At the time, the brief was to develop a new cyclone V6 engine that could be used in RWD and FWD applications.
The Cyclone V6 was justified because it allowed Mulally to kill off loads of other V6 designs from previous decades.
As we’ve discussed before, the cost of replacing the existing V6 with an I-5/I-6 design is either not justified or not
a priority for Ford otherwise it would be copying Stellantis right? So maybe it’s better to watch them brag about
their I-6 engine while they slowly go bankrupt.
I think what we are reading is mostly rumors and hearsay, so I wouldn’t get bogged down in details we don’t know at this point, or accuracy of their speculation. I was simply trying to show that concept could be made to work for many buyers.
We know that pickup trucks can easily triple energy consumption per mile when towing heavy and large trailers close to their max tow rating, whether gas, hybrid, or electric. IMO the speculated 120 miles of range when empty could turn to 40~50 miles when towing heavy. My guess is that many buyers who tow most of the time will stick with conventional powertrains for now. On the other hand, buyers who only occasionally tow and drive empty much of the time may love an EREV. It’s hard to say since we don’t even know the price premium.
When I was in school back in the dark ages of electrification, the mechanical engineering department built two hybrids with same EREV powertrain concept, and they both had similar issues. One was a city bus with a diesel generator, and it performed well given available technology of the time. What helped a lot was that average power consumption was very low due to low city speeds and time the bus was stopped. The other vehicle, a small passenger car, was not as competitive because of low powertrain efficiency compared to conventional cars.
I have mentioned this before, and this thread may be good place to repeat. Perhaps Ford can engineer a truck-specific transmission using the same concept as Honda’s two-motor design. It’s essentially the same concept we have been discussing for EREV, except the generator and drive motor can be connected directly by a clutch. As I understand it, the latest Honda system operates just like an EV at low speeds and once up to cruising speed, the clutch connects engine to wheels (through gear reduction of course).
Let's see what Stellantis does. The Ram EREV will beat the F-series EREV to market, so Stellantis engineers are struggling with the same problem, and have probably already come up with a solution.
I don't want to disparage the source of this comment, but I feel he may not be impartial.
I do not see other automakers following Ford's quest for Smaller EVs.
I think focusing on one aspect of the EV tech, is dangerous. The success of the Tesla and the Chinese is based on a holistic approach to EV development, there is a a lot of innovation happening with EV motors, inverters, Aerodynamics, packaging, and supply chains, to reduce costs and improve performance.
This is a neat snapshot of how Hyundai is approaching improved efficiency on large EVs
OK, so we just bought a 2015 Navigator L. 72k miles, Texas car, it is for the most part in pristine condition, no rust or build-up anywhere.
Within 2 days, the drivers side running board is down. When we open the door, the car tries to lower the running board, but it is already in the down position. The electric motor keeps on running until we close the door, and I think by now all the gears will be stripped.
When we close the door, the motor stops running.
Why does it think the board is up when it is actually down? Are there any sensors on the boards?
Is it practical to replace the motor under the car, or just remove the whole system and replace it on the bench?
No, they were built locally in Melbourne at Ford Performance Vehicles, changing to the S/C 5.0 Miami from 2010 until 2014.
In the final years, engine assembly was moved to th Ford Broadmeadows plant.
Whether 5.4 or the later 5.0 Coyote based, all engines were fitted with steel cranks, aftermarket rods and forged pistons.
Just because a modern engine can spin to high RPMs to make a lot of power doesn’t mean it’s not most efficient at much lower RPM. Actually, in reality and for practical purposes a modern engine is most efficient over a large range of RPM and Power. It’s not just a single point on BSFC map. Obviously there is a theoretical highest point of efficiency somewhere, but incremental improvement over wide range surrounding that point in fuel economy is not worth discussing in practice (real world applications). I can’t find map for Coyote, but a Toyota 2.5L half the size can serve as example. It peaks at around 200 HP (150 kW) at 6500 RPM, yet best efficiency of 220 grams of fuel per kW-hr can be from under 2,000 to over 3,000 RPM, and power from roughly 20 to 75 kW. I expect the Coyote in F-150 tune is very similar to this Toyota except +/- 400 peak HP instead of 200.
Doing a little reverse engineering for perspective, I can estimate my 1-ton van requires about 70 HP on average at moderate Interstate speeds, and when towing a mid-size camper can jump up to as high as 120 HP on average. Going uphill makes these numbers much higher, but for an EREV the extra short-term power would come from batteries. For example, a mile-long hill that takes a minute at 60 MPH shouldn’t be an issue for a large battery. It would represent a small percentage of battery capacity.
better yet...my 22, 2 door stick Badlands has the High/ Lux andhas both of the options...maybe Dan missed the fact to get the 360 you need to go with the High/lux package...perhaps he wished it was in the lower levels...