Unique Hybrid Set-Up in the New 2024 Lincoln Nautilus

[Gurgeh]

Interesting (and pretty quick) video walking through various aspects of the 2.0 ecoboost (not Atkinson cycle) engine that Ford paired with a new version of its e-CVT (probably upgraded to handle the engine's extra power) for the all-new 2024 Lincoln Nautilus. This reviewer believes this to be a unique configuration amongst automakers. 

 

[jpd80]

Makes sense, the E-CVT is based on the 6F transmission but with many obvious changes, upgrading to take 2.0 EB wouldn’t be a huge stretch. 
 

Excited to know if this heralds a new engine combo for eventual wider use….

[jpd80]

So for those wondering about the history of the current Hybrid Transmission, the original HF35

released in 2012 was replaced in 2022 by the HF45 and a stronger HF55 for the 2.0 EB.

 

heres a great technical video explaining how the gearbox works, rambles a bit 

but still good all the same…enjoy

 

and this one talks about forst two generations of Aisin hybrid and then the HF35

shows how gearing works

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHU5xFOBcsU&list=PLIn3FrDiB1lyI_hRGrKtG4PQf2OpcTqZ4&index=4

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20 by jpd80

[akirby]

Now I understand how the e-CVT provides variable gearing.  Pretty ingenious and explains why it’s completely different from a regular CVT trans.

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Now I understand how the e-CVT provides variable gearing.  Pretty ingenious and explains why it’s completely different from a regular CVT trans.

Absolutely, I was intrigued with this design when it first came out, the epicyclic gear train allows

the two electric motors combine with the ICE (running or not) to form variable gearing…..

 

It’s brilliant and probably a lot less mechanical parts than a regular 6-speed auto,

I can see how strengthening for the stronger EB engine would fairly straight forward.

 

The irony here is that the original 6F transmission was developed jointly with GM,

Im a little surprised that they didn’t get involved with this project as well but then,

GM had the Volt and its transmission which was very different in that it actually

allowed direct coupling for ICE at higher speeds for greater efficiency….

 

Mind you, the E-CVT was developed before automatic began mid gear lockup,

so part of me wonders if like RWD hybrid transmissions, Ford could use a 6AT

but with an electric motor in place of the torque converter…..

^^^^^ It’s probably not worth the effort to change now, the E-CVT is mature 

tech and works well.

 

Sorry for going off track here, it just such an interesting topic…..

an Ecoboost 2.0 hybrid is mind blowing.

Edited February 20 by jpd80

[akirby]

I thought of an analogy to explain the variable gearing.  Picture a runner on a long moving sidewalk like some airports.  The sidewalk, when running, is moving in the opposite direction from the runner.

 

The runner starts moving at top speed while the sidewalk is stopped.  That’s high gear.  As the sidewalk starts to move in the opposite direction the runner is still running at top speed but the faster the sidewalk moves the slower the runner’s progress relative to fixed objects.  When the sidewalk matches the runner’s speed that’s effectively neutral.

 

An airplane with a variable headwind would be another analogy.  All made possible by the planetary gearset.

[Rick73]

Union contract makes it sound like HF55 will eventually replace HF45 variant over next few years.  I hope Ford doesn’t see the higher torque rating of HF55 as an opportunity to replace Atkinson engines in basic-transportation hybrid vehicles like Maverick with EcoBoost.  I get EB for a Lincoln hybrid, but for Maverick hybrid and other economy-minded vehicles, HF55 could be fine with present or future Atkinson engines.

[twintornados]

57 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Union contract makes it sound like HF55 will eventually replace HF45 variant over next few years.  I hope Ford doesn’t see the higher torque rating of HF55 as an opportunity to replace Atkinson engines in basic-transportation hybrid vehicles like Maverick with EcoBoost.  I get EB for a Lincoln hybrid, but for Maverick hybrid and other economy-minded vehicles, HF55 could be fine with present or future Atkinson engines.

 

Imagine an HF55 coupled to the 1.5L I-3 EB motor.

[Rick73]

45 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

Imagine an HF55 coupled to the 1.5L I-3 EB motor.

