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

[Snakebitten]

No explanation. Certainly not one that would sway the sceptics.
But I'm 100% convinced that Ford purposely gimped the GVW of the Powerboost for some reason that is nothing more than strategic.
It's self imposed.
It is NOT a Payload rating that represents Ford Engineers sitting in their team meeting discussing "how can we get the best Payload possible within our cost and engineering constraints?"

One thing for sure, it's not a limitation of the frame.

Sponsored

 

[dafish]

Snake, in that context that could very much be true, at least vis a vis Powerboost. Said frame would be much much too weak to be an RC alternative, but is it strong enough to take more payload in a PB? Maybe, even probably. I don't have FEA tools, or even anything to address G loading under stress, so we're all just guessing.

Here are some data points I've picked up along the way to consider:

The HDPP package added 800lbs of payload to the ICE F-150, and of course included the stronger frame. PB added 500lbs of gross weight. Ford had no stronger frame than the HDPP frame.

Is there a missing 300lbs? Maybe so! Or maybe that weight is in a place within the frame such that it's not a 1:1 comparison. For that matter the frame strength increase may not have been the limiting factor in the 800lbs, and ergo the frame had even more payload. It's not likely we'll ever know.

I can say these two things with some confidence:

1) Would I overload a PB by a hundred pounds and never worry about it? Yes I would.
2) Do I believe the PB frame had the ability to carry an extra 750lbs of battery? Or anything close? Not for a moment.


But we're all just making SWAG's...

 

[Samson16]

My son bought a Pac-Hy a few years ago.

C’mon! I’m willing to go and google acronyms I don’t know, but wasting my time with Pac-Hy like that is what the cool kids call a Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is just taking advantage . What, is there a cool acronym for the Mitsubishi Outlander Hybrid too? Good grief…few people even know that vehicle exists much less that it has a nickname.

 

[dafish]

Snake, you once asked what I think RC payload would be. I've been thinking on that since.

We can assume they've mules around so they know, at least for now, what it weights. We also know they can't be stating 2wd, 4-cyl single cab versions, for none of that applies.

Thus my assumptions:

1) They lose 100lbs along the way.
2) They were able to rate it without fuel as it can travel on battery. Call it 200lbs.
3) A nicely loaded version will add 500lbs (roof, power boards, bed liner, larger rims/tires, better stereo, etc..
4) Top of trim will add yet another 100.

Conclusions:
A fully fueled base trim RC will be 300lbs below advertized max. A well loaded version will be 800 below, and a max loaded version (short of just being stupid), will be 900 below.

I'm thinking something I would buy will end up in the 1800-1,900 (I hate sunroofs) range fully charged and fueled. That's plenty if not fantastic.

 

[dafish]

C’mon! I’m willing to go and google acronyms I don’t know, but wasting my time with Pac-Hy like that is what the cool kids call a Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is just taking advantage . What, is there a cool acronym for the Mitsubishi Outlander Hybrid too? Good grief…few people even know that vehicle exists much less that it has a nickname.

Sorry. Sorta like PB is here, Pac-Hy is known in more EV oriented forums and things. Still, my bad, I get this is chiefly a ICE truck community.

Outlander? My acronym for it is POS, but that's not really fair. I was just really unimpressed with it.

 

[HammaMan]

I took a caliper micrometer under the PB and found the frame to be in excess of even the HDPP's frame. Front and rear it's HDPP thickness but in the center section it's wearing additional reinforcement bringing its width up 30%. The PB's curb weight costs as much as the aviator PHEV w/ its larger motor and 15kW batt. Its front axle has a 3900 or 4050 AWR changing nothing more than the bed length, and the rear axle is limited to 4150. Running at the same combined AWR to GVWR ratio as other trims, the shortbed PB should be closer to 7700lb GVWR which is 95% of its CAWR.

As the HD 3/4 floating axles began to break, ford reduced the towing specs of the PB. You can look at each years towing reduction. I believe this to be a result of the clear design flaw of the HD axle. The raptor has the standard design. I've looked for failures of the standard 9.75s and the only place I found them breaking was climbing rock valleys and that tended to break them at the diff / retention clip. Given the number of people who run not only wider wheels and tires, but do so moving the ground contact patch out 2" from the wheel bearings, I'm not concerned about my usage of the PB. I have zero reservations in using my airbags to put a ton or more into the bed, but it's rarely required.

There's ~10 million+ Fords out there with the standard 9.75" rear ends taking abuse and it's not really mentioned. The HD 9.75 on the other hand. It's been the only rear end failure seen thus far on here at least. The crowd to watch for the most data is the overlanders running near max weight if not at it and off road, inducing loads of sin waves through vehicle. That's how you find the weak points.

 

[HammaMan]

Look at the Borg Warner portfolio. Remy, a tiny starter motor maker that had been around forever, put a lot of R&D into developing a high-voltage hairpin electric motor which has outstanding efficiency even among modern electric motors. They attracted the attention of Borg Warner, who bought them up and incorporated the motor into an integrated electric gearbox using their experience as the maker of choice for transfer cases. The AchatesPower engine, which is just a modernization of the Junkers Jumo 205 and maybe someday a Napier Deltic, seems like the best option at this point, but that doesn't prevent anyone else from developing the same or better tech. At this point, many of the best components are or will be COTS for all of the big makers, inclusive of joint projects like the 10R80. I wonder if that may limit the opportunities for "secret sauce", potentially allowing smaller makers to become competitive for the first time in many decades.

