Govt made it so by subsidizing oil production and paying for roads and infrastructure - fuel taxes are so chronically low in the US that most states can't even pay for basic maintenance. The vast majority of cost road construction and maintenance are paid out of general funds, which means your last sentence is completely backwards. Private vehicle ownership is only cost effective in the rural area because all the money flowing from wealthy regions to rural areas in the US to subsidize basic needs. If you are paying a fair share of the cost to maintain your local roads and infrastructure, your fuel taxes will have to go up a lot. The fact that you think your fuel taxes are enough to cover the costs of your "free" driving and even allow it to be siphoned off for other things is bizarre and completely detached from reality. 

Edited by bzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments desire to move away from ICE vehicles as a way of ending tens of millions of uncontrolled emitters 

and dealing with power utilities as fewer but larger sources of emissions. That's basically what all this is about 

and it's also why auto companies are on board with moving away from ICE power, an end to ever tightening laws.

The only rub is that all of us get to pay for all of the above and any inefficiencies in the process.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Governments desire to move away from ICE vehicles as a way of ending tens of millions of uncontrolled emitters 

and dealing with power utilities as fewer but larger sources of emissions. That's basically what all this is about 

and it's also why auto companies are on board with moving away from ICE power, an end to ever tightening laws.

The only rub is that all of us get to pay for all of the above and any inefficiencies in the process.

 

Yeah right.   They'll just find new ways to create laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

You can't argue this only on the one side. Govt regulation interfere with rational decision making in favor of cheap oil and excessive driving now. Why is it a problem for Govt to subsidize electric vehicle as a path to energy independence but not a problem for Govt to subsidize oil extraction to achieve the same result? And the current policy of favoring fossil fuel over all other energy exact a societal costs too, just ones that you are not willing to recognize. Climate change probably already cost you more now than you will save by switching your vehicle from gas to electricity. 

 

Your old truck cost you very little to operate because the Govt made it so by subsidizing oil production and paying for roads and infrastructure - fuel taxes are so chronically low in the US that most states can't even pay for basic maintenance. The vast majority of cost road construction and maintenance are paid out of general funds, which means your last sentence is completely backwards. Private vehicle ownership is only cost effective in the rural area because all the money flowing from wealthy regions to rural areas in the US to subsidize basic needs. If you are paying a fair share of the cost to maintain your local roads and infrastructure, your fuel taxes will have to go up a lot. The fact that you think your fuel taxes are enough to cover the costs of your "free" driving and even allow it to be siphoned off for other things is bizarre and completely detached from reality. 

Current policy doesn’t favor fossil fuel over anything else.  If anything, it favors electric.  No argument about government interference.  It’s there and won’t go away.  I’ll make rational decisions based on the situation.
 

My old truck is cheap to operate because it is paid for and fully depreciated, not government subsidies.  22 years ago you still wouldn’t have a point as I still would have bought a gas vehicle.  Gas was under a buck a gallon and half of that was tax.  RTP was zoned with no close by residential, so driving was the only rational choice.  The bus took several hours...could bike it in that amount of time but way to dangerous in the dark with no shoulders.  So I picked a vehicle that met my needs.  It was a rational choice at the time.  Even when gas was over $4 a gallon it was still a rational choice to keep it.  Buying a more fuel efficient vehicle still didn’t come out ahead.  I did the math.  It’s the cost of any replacement vehicle that throws the numbers out of whack whether it be gas or electric or public transportation.  So I might as well drive it into the ground and not impact the planet by building another vehicle.  A major repair would change the numbers.  Until then, it is cheaper to operate an old less efficient vehicle.

 

Government didn’t pay for anything.  They used taxpayer money.  I pay property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes into that government.  I’d need to look up the exact numbers, but in NC, I recall the transportation fund being raided for other purposes.  And I’m not including the money used to prop up Amtrak and public transportation from the taxes raised on vehicles and fuel.  I think you are over estimating the amount of funding from the general fund...up until 2008 the highway trust fund kept up.  Since then $140B was added from the general fund.  In 2020, $43 billion in revenue was collected.  A few cents per gallon is predicted to cover the shortfall. Hardly enough to drastically change anything.   https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed.  At the state and local level there are additional gas taxes, personal property taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes.  These all fund government services, one of which are roads so the bus can take my kids to school (school board rezoned me so they can’t walk or ride their bikes), fire and ambulance protection, etc.  How would driving an electric vehicle change any of that? 