Not sure what to imagine.

 

Anyway, some buyers would love it and others would avoid it.  Sounds like horrible business decision to me.  

[Flying68]

18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Mind you, the E-CVT was developed before automatic began mid gear lockup,

so part of me wonders if like RWD hybrid transmissions, Ford could use a 6AT

but with an electric motor in place of the torque converter…..

^^^^^ It’s probably not worth the effort to change now, the E-CVT is mature 

tech and works well.

 

You don't have to wonder.  The F-150 Powerboost hybrid and the Explorer/Aviator hybrids use an electric power unit mounted to the the 10R80 with a clutch system, but still has a locking torque converter for towing and performance purposes.

 

[Texasota]

6 hours ago, Flying68 said:

 

You don't have to wonder.  The F-150 Powerboost hybrid and the Explorer/Aviator hybrids use an electric power unit mounted to the the 10R80 with a clutch system, but still has a locking torque converter for towing and performance purposes.

 

That is also what is used in the PHEV Ranger and it will also be used in the PHEV Bronco.

[akirby]

26 minutes ago, Texasota said:

That is also what is used in the PHEV Ranger and it will also be used in the PHEV Bronco.

Its used in all Ford RWD hybrids or PHEVs.

[jpd80]

On 2/22/2024 at 12:27 AM, Flying68 said:

 

You don't have to wonder.  The F-150 Powerboost hybrid and the Explorer/Aviator hybrids use an electric power unit mounted to the the 10R80 with a clutch system, but still has a locking torque converter for towing and performance purposes.

Sorry, I misled you a bit by using 6AT without clarifying whether that was FWD or RWD transmission.
I was talking about using a drive motor in place of the torque converter in a 6F Transmission versus the E-CVT.

At the time the latter was developed, mid-gear lockup strategies were in their infancy, I think only ZF was using it.

 

Edited February 23 by jpd80

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Sorry, I misled you a bit by using 6AT without clarifying whether that was FWD or RWD transmission.
I was talking about using a drive motor in place of the torque converter in a 6F Transmission versus the E-CVT.

At the time the latter was developed, mid-gear lockup strategies were in their infancy, I think only ZF was using it.

 

While it may be possible to design what you describe, one of the limitations compared to E-CVT would likely be you’d end up with a much less powerful electric motor.  E-motors can develop a lot of power for their size and weight, but often at speeds of over 10,000 RPM.  If you recall from video above, in Ford’s E-CVT the motor had a gear ratio around 10:1 which allows operating at high RPMs.

 

When motor is at torque converter location, it essentially limits speed to well below 10,000 RPM, which limits power.  The original PowerBoost only had 35 kW motor (47 HP), though newest may be much higher.  Anyway, I think an E-Motor on a 6F would end up much less powerful than the one in E-CVT.  However, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t work well because other manufacturers are using relatively low-power E-motors on their hybrids and achieving excellent results.  On the other hand, to use transmission on a PHEV the electric motor needs to be very powerful for when it operates by itself.

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, Rick73 said:

While it may be possible to design what you describe, one of the limitations compared to E-CVT would likely be you’d end up with a much less powerful electric motor.  E-motors can develop a lot of power for their size and weight, but often at speeds of over 10,000 RPM.  If you recall from video above, in Ford’s E-CVT the motor had a gear ratio around 10:1 which allows operating at high RPMs.

 

When motor is at torque converter location, it essentially limits speed to well below 10,000 RPM, which limits power.  The original PowerBoost only had 35 kW motor (47 HP), though newest may be much higher.  Anyway, I think an E-Motor on a 6F would end up much less powerful than the one in E-CVT.  However, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t work well because other manufacturers are using relatively low-power E-motors on their hybrids and achieving excellent results.  On the other hand, to use transmission on a PHEV the electric motor needs to be very powerful for when it operates by itself.

Keep in mind that the 6F based E-CVT was basically a lower cost in-house replacement for the two previous

Aisin designed E-CVT s used by Ford. So probably looking at continuing existing CVT strategy but with 

a better design that it didn’t have to pay royalties on, so they  weren’t even thinking hybrid 6F…..

