Future Powerboost hybrid option?

[jalbano2]

New Ranger gets a hybrid and a DIESEL

Diesel is for international markets

Sponsored

 

[spuds_mackenzie]

when he used the term PowerBoost I thought he was talking about the PowerBoost F150, which is the only vehicle I have seen that term used on. The PowerBoost F150 a very different powertrain setup vs what the Maverick has. If all he is talking about is a PHEV, then yea bigger battery and slap some motors on the rear wheels for AWD.

Yep, talking about the f-150 Powerboost.

 

[brnpttmn]

Yep, talking about the f-150 Powerboost.

What is it about the power boost design (a mild parallel hybrid) that you'd prefer over the Maverick's design (power split)?

 

[icegradner]

What is it about the power boost design (a mild parallel hybrid) that you'd prefer over the Maverick's design (power split)?

The only reason to want that setup is more outright power, seems simple enough. If the electric motor and the gas motor always worked together (no Atkinson cycle) it would deliver more horses, no doubt about it.

 

[brnpttmn]

The only reason to want that setup is more outright power, seems simple enough. If the electric motor and the gas motor always worked together (no Atkinson cycle) it would deliver more horses, no doubt about it.

There's nothing stopping the power split from doing that (delivering more HP). Simply changing the battery capacity and output to maximize the current electric motor should produce max/combined 300hp. That's pretty much what the RAV4 prime does (plus adding rear motor/AWD).

 

[fbov]

What is it about the power boost design (a mild parallel hybrid) that you'd prefer over the Maverick's design (power split)?

PowerBoost is a "torque converter replacement" hybrid. An electric motor is placed between the engine and transmission, where you'd normally find a lock-up TC. It's a conventional drivetrain with a novel advancement to the lock-up torque converter. Conventional engine, conventional transmission. Uses the motor mostly to start from a stop, and may be able to go slow/downhill under EV. No mileage benefit, and usually a towing hit for the added weight.

But it's very reliable, and does see a slight mileage benefit, 1 mpg on the EPA rating.

This approach is used extensively by Hyundai; my wife's Sonata Hybrid has a 35kW DC motor that redlines at 3,000 RPM, and a 20kW belt-driven "super alternator. It can give high mileage, when paired with a small ICE with VVT that, I think, slips into an Atkinson mode when power demands are low.

The only reason to want that setup is more outright power, seems simple enough. If the electric motor and the gas motor always worked together (no Atkinson cycle) it would deliver more horses, no doubt about it.

Yep,

There's nothing stopping the power split from doing that (delivering more HP). Simply changing the battery capacity and output to maximize the current electric motor should produce max/combined 300hp. That's pretty much what the RAV4 prime does (plus adding rear motor/AWD).

Two things....

Battery capacity has nothing to do with motor power. It has a lot to do with how long you can provide power, but not how much you can get.

Electric motors are great at low RPM, but torque falls off quickly past the current-limited plateau. Since power is torque x RPM, a motor's power, be it HP or kW, is not its strong suit. The ICE is the opposite; no torque below idle speed, but gobs of power in the upper 1/3 of the RPM range.

Since the traction motor is connected to the road, it's RPM is constrained. You can't run it at low RPM if the car is going fast enough for the ICE to put out much power. RAV4 uses the Corsair approach.

 

[icegradner]

Yup, that's why Formula E race cars (electric race cars for those not in the know) added physical stepped gearing to the electric drive-train, made them way faster than a eCVT type transmission setup. All electric vehicles show that they can provide more than enough torque, even at high speeds. Split power system hybrids limit that for efficiency and cost reasons.

 

[2022EOW]

Screw the gas mileage, give me a powerboost hybrid. How amazing would that be?

Stupid. Kind of negates the whole reason for the hybrid, efficiency.

 

[JASmith]

Just make it a hybrid diesel and be done with it. Imagine the torque output, while you get 60mpg!

There's a reason these are rare. Electric motors have good low speed performance and poor high speed, and the diesel is the same. Gobs of low RPM torque is just harder on a transmission, and while eCVTs are the most efficient, you wouldn't really benefit from its ability to hold high RPMs since neither the electric motor or diesel are helping much held up high. Turbo diesels also generally cost more, as do hybrids (at least compared to just naturally aspirated engines alone), so that would likely be a pretty expensive powertrain.

Getting 37mpg out of cheap 87 regular octane is generally high enough economy that fuel usage becomes a very minor part of the ownership expense already.

