Ramcharger: How (Can?) Ford Respond - A Discussion

[dafish]

A few comments to open this discussion, a few of which I’ll elaborate on.

1. Todays Powerboost architecture is a dead-end.
2. An Ecoboost driven generator is inappropriate.
3. Fords PB/NA frames, today, are too weak.
4. Ford doesn’t need a new design, they need to get their shit together and quite pissing off their customers and service centers. That PB is regarded, forum fans or not, as poorly as it is reported to be is a black eye Ford needs to make right.
5. Ford may, probably can, leverage their Lightening platform.
6. Conceptually Ramcharger is very close to an ideal design. It cannot be trumped, but it can be improved.

Supporting Statements:

1. Using a torque converter shim (as PB does):
   1. Undermines efficiency in both power delivery and regen capture:
   2. Limits more HP severely.
2. Using Ecoboost as generator would make no sense. Turbo engines are typically noticable less fuel efficient per HP delivered (timing and fuel enrichment demands) relative to an NA engine.
   1. An ecoboost works in traditional sense because in normal use it’s under limited load = not under boost. As a generator such an engine, when on, would be under considerable load. NA wins here.
3. Frame: I don’t think I need to even support this, right? PB payload is already underwhelming.
4. Misc:
   1. Stop deleting content
   2. Start making customer service as important as your stock price.
   3. No, I don’t care if Ford goes direct to consumer for EV/PHEV sales. In fact I think they should.
      1. The dealers need to go back to customer service as a profit center. Something they seem to have forgotten.

What Would I Like To See?

One reason I reserved a Ramcharger so quickly is I’d already thought through what the mfg’s needed to do. Ramcharger is really close. However, here’s what I as a layman had as my ideal design, and what Ford should (IMHO) do:

1. Start with an EV “Skateboard” frame, perhaps the lightning frame can be used.
2. Narrow up the darn thing. Look, most of us don’t need 3 adult across seating in a half ton. We’re paying a drag penalty every mile for body width that has no meaning. I could cut 4-6” of width out and never miss it.
   1. Keep all that rear seat legroom though!
3. Targets:
   1. 425hp/500ft lbs
   2. 80 miles of unloaden range (I'm thinking 60KW)
   3. LFP batteries.
   4. 2000lb payload in XLT trim.
4. Driveline:
   1. 3L Nano V-6, GDI, NA.
      1. 120hp continuous @3K RPM
      2. 200 Peak @ 5k
   2. Planetary E-CVT (They already have this IP)
   3. Drive one axle from the E-CVT
   4. Remaining axle is EV only ~ 225hp
      1. Enough for day to day, even merging etc.
5. Misc:
   1. Heatpump
   2. 12KW output inverter
   3. E-LSD in back
   4. Longbed option
   5. Steal or replicate the GM tailgate.
   6. Get your supplier house in order and stop content deletes.
   7. There is growing evidence of paint delamination due to aluminum corrosion. Not a problem for an airplane, why isn’t Ford prepping the aluminum better?

What do I get vs Ramcharger?

1. A more efficient generator, the ability to directly drive an axle when needed, charge when needed, and an infinite combination of the two / as well as drive ratios.
   1. 500cc per cylinder has been proven to be optimum displacement to boot.
2. More efficiency when running extended range (I can direct drive the thing), and/or variably gear it down and charge the battery back up.
3. Substantially less weight.
4. Longer, basically lifetime, battery longevity.
5. No concerns about oxidization for steel or aluminum.
6. Enough power to run most homes, including A/C plants now.
7. Still enough power and battery reserve to meet almost any towing demands. And if, should I need 300HP continuous for some odd reason, I’m prepared to accept there is a limit to how long I can do that. In that it’ll be something like 30 minutes, I’m pretty OK with that.
8. All of which means better efficiency around town, on the road, and while towing.

OK, what do you think Ford should, could do?