[slemke]

On 2/23/2024 at 9:17 AM, Rick73 said:

While it may be possible to design what you describe, one of the limitations compared to E-CVT would likely be you’d end up with a much less powerful electric motor.  E-motors can develop a lot of power for their size and weight, but often at speeds of over 10,000 RPM.  If you recall from video above, in Ford’s E-CVT the motor had a gear ratio around 10:1 which allows operating at high RPMs.

 

When motor is at torque converter location, it essentially limits speed to well below 10,000 RPM, which limits power.  The original PowerBoost only had 35 kW motor (47 HP), though newest may be much higher.  Anyway, I think an E-Motor on a 6F would end up much less powerful than the one in E-CVT.  However, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t work well because other manufacturers are using relatively low-power E-motors on their hybrids and achieving excellent results.  On the other hand, to use transmission on a PHEV the electric motor needs to be very powerful for when it operates by itself.

Aviator Grand Touring PHEV is 70kw.  The hybrid battery in the F150 is limited to 35kw.  Ford would need to increase the power output of the hybrid battery to use a more powerful motor.

[Gurgeh]

I took delivery of my Black Label hybrid 2024 Nautilus yesterday. I'll probably do a more complete post on it later, but thought I would drop in here my impressions on how the hybrid drives.

 

In short, it gives a truly impressive driving experience. In my view, it is so much better than the base 2.0 I4 turbo (which itself drives quite nicely) that I can't imagine anyone foregoing the modest $1,500 cost of the option, which can be chosen along with any other trim or option package. Ford wisely left the power train upgrade option on its own -- you aren't forced to combine it with anything else.

 

I am coming from a 2019 Black Label with the lovely 2.7 twin turbo V6. I have enjoyed that nearly trouble-free vehicle for the last 5 years and thought the 2.7 V6 ecoboost couldn't be beat by the new hybrid. I was wrong. On paper, the 2.7 has more power and more torque. In the real world in which we actually drive, this unique new hybrid system delivers its power and torque in a way that makes the 2.7 feel, frankly, a little clunky and less powerful (even though, obviously, it isn't).

 

This is the first hybrid vehicle I have driven or owned, but I think it all comes down to the way this particular hybrid set-up combines a more powerful ICE engine with an improved e-CVT. As you work your way through the gears in a standard transmission there is a certain sweet spot in any given gear. RPMs below that spot in that gear can make power feel a little sluggish and the torque just beyond reach. Above that level the engine can feel whiney, that it is overworking and really wants to be some other place. Now imagine if you had a transmission where you were never switching gears and where you were driving all the time in that specific sweet spot. The torque is always perfectly available and the power is always at its optimal point. That's what you get with this new hybrid configuration. You get terrific torque and power for a quick start and also for fast passing at highway speeds. But the improved driving feeling is due to more than just having a(n) (electronic) Continuously Variable Transmission. The ecoboost ICE engine and the electric motor pair together seamlessly, providing a driving feeling that is greater than the sum of its two parts. From start, you begin with the instant torque of the electric motor but then the ecoboost soon engages to keep the smooth and linear power surge going. If you didn't have an indicator on the dash showing when you are in electric-only or combined mode you would rarely notice the frequent movement between the two modes. The engine is so quiet when you are driving it can be difficult to tell when it is on -- this is particularly so since you never feel any shifting gears.

 

So, after having driven MKXs/Nautilus in their four power train configurations -- the new hybrid configuration, the 2.7 ecoboost V6, the 2.0 turbo I4, and the older MKX base naturally aspirated V6 -- I would rate the driving experience of those four power trains in that order, though none of them were bad.