People often forget for example that while 10mpg vs 20mpg is a huge difference, 40mpg vs 50mpg isn't, even though both are a 10mpg improvement.

Going from 10->20 would reduce fuel cost over 50K miles by $7,500, but 40->50 reduces fuel cost only $750, and going from 50->60 is only a $500 difference so you can see the diminishing returns.

 

[WesM]

There's a reason these are rare. Electric motors have good low speed performance and poor high speed, and the diesel is the same. Gobs of low RPM torque is just harder on a transmission, and while eCVTs are the most efficient, you wouldn't really benefit from its ability to hold high RPMs since neither the electric motor or diesel are helping much held up high. Turbo diesels also generally cost more, as do hybrids (at least compared to just naturally aspirated engines alone), so that would likely be a pretty expensive powertrain.

Getting 37mpg out of cheap 87 regular octane is generally high enough economy that fuel usage becomes a very minor part of the ownership expense already.

People often forget for example that while 10mpg vs 20mpg is a huge difference, 40mpg vs 50mpg isn't, even though both are a 10mpg improvement.

Going from 10->20 would reduce fuel cost over 50K miles by $7,500, but 40->50 reduces fuel cost only $750, and going from 50->60 is only a $500 difference so you can see the diminishing returns.

Both diesel engines and electric motors can be tuned for various output RPMs, while providing more efficiency and torque than their regular gas counterparts. You are right though, a diesel electric hybrid would be expensive.

Part of the problem is small diesel engines just never got the same developmental resources as gas ever did, its technologically behind what it should be and does not have the manufacturing scalability of gas. At this point I suspect diesel will be relegated to heavy equipment and we will see electric replace the smaller use cases (consumer trucks etc).

Like you said, what we pay on gas tends to be a very small part of vehicle ownership. Maybe thats why diesels never got a good hold, their up front expense (especially once all the emissions regulations started hitting) could not be justified in the long run. Not to mention the perception the US public has of diesels being dirty and loud.

 

[garnermike]

Screw the gas mileage, give me a powerboost hybrid. How amazing would that be?

So, if you ordered a Mav hybrid, and mpg doesn't interest you, then the question: Why'd you order one?

 

[garnermike]

There's a reason these are rare. Electric motors have good low speed performance and poor high speed, and the diesel is the same. Gobs of low RPM torque is just harder on a transmission, and while eCVTs are the most efficient, you wouldn't really benefit from its ability to hold high RPMs since neither the electric motor or diesel are helping much held up high. Turbo diesels also generally cost more, as do hybrids (at least compared to just naturally aspirated engines alone), so that would likely be a pretty expensive powertrain.

Getting 37mpg out of cheap 87 regular octane is generally high enough economy that fuel usage becomes a very minor part of the ownership expense already.

People often forget for example that while 10mpg vs 20mpg is a huge difference, 40mpg vs 50mpg isn't, even though both are a 10mpg improvement.

Going from 10->20 would reduce fuel cost over 50K miles by $7,500, but 40->50 reduces fuel cost only $750, and going from 50->60 is only a $500 difference so you can see the diminishing returns.

My 2019 Ranger got around 22 in mixed driving. The Maverick I ordered will reportedly get 37mpg. That's a big mpg difference and a big savings.

 

[fbov]

... a diesel electric hybrid would be expensive.

That they are!

 

[brnpttmn]

Two things....

Battery capacity has nothing to do with motor power. It has a lot to do with how long you can provide power, but not how much you can get.

Electric motors are great at low RPM, but torque falls off quickly past the current-limited plateau. Since power is torque x RPM, a motor's power, be it HP or kW, is not its strong suit. The ICE is the opposite; no torque below idle speed, but gobs of power in the upper 1/3 of the RPM range.

Since the traction motor is connected to the road, it's RPM is constrained. You can't run it at low RPM if the car is going fast enough for the ICE to put out much power. RAV4 uses the Corsair approach.

I did say capacity and output. To effectively get the HP that the Maverick's motor is capable (IIRC, about 135hp), the battery would need greater power output (to reach peak power) and greater capacity (so it could run for more than a few seconds). Literally, just doing that could get the current Maverick hybrid to approach 300 peak combined hp.

The constrained RPM is a good point. I wasn't able to think of any real advantage of the purely parallel design versus power split.

 

[spuds_mackenzie]

So, if you ordered a Mav hybrid, and mpg doesn't interest you, then the question: Why'd you order one?

For the size mostly, but a powerboost version would still get better mpg than the powerboost F150.

Sponsored