Ford Rethinking it's Hybrid Effort According to CFO

[akirby]

23 minutes ago, 92merc said:

My big concern with going back to hybrids, is does Fords still have enough ICE powertrain and platform people around to add more hybrids to the mix.

 

They didn't make an Edge replacement, so that's a negative on the platform side.  They should have made a C2 Edge.  Do they have the resources to go back to that perhaps?

 

Engines wise, the 2.5 NA is an old platform.  It'll probably still fit the bill for the C2.  But will the EcoBoost engines work well with regards to efficiency for larger platforms like the Ranger?  Ford needs an efficient solution for the F150 hybrid as well.  Is the 2.7EB the best approach?  Or should that be the 3.3 NA that they had dropped from the F150's?  Or maybe a 3.0 NA build off the 3.0 EB engine, just re-tuned for NA/hyrbid.

 

Does Ford still have they ICE engineers around to handle the pivot back to hybrids?

They have C2 Nautilus and Edge with hybrids now but Edge would need a new top hat for North America. 

[92merc]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

They have C2 Nautilus and Edge with hybrids now but Edge would need a new top hat for North America. 

I must have missed the Edge info.  Would both of those be the Chinese built ones?

 

Along those lines, I'm betting the Escape may not be axed as soon as they said.  Either that or they'll hope to pivot those buyers to the Bronco Sport instead.  Personally, I like the Escape better.  But I could live with an BS if that was my only option.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, 92merc said:

I must have missed the Edge info.  Would both of those be the Chinese built ones?

 

Along those lines, I'm betting the Escape may not be axed as soon as they said.  Either that or they'll hope to pivot those buyers to the Bronco Sport instead.  Personally, I like the Escape better.  But I could live with an BS if that was my only option.

Yes they’ve had the Chinese Edge for a few years now but it looks terrible and has an unnecessary 3 row option.  Thus the need for a new top hat.

[AM222]

46 minutes ago, akirby said:

Yes they’ve had the Chinese Edge for a few years now but it looks terrible and has an unnecessary 3 row option.  Thus the need for a new top hat.

The Chinese Edge was all-new for 2023. (3-row Edge L) 

The 2-row option for now is the Evos. 

 

Edited January 5 by AM222

[akirby]

The new one does look better.

[92merc]

I like the look of the Evos.  But from the few articles I've read, it looks like a BEV, not ICE product.

 

I was mostly referring to a mid sized ICE solution for North America.

[akirby]

50 minutes ago, 92merc said:

I like the look of the Evos.  But from the few articles I've read, it looks like a BEV, not ICE product.

 

I was mostly referring to a mid sized ICE solution for North America.

Huh?  Evos is ICE only - 2.0eb.  C2 platform.

[silvrsvt]

5 hours ago, 92merc said:

My big concern with going back to hybrids, is does Fords still have enough ICE powertrain and platform people around to add more hybrids to the mix.

 

They didn't make an Edge replacement, so that's a negative on the platform side.  They should have made a C2 Edge.  Do they have the resources to go back to that perhaps?

 

Engines wise, the 2.5 NA is an old platform.  It'll probably still fit the bill for the C2.  But will the EcoBoost engines work well with regards to efficiency for larger platforms like the Ranger?  Ford needs an efficient solution for the F150 hybrid as well.  Is the 2.7EB the best approach?  Or should that be the 3.3 NA that they had dropped from the F150's?  Or maybe a 3.0 NA build off the 3.0 EB engine, just re-tuned for NA/hyrbid.

 

Does Ford still have they ICE engineers around to handle the pivot back to hybrids?

 

Here is the thing and been argued here ad infinitum-adding a hybrid to something that is say the size of an Edge or larger isn't going make a "huge" improvement in fuel savings.

 

Just using the Toyota Crown as an example, the difference is about $500 bucks a year ($9.61 worth of gas a week) what in gas between the non-hybrid and hybrid versions, using Fuelecomy.gov estimates. And why using MPG as a metric has its own issues becuase an increase from 10 to 25MPG is big but a improvement to 50 MPG isn't as great

 

That is the reason why Ford has positioned powerboost transmissions as a power adder and other things, including slightly better fuel economy. Smaller products get better gas mileage, but they also give up performance due to the different Atkinson cycle engines they use that is normally helped (performance made up) by the drive motors from the Hybrid. That wouldn't really work that well in say something like the Ranger or F-150 that might have to do "real" work vs say the Maverick that would be doing lightweight duty stuff. 