I have no way of easily figuring out the oil subsidies.  Numbers get exaggerated on both sides of that one.  Same with ethanol production.  We need oil and natural gas production for more than just transportation.  It’s complex.  We could argue about it forever.

 

Many of those rural roads serve multiple purposes, including getting the wealthy to their vacation homes, food to market, etc.  They are also much cheaper per mile to build.  The funding formulas are complex and politically driven.  Everyone claims they are getting short changed.  When I lived in rural MN people there were convinced their $ were subsidizing roads in MPLS/St Paul.  In NC, folks in Raleigh, Charlotte, etc.  are convinced an unfair share is being spent on rural highways.  Yet they don’t complain about that road getting them to the beach faster.  Folks like to complain.


Driving a Tesla around a parking lot for an hour waiting to pick up your kids is efficient or leaving the a/c on (and not in the Tesla) while watching your kids soccer game isn’t wasteful?   Energy is relatively cheap no matter what.  So people waste it.  CAFE contributes to it.  Make a vehicle cheaper to operate and folks drive more.  Whether it is gas or electric.  I’m stingy, so I don’t drive much and that contributes to keeping my old truck.  Plant some trees to offset the carbon.  Fruit or nut are the best as they provide food and clean air.


I pay more for heating than I do air conditioning.  A warmer climate will lower my costs.  Extend the growing season and I can raise more vegetables for my family lowering my cost.  It isn’t as clear cut as the climate crisis folks want you to believe.  Some things will be more expensive others less.  Depends on your market basket of goods you consume and whether you are willing to accept substitutes that become cheaper.  You’re going to need to provide some hard facts on how much global climate change is hurting me financially for me to take you seriously.

 

But, the government funding isn’t leading to independence, just dependence on something else. That battery technology government is subsidizing isn’t great for the environment either.  Remember the studies where a Suburban had a lower impact on the environment than a Prius?  Then you factor in where the raw materials, assembly of those batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and rare earth magnets come from.  Certainly no independence there.  Thus the current administration is looking into what it takes to get some of it done here.  More subsidies to fix problems caused by government in the first place.  In the meantime we can continue using affordable petroleum products and enjoy energy independence.  Phase out the subsidies for oil exploration.  No need to have them in the current environment.  They did what they needed to do and can be raised in the future if needed.  
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, slemke said:

I’ll make rational decisions based on the situation.


Since when has government ever made a rational decision? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Since when has government ever made a rational decision? 

 

"Rational" when it benefits the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Since when has government ever made a rational decision? 

Actually, it's all the time because a rational decision is one where a choice is made to benefit self interest 

or a select group that an individual represents and less to do with benefit to the whole community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Actually, it's all the time because a rational decision is one where a choice is made to benefit self interest 

or a select group that an individual represents and less to do with benefit to the whole community.

Government is nothing but self interest.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Government is nothing but self interest.... 

In your country, yes.

The whole reason American politics is failing is due to polarisation,

your law makers are bought and paid for long before they set foot in the Capitol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 3:07 PM, jpd80 said:

Governments desire to move away from ICE vehicles as a way of ending tens of millions of uncontrolled emitters 

and dealing with power utilities as fewer but larger sources of emissions. That's basically what all this is about 

and it's also why auto companies are on board with moving away from ICE power, an end to ever tightening laws.

The only rub is that all of us get to pay for all of the above and any inefficiencies in the process.

That’s a pretty big rub, though.  The Volkswagen diesel scandal was the tipping point.  VW had figured out how to cheat the system.  After that, the trust was lost and something had to be done.  Diesel could no longer be used to meet CO2 targets.  I don’t know about Europe, but the US many locations (primarily metro areas) required tailpipe emissions checks or at a minimum that the on board control systems weren’t detecting a fault.  This at least kept the gross polluters in line once a year.  So saying they were uncontrolled is a bit of a stretch.  I agree that monitoring and regulating a few large entities is much easier than the 10’s of millions of vehicles.  They can keep a much closer eye on the power plants.  It also allows the pollution to be relocated from densely populated areas to less populated areas where people are far enough away for it to diffuse and be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×