 

I should probably just leave my initial driving impression at that, but there are a couple more things about the new Nautilus that are worth mentioning, purely from a driving standpoint. The vehicle feels lighter and more nimble, the suspension simultaneously more comfortable and responsive. I reluctantly went with the 22" wheels because, frankly, I had to if I wanted a Black Label (which I very much wanted for the improved interior materials and especially improved seating surface which makes the upgrade seats the most comfortable seats I've ever driven in). But the drive quality on those 22" wheels are actually better than on the 21" wheels from my outgoing 2019 Nautilus. I looked at the two vehicles side-by-side when I took in my 2019 to trade in and was surprised that the 22" wheels looked like they had more rubber than my old 21" wheels. The overall rim/tire combination on the new Nautilus appears higher than on the previous generation Nautilus, allowing for more rubber, though maybe it is just an optical illusion and maybe the improved drive quality all comes from an improved adaptive suspension. Don't know, but this is definitely the best quality ride of any vehicle I've ever owned. It obviously doesn't handle like a mustang, but it is a Lincoln and that is not what the brand is all about. That said, given the physics of a tall mid-sized crossover the handling was not bad.

 

I have some nitpicks with the new Nautilus (I mean, who came up with the idea of removing the bottle slot from the door storage area?), but I'm putting those aside for now until I'm ready to do a more complete review of the vehicle.

Edited February 27 by Gurgeh

[akirby]

Great review and glad to hear you’re happy with it.  I think the 2.7 in transverse applications has significant torque management to protect the rest of the drivetrain which hurts performance.  Thats probably the reason they killed the transverse version and no V6 for C2 vehicles.  Sounds like they made significant improvements on the C2 platform compared to CD4.

[Gurgeh]

One more thing. My typical daily driving is the worst for fuel efficiency for standard ICE engines: multiple less-than-five-mile trips in a day in heavy traffic with lots (and I mean lots) of stop lights. In normal mode in my 2019 (with the 2.7 V6 ecoboost) I was lucky to average 15.5 mpg. In sport mode I was lucky to get 14.5 mpg. But hybrids love that kind of driving, and so far I am getting nearly twice that. OTOH, on long trips in my 2019 I could get nearly 30 mpg. I don't expect to get much more than that in the hybrid.

Edited February 27 by Gurgeh

[Rick73]

On 2/24/2024 at 6:49 PM, slemke said:

Aviator Grand Touring PHEV is 70kw.  The hybrid battery in the F150 is limited to 35kw.  Ford would need to increase the power output of the hybrid battery to use a more powerful motor.

 

Found a couple of sources stating 75 kW (100 HP) which is huge upgrade over original F-150’s 35 kW power rating.   If Ford emphasize HEV over PHEV, upgraded versions of that transmission could find their way into HEV variants of Ranger, Explorer, or Transit.  We’ll have to see what direction Ford takes with Hybrids as they regroup on electrification.

 

Anyway, getting back to Nautilus transmission specifically, Lincoln states E-CVT has electric motor rated 100 kW (134 HP), which improves fuel economy considerably to 30 City, 31 Highway, and 30 Combined.  The non-hybrid Nautilus is rated 21 City, 29 Highway, and 24 Combined.  As expected city improvement is much greater than highway.

 

What I find most interesting is that Hybrid Nautilus “City” rating improvement from 21 to 30 MPG is considerably less than Hybrid Maverick from 23 to 42 MPG.   I know Ford is going after a different market with Nautilus, but results of “unique” set-up are interesting to compare nonetheless.

[Flying68]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

What I find most interesting is that Hybrid Nautilus “City” rating improvement from 21 to 30 MPG is considerably less than Hybrid Maverick from 23 to 42 MPG.   I know Ford is going after a different market with Nautilus, but results of “unique” set-up are interesting to compare nonetheless.

 

No AWD on Maverick Hybrid.  Also comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to a 2.5L Atkinson cycle hybrid that produces much less horsepower and torque is not the same as comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to the same 2.0L ecoboost hybrid that produces more total power and torque.

[Rick73]

10 hours ago, Flying68 said:

 

No AWD on Maverick Hybrid.  Also comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to a 2.5L Atkinson cycle hybrid that produces much less horsepower and torque is not the same as comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to the same 2.0L ecoboost hybrid that produces more total power and torque.

Yeah, we should only compare identical things so that there are no differences. ? 

[Gurgeh]

22 hours ago, Flying68 said:

 

No AWD on Maverick Hybrid.  Also comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to a 2.5L Atkinson cycle hybrid that produces much less horsepower and torque is not the same as comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to the same 2.0L ecoboost hybrid that produces more total power and torque.

