Isn’t this a distinction without a difference for the most part? Unless I’m missing your differentiation, the engine/generator does both — charges reported 80 kWh battery so truck doesn’t need 400 to 500 kWh. By continuously charging relatively small battery (by Super Duty standards) it eliminates over 300 ~ 400 kWh.
Wow, I have contacted Ford Marketing and have a super nice gal that now gives me weekly up dates. We will see how that pans out. Next week when the 2025 banks open I hope to order one. As I said to Ford, a early 25 would be nice at this point. Whats funny is I am not mad at Ford or anyone. Its part of life. Now I would like some compinsation on the price after all and all and all. I am a Ford Guy. And plan on two F250 KR s for future. This F450 will be my 11th Ford that I have owned. Do not have to many left in my life. But do have family that will hopefuly be pro Ford...
But that requires transmissions, driveshafts, differentials and axles and compromises EV packaging and performance. It’s essentially just a large PHEV.
This has all the hallmarks of the first time that Ecosport went global, it entered the North American market
as an urban subcompact but ran up against the Chevrolet Trax that was pretty much better in every department.
Fast forward to the 2020s and Ford Europe has a lovely Puma that’s significantly better subcompact on the same
patform as the outgoing Ecosport. The problem for places like Australia is the delay in introducing Euro 6 compliant
fuels until the end of 2025 which means, Puma is off the table after Europe stops making the Euro 5 version.
I do hope that Ford is successful with the Ecosport but my fear is that the bar has been raised so much by Puma.
If it’s just another low cost vehicle, it will get eaten alive by much better competition. At a minimum, it needs
a hybrid version, just selling it s an ICE in a commodity based market will be a quick way to the poor house.
Lots of good points in your above post, Jpd. But, the 10R modular transmission in the Ranger PHEV houses an electric motor that produces just over 100 HP which and produces gobs of torque. I was thinking of a Super Duty HEV or PHEV with the same ICE that they currently offer in the Super Duty (just like the Ranger PHEV utilizes the same 2.3 Ecoboost). That implementation would eliminate any concerns with large load up the Ike Gauntlet but also allows for some EV only driving for a Super Duty PHEV in urban/city conditions. It also would have Pro Power Onboard which customers love.
Absolutely agree, Farley is keeping Ford on safe ground with smaller battery compact/Mid Sized BEV development
but remember that CE1 was developed in silence as a separate side bet, Ford could deny it project was a bust..
Again agree but for the moment, Ford has to recognise and accept the things it cannot do economically instead
of blindly forging ahead hoping something changes to make its larger vehicles somehow more cost effective.
The biggest fear Ford has is that its next Gen TE1 F Truck gets laughed off stage and doesn’t sell worth a lick.
It may as well keep evolving Lightning with better batteries, motors and control systems, use it as the test bed
until battery technology evolves to a point where it becomes more economical and a direct replacement for ICE.
I think the real answer is a next Gen solid state battery with much higher energy density, smaller size and weight.
Everything hinges on that more so than incremental efficiency gains and cost reductions in motors transmissions
and control systems, those are important bu to a less degree than the battery.
That’s a great innovation but the problem remains with actual charging stations, the quick high capacity power draw
required for public charge stations will be an huge ongoing challenge for power utilities and their distribution networks.
Fine to perfect the onboard power charging systems but the power supply has to be able to deliver maximum required.
Agree with everything you said above.
I’d like to expand on the basic energy requirements for trucks both gas and electric..
I think Ford’s problem is that it started with the idea of using the 5.0 coyote as a hybrid or range extender.
And that would be a natural conclusion if approached as a doubling of the 2.5 I-4 Hybrid but here’s the rub….
Once you get to a full sized 1500 pickup let alone super duty, something incredible happens with energy demand.
The moment people start using that towing capacity, say 7,000 - 10,000 lb, there is an immediate tripling of the
energy required to drive on reasonably flat roads. In the 5.0 F150, cruise fuel economy goes from 22 to 7 mpg,
in a Lightning, the range becomes an alarming one third of the advertised range. Now think what a long grade does…
For long grade towing energy usage, the only real testing I can find is TFL (Truck Fast Lane) tests on Ike Gauntlet,
a long eight mile climb at altitude that tests gasoline and diesel trucks, the atmos losing significant HP due to altitude.
What I noticed is something like the 5.0 F150 with maxed out towing gets something like 2.8 mpg up the climb or like
40% of the earlier 7 mpg towing fuel economy mentioned ……..that total effort is like 8 times the energy driving light.
Sorry for the long winded explanation but I think it’s important to see the task in front of Ford developing any sort
of electrified Super Duty, be that a hybrid, PHEV or EREV. Ford knows that increasing the engine /generator size
in it EREV will cure the range anxiety but maybe undoing other claims of added fuel efficiency benefits.
I suspect that part of the problem with a HEV/PHEV SD is that the electric motor in the 10R Trans cannot be made
big enough to supplement power when towing, especially as a power added going up long grades.
So the EREV using a 5.0 driving a generator that replaces the 10R transmission runs into a big problem towing
a loaded trailer up a long grade, it can’t replace enough of the electric energy and thus, depletes the smallish
battery at an alarming rate. If it doesn’t work properly, it will get hammered by the 2500/SD community.
Sales numbers for first half of 2024 are 31% growth for Tundra, 20% decline for Ram P/U. That's for 1500 and HD versions of Ram combined. Ram 1500 alone probably declined even more
Lets figure this out with Math.
The question is how much power is needed to tow X Mass Y distance
The Silverado EV towed a 6,500 lb car enclosed car trailer 232 miles on a charge
The Silverado used 204.9 KWh.
It consumed 1.13 KWh per Mile.
To match that with 80KWh with a Range Extender would look like 92 miles (80KWh) from the Battery+ 139 miles (120KWh) from the Range extender.
One gallon of gasoline equals 33.7 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity.
ICE engines are ~ 20-40% efficient
At 30% efficiency, the range extender would need 12 gallons of gas to generate 120KWh
If they averaged 65mph (65mph/232mph)*204.9KWh= an average of 57.4KW, or 77hp were used to pull that trailer.
If the steady-state energy requirements were doubled to ~154hp.
It makes sense to target the output of the Range Extender at 150-170hp (110-125 KW) close to 2x the Average power demand. Using the Battery to boost acceleration and capture the energy from deceleration.
Of course, this system could use many operational patterns. IMO, range extenders should be optimized to be used as a battery substitute, not to charge the battery.