Disclaimer: While I understand a planetary E-CVT reasonably well, I do not know the efficiency implicit in running current into the motor/generator adequate to provide backpressure to force drive ratio changes. It's certainly effective in the Toyota Prime, the Ford Escape, and the Pacifica PHEV though. Still, I'm not an automotive engineer. I may be full of shite (almost a given).

Sponsored

 

[Snakebitten]

I'm not against the RamCharger approach. And I've already commented as such on the RamCharger thread. It's intriguing to me.
But if the truck improves in Payload and purchase price by offering a "small battery" version, I'd probably opt for that configuration. I don't need the pure EV range anti-anxiety battery because it's not a pure EV. And although I don't know what the perfect ratio of onboard charger Kilowatts to battery size is, I'm guessing I could get away far less than the ~145 mile EV range it's claiming.

Afterall, pure EV mileage isn't nearly the concern if you can fire up the charger anytime you desire.

Still, if Ford was to build a nice blend of Plug-in Hybrid components into the Powerboost, and address the Payload penalty appropriately, it'd be a tough choice for me.

As much heat as the Powerboost has caused Ford, and it's their own doing, I've had fabulous luck with them so far. So my decision between the RamCharger and the PHEV Powerboost wouldn't be swayed much by the broken axle bolts, leaking heat exchanger tubes, and SSN.

 

[Samson16]

No one knows what rotten eggs are hiding in the RC build. It’s funny to see folks who abhor the fresh-design growing pains of the PB, yet are first in line to sign up for the RC as if it will be the world’s first trouble free initial model rollout! ?

 

[JExpedition07]

Sounds like a bunch of unnecessary bullshit to me. To be clear not trying to be rude, that’s just what crossed my mind lol. There is no reason for Ford to respond imo. I’ll take a more powerful ICE engine sans the generator/hybridization function and switch to an EV once solid state batteries are mass produced at the turn of the decade and offer faster/more widespread charging. Interesting approach but very unnecessary. F-150 frame weak? What? That statement is just silly. It’s a fully boxed hydroformed steel frame. There is nothing weak about it. Sissy leaf springs and the tires on the pavement are what limit payload.

If anything add a larger battery and motor to the existing longitudinal 3.5 EB hybrid system. If you really wanted to get a down and dirty powerful longitudinal hybrid you could hook the 5.0L V8 up to a similar system. The engine would almost never need to leave V-4 mode unless under hefty acceleration for merging and being N/A would get solid economy #’s. I’d consider a hybrid, but I’m not jumping up and down for one. The 5.0 and 3.5 both return solid MPG while delivering 400 HP.

 

[dafish]

Simpson:

Not sure how that furthers the thread, but glad we're amusing you. I see comparing the two as a flawed concept, not sure how you got there. Ergo the discussion: How does Ford respond? Ford for thought for you:

• PB has been around for what, 3 years now? That relatively simple architecture is still having "fresh design growing pains?". Interesting perspective.
• I'm sure most of us with reservations realize that signing up means we have the option to buy - doesn't mean we have to take it. Heck, that alone is worth the $100, even if they keep it. I'm sure I'm not alone in that perspective.
• The other thing reservations do is show demand to industry. I'm certain Ford and GM are watching to see how this is received. Toyota should be, but to my knowledge they don't have anything to leverage to build into this. Stellantis had the REV, Ford and GM both have EV trucks, and thus a start.

Skipping the "We" in all our reservations, I can speak to mine: As a solar owner my options are wider than most folks. I literally have 3MW of power per year that I either use or give away for free. That's a lot like free gasoline. For me PB was nothing more than a stop-gap solution. Once Ford announced they weren't bringing the PHEV Ranger to the US I no longer had a long-term solution. Ramcharger solves that. Today Ford has literally nothing like it.

Will Stellantis provide better support than Ford? What's the interim solution? How long should I wait? These are all TBD, but I'm still regularly looking for an '18-20 KR.

