Increasing Usable Powerboost Battery storage capacity

[HammaMan]

I am really hoping that the "2nd generation" Powerboost has a more robust and powerful electric motor along with a bigger battery. Though, the Powerboost can't really spare any more payload either. HDPP available on a "2nd generation" Powerboost would be great in theory. But I am not an engineer who knows if that's feasible in the real world.

The PB's motor is MORE than enough to do this. The problem is that the transmission DOES NOT take into account the electric motor. It doesn't care if the ice is on or off, it shifts the same. If it went 1-4 on the electric motor alone running up to ~3.5krpm, you'd be surprised at just how quick the truck will accelerate. It's not going to set any records, but for your average around town, it's got more than enough power to accelerate faster than you need it to. Granted the unit in the aviator that's double the specs of the PB's motor would be a welcome swap.

We all welcome a PHEV variant w/ ~30+ miles of pure electric range. Even better if they tailored the PPOB to run in hybrid mode being able to use at least 50% of the HVB in generator mode (run a load off HVB, then start and charge it back up over ~20m or so). In-fact, I believe at this point the lightning was a mistake to be pure EV. It should have been a PHEV with a new drivetrain layout entirely. Ford had a great opportunity (still does) to make a truly revolutionary powertrain that understands towing and EVs don't go together.

Between battery shortcomings (both density and charge rates) and charging infrastructure overall (truly a big deal), we're a good 15 years or more from practical towing EVs. The more I think about the situation, the more I come back to a platform that's a full-on EV, but can option in a power pack unit. A ground up new engine / generator unit that's designed to run at a static RPM and its sole function is to generate electricity using fossil fuels, as efficiently as possible which includes extracting as much electricity from the combustion heat as possible (where a majority of the waste goes).

Just about every power plant creates electricity by using a heat source to create steam and turn a turbine. Just seems like a wasted opportunity with people believing the choice is binary. A semi truck could be run off of a small 150HP engine / generator while climbing steep grades like a passenger car, only to soak up all of the energy on its way back down (there's plenty of ways to incorporate features into trailers too -- just lacking people to think outside of the box).

Sponsored

 

[Aron]

I am really hoping that the "2nd generation" Powerboost has a more robust and powerful electric motor along with a bigger battery. Though, the Powerboost can't really spare any more payload either. HDPP available on a "2nd generation" Powerboost would be great in theory. But I am not an engineer who knows if that's feasible in the real world.

I'm just hoping that there IS a 2nd gen Powerboost in the works. With some (very big) states talking about disallowing ICE sales after 2035, I wonder if Ford would spend the design and development resources to move forward with something that may have a very limited shelf life?

 

[Aron]

Given the density of some of these battery inverter generators, you could probably double the capacity of the onboard battery with a drop in battery pack accessory. I'm thinking something similar in size of the swing out storage boxes that you could connect to the panel in the bed or something provided the harness was setup for it so it would link to the onboard battery when connected. Wouldn't lose a lot of bed space and could be easily built as a portable inverter as well.

Or maybe utilizing the empty space that exists under the canister of many of the roll-up style of tonneau covers?

 

[LHoffmanjr22]

I'm just hoping that there IS a 2nd gen Powerboost in the works. With some (very big) states talking about disallowing ICE sales after 2035, I wonder if Ford would spend the design and development resources to move forward with something that may have a very limited shelf life?

I sure hope so. I know that electric only isn't a viable option for me and my use cases with the way battery technology and charging infrastructure stand. I know that a lot can and most likely will change between now and then, but it seems that as investments are made in battery technology and charging, it would be pretty simple for Ford or any other company that is making hybrid vehicles to incorporate that new tech into hybrid vehicles while also working on electric only. There's a lot of crossover between the two. But again, I am not an engineer, so maybe that's just wishful thinking.

 

[Aron]

I sure hope so. I know that electric only isn't a viable option for me and my use cases with the way battery technology and charging infrastructure stand. I know that a lot can and most likely will change between now and then, but it seems that as investments are made in battery technology and charging, it would be pretty simple for Ford or any other company that is making hybrid vehicles to incorporate that new tech into hybrid vehicles while also working on electric only. There's a lot of crossover between the two. But again, I am not an engineer, so maybe that's just wishful thinking.

I'm with you there. I bought this truck for towing long distances, something that BEVs are particularly weak at. I have no idea what my needs will be like in 12 years, but I have a hard time believing that they'll have solved that issue that fast.