I agree. It is a pretty pointless comparison. Why not compare a 1.5 I3 with a 2.7 twin scroll V6? Wow, the former gets better gas mileage! That is the kind of the comparison being suggested. I spent nearly $80k a few days ago for a luxury vehicle. That price included an extra $1.5k for the hybrid powertrain not because I needed to save a few dollars a week on gas (in which case I wouldn't have spent so much on a new luxury mid-sized crossover), but because I wanted the extra performance from the hybrid option (which pushes the base 2.0 ecoboost up to performance levels similar to the 2.7 ecoboost I had in my outgoing vehicle). Sure, it's nice seeing a modest mpg improvement -- because of the nature of my daily driving I could never get much over 15.5 mpg in city driving in my 2.7, but so far am getting nearly 30 mpg city with the 2.0 hybrid -- but that's not why I opted for the hybrid. If Lincoln had put the hybrid system used in the Maverick in the 2024 Nautilus they would sell very few hybrid configurations of the vehicle (I sure wouldn't have bought it). I'm not knocking the Maverick hybrid, which is great for it's purpose. But those two hybrids have very different configurations that serve different markets, different customers, and different purposes. So yeah, let's compare them.

Edited February 29 by Gurgeh

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, Gurgeh said:

I agree. It is a pretty pointless comparison. Why not compare a 1.5 I3 with a 2.7 twin scroll V6? Wow, the former gets better gas mileage! That is kind of the comparison being suggested. I spent nearly $80k a few days ago for a luxury vehicle. That price included an extra $1.5k for the hybrid powertrain not because I needed to save a few dollars a week on gas (in which I wouldn't have spent so much on a new luxury mid-sized crossover), but because I wanted the extra performance from the hybrid option (which pushes the base 2.0 ecoboost up to performance levels similar to the 2.7 ecoboost I had in my outgoing vehicle). Sure, it's nice seeing a modest mpg improvement -- because of the nature of my daily driving I could never get much over 15.5 mpg in city driving in my 2.7, but so far am getting nearly 30 mpg city with the 2.0 hybrid -- but that's not why I opted for the hybrid. If Lincoln had put the hybrid system used in the Maverick in the 2024 Nautilus they would sell very few hybrid configurations of the vehicle (I sure wouldn't have bought it). I'm not knocking the Maverick hybrid, which is great for it's purpose. But those two hybrids have very different configurations that serve different markets, different customers, and different purposes. So yeah, let's compare them.

Your original post was about the uniqueness of Ford combining a 2.0L Ecoboost with an E-CVT.  I personally find that subject very interesting, but obviously to discuss its merits (pros and cons), it requires comparing against other designs because there are no others exactly the same.  Let’s say we would have to think outside the box somewhat, or at least not limit conversation to a small box.  

 

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with you buying a Nautilus, which wasn’t part of original post in the first place.  If you actually want to  discuss original post objectively, and not take comments personally, I’m all in.  On the other hand if you now want to discuss your new Nautilus, I can respect that and will exit discussion.

 

P.S. — My mention of Maverick Hybrid was taken out of context.  I was not comparing Nautilus to Maverick, but rather the relative improvement different hybrid designs make, per original post subject matter.

[Flying68]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

P.S. — My mention of Maverick Hybrid was taken out of context.  I was not comparing Nautilus to Maverick, but rather the relative improvement different hybrid designs make, per original post subject matter.

 

Using the term "considerably less" in the context of comparing MPG change from ICE only to FHEV between the Maverick and the Nautilus implied a sense of surprise or disappointment.  When one objectively looks at the configuration of the two models and the actual change between the ICE and FHEV variants, it should have been no surprise that the Nautilus FHEV didn't have as big as improvement as the Maverick did for the reasons I cited above.  They are not directly comparable because the FHEV implementations are different with different goals.  What is impressive is that the implementation on the Nautilus was able to improve city MPG by 9 (30% less fuel consumption) while increasing total horsepower by 20% and torque by 7+%.