 

The transition to EVs is still coming, just its going to take longer then what some people expected. Ford doesn't really need to spend more money on additional ICE products when they pretty much have everything they need to cover the ICE lineup out or almost out. Hybrids and more so PHEVs will help ease some peoples apherenction with EVs too. 

 

Edited January 5 by silvrsvt

[jpd80]

Some data at the link      https://www.auto-data.net/en/ford-edge-l-iii-generation-9398

 

 

 

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, 92merc said:

My big concern with going back to hybrids, is does Fords still have enough ICE powertrain and platform people around to add more hybrids to the mix.

 

They didn't make an Edge replacement, so that's a negative on the platform side.  They should have made a C2 Edge.  Do they have the resources to go back to that perhaps?

 

Engines wise, the 2.5 NA is an old platform.  It'll probably still fit the bill for the C2.  But will the EcoBoost engines work well with regards to efficiency for larger platforms like the Ranger?  Ford needs an efficient solution for the F150 hybrid as well.  Is the 2.7EB the best approach?  Or should that be the 3.3 NA that they had dropped from the F150's?  Or maybe a 3.0 NA build off the 3.0 EB engine, just re-tuned for NA/hyrbid.

 

Does Ford still have they ICE engineers around to handle the pivot back to hybrids?

Good questions we probably won’t ever know answers to, particularly what happened to ICE experts when future was seen as only electric.

 

EcoBoost reported fuel consumption per HP-hr or kWh is normally higher than Atkinson, so if fuel economy is priority, EB is probably not best choice IMO.  The bigger problem, however, is that Ford doesn’t have an Atkinson larger than the 2.5L used in Maverick and other light vehicles as far as I know.  That engine is not powerful enough for a Ranger, so what would Ford use?  You suggested a new NA 3.0L Nano V6, which could be made into an Atkinson cycle, but I think that if Ford was going to invest time and money on a larger new Atkinson, they might want to go even larger than 3.0L so it could be used in larger vehicles.  I’ve suggested a 3.4L inline six developed from new Mustang 2.3L architecture, but for even larger vehicles maybe Ford could look at a V8 Atkinson based on Coyote design.  For larger hybrid trucks, displacement could easily be up to +/- 5.8L by using taller deck on modular engines as before.  Possibilities seem endless to me, and who knows what Ford will do.

[rmc523]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

The new one does look better.

 

Eh, I still don't love it - especially for "Edge" - it just doesn't look like an Edge to me.

[akirby]

58 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Eh, I still don't love it - especially for "Edge" - it just doesn't look like an Edge to me.

Oh I agree but it looks better than the previous one.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 The bigger problem, however, is that Ford doesn’t have an Atkinson larger than the 2.5L used in Maverick and other light vehicles as far as I know.  That engine is not powerful enough for a Ranger, so what would Ford use

My 90 Ranger had a NA 2.3L.  My 95 Ranger had a 160 hp 6 cylinder.   A 2.5L Atkinson with a hybrid motor would have more than adequate power.

Edited January 6 by akirby

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

My 90 Ranger had a NA 2.3L.  My 95 Ranger had a 160 hp 6 cylinder.   A 2.5L Atkinson with a hybrid motor would have more than adequate power.

 

I dunno about that..a 2003 Ranger curb weight is 3K to 3600lbs vs 4300 to 5300 for the 2024 Ranger. 

 

The Maverick is 3600 lbs

[Rick73]

45 minutes ago, akirby said:

My 90 Ranger had a NA 2.3L.  My 95 Ranger had a 160 hp 6 cylinder.   A 2.5L Atkinson with a hybrid motor would have more than adequate power.

Agree, my Ranger also had 2.3L, in my model year rated right around 100 HP, and that was plenty for my needs.  I was able to tow 5X8 fully-loaded U-Haul trailers with ease in my area that is predominantly flat.  I have no doubt a 2.5L Atkinson aided by 100 HP electric motor would also meet practically all my needs.

 

My comment above came in different context, as a follow up on others questioning naturally-aspirated engines would not allow Ranger to tow as much (I think maximum now +/- 7,500 pounds).  I’m fairly certain 2.5L Atkinson would fall far short of that.

 

That’s not to say a larger NA V6 like one used in base Transit, if it fit, would probably give a Ranger all the towing capacity anyone would need for that size truck.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Eh, I still don't love it - especially for "Edge" - it just doesn't look like an Edge to me.

It’s like they pinched the hood design from the old chrome 3-bar style and the grille from a later Explorer.