Honestly, I'm not too worried about the state's BEV 2035 requirements. As we approach that deadline, if BEV technology isn't up to snuff, I have no doubt that the politicians will change their tune. But it may have an impact upon the development resources that vehicle manufacturers are willing to invest between now and then.

 

[Snakebitten]

Those new carb rules have already been substantially altered from what was originally been touted publicly.

Remember when it was 2030?
Now it's 2035?
Remember when it was no more ICE?
Now it's OK to have ICE as long as it has a HVB too. (The current Powerboost could be altered easily (relatively) to be 100% compliant for production in 2035.

And the recent carb 2035 rules even exempt 3/4 ton trucks and above.

Reality eventually gets to play its cards at the table of posturing. ??

And if I had to predict, my beloved Powerboost is the poster child of what's to come. The 3.5 Ecoboost might not be in the next Powerboost, but that HVB and ProPower isn't going away. This is where light duty trucks are going.

 

[thudnblunder]

I've seen this question multiple times here about larger batteries. How often are people getting their battery "full" and running in electric only until the SOC is low enough to recharge the battery BEFORE the engine kicks back on due to power demand?

I have a very hybrid friendly drive and routinely get ⅓ of my miles in electric only. Despite that, there's only one stretch of road on my daily commute I could actually use added battery capacity, and it would only get me maybe an extra ¼ mi of electric only driving. The electric motor doesn't have the power to maintain anything more than 40-45 on even minor inclines. I checked the off-road screen many times, and 1° as measured by the truck is too steep.

Sure, a larger battery would help idle time and generator mode, but I feel like these aren't typical usage cases that would see large added benefit. Now, if you had a larger motor that could actually propel the truck, maybe 50% greater power output, then I could definitely see the benefit to the larger battery pack.

I wonder if even after the gas engine kicks in because the motor isn't powerful enough for the work demand, is there a bias? As in is the motor still working at close to 100% with the gas engine filling in the rest, or if the gas engine coming on means that the motor is almost "coasting"?

Because if the output bias is on the motor first and gas engine second when both are on, then a bigger battery would still yield benefits. I live in NorCal with lots of hills. A bigger battery to handle all the braking regen would be nice.

 

[thudnblunder]

Also the packaging on PB battery is fairly efficient considering that there's far more than just the battery stuffed into that enclosure.

Makes me wonder if the le$$ than shocking retail price for the battery is just the battery? Or is it the enclosure and everything in it?

As a tangential data point, this is my ebike battery. 630Wh currently selling for $579 - https://ebikespartsandaccessories.c...h-active-performance-line-drive-systems-630wh

I've had it for over two years, given my riding history, its probably had 300 full cycles, each cycle being charge to 100%, discharge to <10%. It does not have active cooling, but then the motor it powers has a nominal load of 250W, so current drain is a lot lower than with the PB. It also takes 2.5 hours to charge vs the PowerBoost's much higher charge/discharge current.

 

[ldsavow]

As a tangential data point, this is my ebike battery. 630Wh currently selling for $579 - https://ebikespartsandaccessories.c...h-active-performance-line-drive-systems-630wh

I've had it for over two years, given my riding history, its probably had 300 full cycles, each cycle being charge to 100%, discharge to <10%. It does not have active cooling, but then the motor it powers has a nominal load of 250W, so current drain is a lot lower than with the PB. It also takes 2.5 hours to charge vs the PowerBoost's much higher charge/discharge current.

Like you I had a pair of Specialized Turbo Lenovo mountain bikes each with the 750wh battery.
Performance was outstanding time and time again.

I think Ford is just plain PLAYING IT SAFE by imposing such restrictive power limits on the battery to ENSURE maximum possible life with PLANNED additional power access as the years roll by to ensure the same total number of consumable watts over the projected life of the battery.

 

[thudnblunder]

Like you I had a pair of Specialized Turbo Lenovo mountain bikes each with the 750wh battery.
Performance was outstanding time and time again.

I think Ford is just plain PLAYING IT SAFE by imposing such restrictive power limits on the battery to ENSURE maximum possible life with PLANNED additional power access as the years roll by to ensure the same total number of consumable watts over the projected life of the battery.

Imagine a world where we could increase the PowerBoost’s onboard battery pack threefold by plugging into our bikes lol

 

[Snakebitten]

I wonder if even after the gas engine kicks in because the motor isn't powerful enough for the work demand, is there a bias? As in is the motor still working at close to 100% with the gas engine filling in the rest, or if the gas engine coming on means that the motor is almost "coasting"?