 

[dafish]

Sounds like a bunch of unnecessary bullshit to me. There is no reason to respond. I’ll take a more powerful ICE engine sans the generator/hybridization function and switch to an EV once solid state batteries are mass produced at the turn of the decade and offer faster/more widespread charging. Interesting approach but very unnecessary. F-150 frame weak? What? That statement is just silly. It’s a fully boxed hydroformed steel frame. There is nothing weak about it.

If anything add a larger battery and motor to the existing longitudinal 3.5 EB hybrid system. If you really wanted to get a down and dirty powerful longitudinal hybrid you could hook the 5.0L V8 up to a similar system. The engine would almost never need to leave V-4 mode unless under hefty acceleration for merging and being N/A would get solid economy #’s. I’d consider a hybrid, but I’m not jumping up and down for one. The 5.0 and 3.5 both return solid MPG while delivering 400 HP.

No reason to respond, yet you did? huh..

Sir, you either don't own a PB or don't tow. Perhaps both. Politely, if you did you'd know more about the payload issues of PB. I've seen them down to 1000lbs of available payload. Empty. Most PB readers know this, so yea.... Turns out the frame capacity is the limiting factor. Pretty well known, it's structural details were available in, as I recall, 2021.

On your thought that you can add significantly larger motor to a torque converter shim - You apparently know something nobody else does, for that's pretty restricted space. Call Ford, they'll be tickled you've beaten physics.

FWIW, I still tow with my old 3.5 Ecoboost often. You would be one of the few to think they get great mileage while towing. Great for you of course.

Ah well, thanks for the entertainment.

 

[JExpedition07]

No reason to respond, yet you did? huh..

Sir, you either don't own a PB or don't tow. Perhaps both. Politely, if you did you'd know more about the payload issues of PB. I've seen them down to 1000lbs of available payload. Empty. Most PB readers know this, so yea.... Turns out the frame capacity is the limiting factor. Pretty well known, it's structural details were available in, as I recall, 2021.

On your thought that you can add significantly larger motor to a torque converter shim - You apparently know something nobody else does, for that's pretty restricted space. Call Ford, they'll be tickled you've beaten physics.

FWIW, I still tow with my old 3.5 Ecoboost often. You would be one of the few to think they get great mileage while towing. Great for you of course.

Ah well, thanks for the entertainment.

No, the frame is not the limiting factor. As I stated before. Not trying to derail your thread here but that is not correct.

 

[dafish]

I've read the structural details of the frames and investigated what options exist for boosting PB payload. I'm as comfortable suggesting you've not considered towing heavy w/a PB as I am thinking you've not looked into the frame much. Having done so, I remain comfortable saying Ford cannot add enough batteries OR more motor to the present architecture to compete w/Ramcharger. Which is, as a reminder, the topic of the post.

However, we need not agree. Best of luck to you sir.

 

[Snakebitten]

What do you think the real Payload numbers might be on the RamCharger?

Just curious.

I'm not one to easily believe it's going to be common to see 2600lbs examples.
Afterall, Ford F150's can claim 3000lb Payloads, but you just can't find them.

 

[dafish]

What do you think the real Payload numbers might be on the RamCharger?

Just curious.

I'm not one to easily believe it's going to be common to see 2600lbs examples.
Afterall, Ford F150's can claim 3000lb Payloads, but you just can't find them.

I mean never trust a marketing wennie, right? So less.

Still, 8 bolt hubs, etc? My guess, and it's all guess, is that the STLA frame is exactly the same between the REV and the RC. That would be pretty darn stout. As it will have to be. A simple 2G load will place a lot of stress on that much weight. For all we know now the battery cage is rigid enough to be a stressed frame member.

It's worth recalling that ford, as an example, uses a different frame modulus in various F-150's. I've lost track of how many, but 3 comes to mind. It's prolly more. Will Stellantis do that? If so things get fuzzy fast. If not we know they've engineered for a lot of battery weight, it'll be a stout frame. Once that's checked off it's just running gear, and that's pretty easy for them to address.