It doesn’t quite flow right but it’s better than some of the Asian/Korean styles (IMO).

[Kader34]

Ford seems to be acknowledging a potentially prolonged transition to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). This shift prompts discussions on prioritizing hybrid technology, emphasizing the importance of a balanced approach in the evolving automotive landscape.

[Texasota]

19 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Here is the thing and been argued here ad infinitum-adding a hybrid to something that is say the size of an Edge or larger isn't going make a "huge" improvement in fuel savings.

I agree with you for a HEV. But for a PHEV it will make a "huge" improvement assuming your daily commute and your city driving are within its EV range.  A PHEV Ranger falls into this category perfectly.

[92merc]

18 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Good questions we probably won’t ever know answers to, particularly what happened to ICE experts when future was seen as only electric.

 

EcoBoost reported fuel consumption per HP-hr or kWh is normally higher than Atkinson, so if fuel economy is priority, EB is probably not best choice IMO.  The bigger problem, however, is that Ford doesn’t have an Atkinson larger than the 2.5L used in Maverick and other light vehicles as far as I know.  That engine is not powerful enough for a Ranger, so what would Ford use?  You suggested a new NA 3.0L Nano V6, which could be made into an Atkinson cycle, but I think that if Ford was going to invest time and money on a larger new Atkinson, they might want to go even larger than 3.0L so it could be used in larger vehicles.  I’ve suggested a 3.4L inline six developed from new Mustang 2.3L architecture, but for even larger vehicles maybe Ford could look at a V8 Atkinson based on Coyote design.  For larger hybrid trucks, displacement could easily be up to +/- 5.8L by using taller deck on modular engines as before.  Possibilities seem endless to me, and who knows what Ford will do.

 

I gotta wonder if something like Mazda's patented 2 stroke engine would make for a good pairing of a hybrid motor, instead of Atkinson cycle 4 strokes.

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

On 1/5/2024 at 9:32 AM, akirby said:

 

15 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I dunno about that..a 2003 Ranger curb weight is 3K to 3600lbs vs 4300 to 5300 for the 2024 Ranger. 

 

The Maverick is 3600 lbs

It could be a problem, but the maverick hybrid powertrain is quite potent, with some tweaks, I could see it working. Ford claims it's making 191 hp and 155 lb ft, but it's safe to say these power figures are underrated. Third party testing has pegged peak torque at over 260. 

[DeluxeStang]

22 hours ago, AM222 said:

The Chinese Edge was all-new for 2023. (3-row Edge L) 

The 2-row option for now is the Evos. 

 

Who else thinks the evos looks like a sharpened take on the mach-e? It actually looks better to me from some angles, less bulbous. 

[Rick73]

40 minutes ago, 92merc said:

I gotta wonder if something like Mazda's patented 2 stroke engine would make for a good pairing of a hybrid motor, instead of Atkinson cycle 4 strokes.

It’s interesting concept but like with their rotary engine 50 years ago, the devil is usually in the details, so who knows if it will be successful or not long term.  I would be concerned with high cost and emissions, amongst other issues.  It’s interesting the video doesn’t mention it, but description suggests it functions with Atkinson cycle. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

It could be a problem, but the maverick hybrid powertrain is quite potent, with some tweaks, I could see it working. Ford claims it's making 191 hp and 155 lb ft, but it's safe to say these power figures are underrated. Third party testing has pegged peak torque at over 260. 

I believe the 191 HP is combined, but 155 lb-ft is for engine only.  Electric motor, which has a lot of torque, is reported separately.  Newest system may be more powerful due to slightly more powerful electric motor.   Electric motor alone is 173 lb-ft.  

 

 

[Dequindre]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Who else thinks the evos looks like a sharpened take on the mach-e? It actually looks better to me from some angles, less bulbous. 

 

I kind of like the look of the Evos. It might not be a huge seller in the U.S., but it's sleek enough where it may appeal to former sedan owners that still value form over function. 

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, Dequindre said:

 

I kind of like the look of the Evos. It might not be a huge seller in the U.S., but it's sleek enough where it may appeal to former sedan owners that still value form over function. 

We thought the same thing about Tesla’s styling of the 3 and Y yet they do remarkably well around the globe.

It may be wise to consider that the majority  people looking at BEVs are looking  for something different 

and perhaps not necessarily an electrified version of their current pickup or utility.

 

I would hate to think that we get to 2026 and Ford is still counting on selling 600 K “gen 2 Lightnings”….