Because if the output bias is on the motor first and gas engine second when both are on, then a bigger battery would still yield benefits. I live in NorCal with lots of hills. A bigger battery to handle all the braking regen would be nice.

It's easy to monitor how much "power" the electric motor is providing during ICE-on driving. The PID for Amps/in-out of the High Voltage battery is a direct correlation to what the motor is drawing. However a small percentage of the draw is the portion being used to maintain the 12V battery-system, but if you sat idling for an hour and watch the draw on the High Voltage battery when the ICE is off, you would get an idea of how little that draw is compared to the electric motor being used for propulsion.

In other words, if you are driving while the ICE is running, and you see +2 or 3 amps being pulled from the battery, that's NOT the electric motor providing even 1% of the torque request.
But if you have the truck set to cruise control at 30mph and you are in EV mode, you KNOW that the 20amp draw on the High Voltage battery IS what is propelling you along at 30mph.

 

[Porpoise Hork]

This thread got me curious. My dad has a 22 Highlander hybrid and he was shocked that the PB didn't get better mpg. So I wanted to compare it to the PB and see how it stacked up.

The PB as we know has a 1.5KW/h battery, with 35kW inline electric motor. Vehicle weight 5800 +/- pounds. Lastly the 3.5 twin turbo Eco to round things out. Advertised mileage 23/23 with real world between 22-28.

The 22 Highlander Hybrid has a 1.9KW/h (NiMH) battery with direct drive 40 kW motor (53hp 89 lbs ft) on the rear axle. ICE 2.5L I4 rated for 186 HP. Vehicle weight is 4,553 lb Advertised mileage 35mpg and easily hits 45+ mpg.


So not only does the PB have almost .5 KW less battery but also a significantly less powerful electric motor for a vehicle that weighs 1300 more pounds. I know I know, these are two COMPLETELY different vehicles with entirely different powertrain setups. The point to this is that Ford engineers were very conservative with how they set this truck up. Had they put either a larger battery or stronger DC motor so the EV side did more work it probably would have been a much better match for this truck. Hell they might have even been able to do better with the 2.7 Eco joined to a 50-60KW electric motor and a 2.5-3KW battery. I'd be willing to bet a setup like that would get better mileage and similar performance provided they allowed the EV side to do more work in light to light city driving.

 

[HammaMan]

Hell they might have even been able to do better with the 2.7 Eco joined to a 50-60KW electric motor and a 2.5-3KW battery. I'd be willing to bet a setup like that would get better mileage and similar performance provided they allowed the EV side to do more work in light to light city driving.

The aviator weighs as much as the PB does, yet it's a smaller vehicle.

 

[jcaspar]

This thread got me curious. My dad has a 22 Highlander hybrid and he was shocked that the PB didn't get better mpg. So I wanted to compare it to the PB and see how it stacked up.

The PB as we know has a 1.5KW/h battery, with 35kW inline electric motor. Vehicle weight 5800 +/- pounds. Lastly the 3.5 twin turbo Eco to round things out. Advertised mileage 23/23 with real world between 22-28.

The 22 Highlander Hybrid has a 1.9KW/h (NiMH) battery with direct drive 40 kW motor (53hp 89 lbs ft) on the rear axle. ICE 2.5L I4 rated for 186 HP. Vehicle weight is 4,553 lb Advertised mileage 35mpg and easily hits 45+ mpg.


So not only does the PB have almost .5 KW less battery but also a significantly less powerful electric motor for a vehicle that weighs 1300 more pounds. I know I know, these are two COMPLETELY different vehicles with entirely different powertrain setups. The point to this is that Ford engineers were very conservative with how they set this truck up. Had they put either a larger battery or stronger DC motor so the EV side did more work it probably would have been a much better match for this truck. Hell they might have even been able to do better with the 2.7 Eco joined to a 50-60KW electric motor and a 2.5-3KW battery. I'd be willing to bet a setup like that would get better mileage and similar performance provided they allowed the EV side to do more work in light to light city driving.

Don't forget the Highlander engine has about 190 less HP and it is an utter slug compared to a PowerBoost.

 

[Porpoise Hork]

It is definitely not the quick by any stretch. That's for sure.

The aviator weighs as much as the PB does, yet it's a smaller vehicle.

That 13.6 kWh battery certainly adds a significant amount of weight, that's for sure.

Sponsored