To my guess: It will be over 2000lbs in any trim level. An insane payload, but they've got mules in play now = It will be hard to miss it by too much. 2000lbs is enormous! Literally double what a loaded up PB looks like.

12,000lb tow. 10% tongue, 200lbs of "stuff", and 600lbs of pax: That's a pretty full load, still only 2,000lbs, and well into 3/4 ton capability already. Would I care if it could do 2300 or 2400? Nope.

Course I too wish they'd offer a smaller battery option. 60KW would be really on the nose, and the thing feels like it's frighteningly expensive. Darn thing has to make some kind of financial sense..

Mind you by '25 battery cost will be cheaper, too so..

 

[wessermgm]

It seems like many were stunned about the Ramcharger. This method of PHEVs has been around awhile, the Chevy Volt does the same thing and I think BMWs use similar technology of only using an ICE to power the batteries. So Stellantis hasn't done anything that groundbreaking here. Kudos to them for making a logical step of employing this tried and true type of platform to 1/2 ton pickups.

However, Ford could pretty easily pivot and counter with one of these as well. They would have to give up the frunk of the Lightning, but they could quickly un-retire the 3.3L V-6 (before they have even stopped production) and use it in the same manner that the Ram uses the 3.6L Pentastar. They could then also reduce the amount of battery mass necessary as the ICE will extend the range without the need for 98kw battery. Might be a clone, but hey Stellantis didn't invent this system either.

Then Ford would have three electric platforms for the F-150: The full EV Lightning; the PHEV Frankenlightning; and the 3.5L Powerboost. I still think there is a market for a hybrid like the Powerboost. The Ramcharger is more EV than ICE. The Powerboost is more ICE than EV. Some folks might prefer their truck's powertrain to be connected to internal combustion while still getting the benefit of a hybrid. Others not. Ford can easily and should cater to both. Seems 90% of the development of this would have already been done by the successful launch of the Lightning.

 

[Atlee]

. As a generator such an engine, when on, would be under considerable load. NA wins here.

Can you explain how the ICE is under considerable load when using it as a generator? It will come on every 18-20 minutes for around 1.5 minutes. It's highest speed is around 1300 rpm. And the turbos never spin up. It doesn't use any power generated by the turbos.

So my truck engine which runs for a minute and a half, every 18 +/- minutes, at idle, and never spinning up the turbos is supposed to be under considerable load? I hardly think so.

 

[Samson16]

I mean never trust a marketing wennie, right? So less.

Still, 8 bolt hubs, etc? My guess, and it's all guess, is that the STLA frame is exactly the same between the REV and the RC. That would be pretty darn stout. As it will have to be. A simple 2G load will place a lot of stress on that much weight. For all we know now the battery cage is rigid enough to be a stressed frame member.

It's worth recalling that ford, as an example, uses a different frame modulus in various F-150's. I've lost track of how many, but 3 comes to mind. It's prolly more. Will Stellantis do that? If so things get fuzzy fast. If not we know they've engineered for a lot of battery weight, it'll be a stout frame. Once that's checked off it's just running gear, and that's pretty easy for them to address.

To my guess: It will be over 2000lbs in any trim level. An insane payload, but they've got mules in play now = It will be hard to miss it by too much. 2000lbs is enormous! Literally double what a loaded up PB looks like.

12,000lb tow. 10% tongue, 200lbs of "stuff", and 600lbs of pax: That's a pretty full load, still only 2,000lbs, and well into 3/4 ton capability already. Would I care if it could do 2300 or 2400? Nope.

Course I too wish they'd offer a smaller battery option. 60KW would be really on the nose, and the thing feels like it's frighteningly expensive. Darn thing has to make some kind of financial sense..

Mind you by '25 battery cost will be cheaper, too so..

So over 9000 GVWR? What nice, comfortable, smooth daily driving miracle tires are we putting on this behemoth?

 

[Samson16]

I mean nothing says running errands in town like 8 bolt hubs. ?
See Fish, I can make a serious point with just a touch of impishness. At least I’m reading your post …

Sponsored