WRT small combine cycle turbines, I globally agree with your assessment and included that example mostly as a data point. I believe that direct carbon fuel cells will be viable in a small form factor before a small turbine is, but it was briefly done in the 1950s by Chrysler as a prototype that wasn't mass produced but did function. I believe that NOx limits killed that. The only way that a small turbine could be efficient and economical would be the use of ceramic or ceramic matrix composite blisks, which essentially eliminates the tip to housing clearance issue because it's all one piece. I actually bought a set of ceramic knives recently, and what was once a >$150 professional item is now $16 and cheaper than a lot of stainless options. Again, I doubt that's gonna make small combined cycle turbines viable, but it is a cool possibility for turbocharger impeller blades (which is more or less the same part as the turbine in a jet engine).

I also think that carbon fiber pistons, con rods and maybe even blocks are coming which will be enabled by ceramic piston faces and cylinder liners. I don't see that making a big change in efficiency, but the weight penalty of the engine could go down by 30%. Ceramic face carbon fiber pistons and con rods are highly specialized racing parts today, but the forged crank and rods in my 3.5L were the same thing 20 years ago. If melting a piston crown and exhaust gas temperature are the limiting factors, and higher peak pressures give more efficiency, then longer power strokes and higher temperature ceramic coatings on the cylinder liners and piston faces are the pathway there. The research on exhaust turbines for jet engines are a rising tide that lifts all boats, and a piston engine has the advantage of intermittent rather than constant extreme temperatures. If the expansion of the combusted gas drops in temperature within the cylinder, then the exhaust manifold and exhaust turbine temperatures are far more manageable versus the first turbine in a jet engine where it's always that hot.

I also make no secret of my interest in Aptera. I haven't invested yet because I think that their lack of access to the EV credits (a 3 wheeler doesn't count) hurts them A LOT, but you can't really do better than their form factor.

I don't see prolific use of CMCs in products available to the general public anytime soon. Those are how the US is ahead in jet engines by 2 generations. Not so much their presence, but the secret to manufacturing them at scale economically (in aerospace terms anyway). It allows for much hotter core temps as the turbines can withstand the heat allowing for more power and fuel efficiency. Their use in the XA100 is just nuts. They've got that engine to 50klbs thrust on the test stand. It should be dropping into F35s in a couple years and I expect it to be the engine of choice in the B21 without the afterburner. I'd also put $ on it going into NGAD (both AF and Navy versions) unless P&W can pull a rabbit out of the hat.

If I had to guess they'll give pratt's F135 CMC integration the go ahead to bump the F35b which gets no love from the AETP. Someone needs to pay for the certification program though. It could go backwards on F135 rebuilds as it's a cheaper option than out-right replacement and keep those birds in the typical lessor roles. Maybe some fuel savings reductions can be rolled into the cost equation as has occurred with the 52.

I'm not expecting to see ceramic carbon combos in mass production soon barring some big jump in economies of scale/manufacturing leaps, which again has national security implications and would probably be shut down under said implications for now. Maybe once NGAD is rolling off of the production line? A big of a tangent but I just don't see CMCs becoming more prolific anytime soon. It'd help out though being able to run hotter EGTs safely allowing for leaner combustion reducing risks to turbos.

Aptera is interesting and at a good price point, it's just not really inspiring. Priced right, but at the same time the model 2 is at least appearing to be able to match it cost wise if they're able to get it out the door in the low 30s, while being able to apply the tax credit on top of that. 1 shot casting a vehicle saves a whole lot of labor, steps, and time. At the same time delivering a very strong package and six sigma quality. Its appearance will likely hinge on how profitable the CT is and tesla's ability to make themselves known to more people as their pricing strategy has run its course in the US at least.

 

[Samson16]

Outlander? My acronym for it is POS, but that's not really fair. I was just really unimpressed with it.

Good choice to make my point with eh?
Hey, when all 4 of my kids were young our 1998 Ford Windstar LX with the 3.8L V6, transmission oil cooler, power steering cooler, and front and rear air conditioning was an important part of the family. That Pacifica is a spaceship by comparison!

Ours was an LX with the roof rack and few more touches plus the tow package got me the auxiliary coolers.

 

[Samson16]

The crowd to watch for the most data is the overlanders running near max weight if not at it and off road, inducing loads of sin waves through vehicle. That's how you find the weak points.

Cosine waves for my truck because I'm always leading...

 

[Snakebitten]

The Powerboost upgrades I dream of wouldn't require anywhere near #750 increase in hardware.

 

[Suns_PSD]

BTW, worth mentioning here is that this exact same concept of using an EV propulsion system combined with a generator will be the standard in trucking by the end of this decade. Cummins' system utilizing the new X10 engine will be the generator and it'll be available for order in 2026 for 2027 MY. The new Hybrid semi trucks are going to average 13-15 mpg which represents a huge jump. They won't be dependent on improving the grid, they will be able to to 'idle' all night on the batteries, they won't require crazy large battery packs, they won't lose nearly the payload that EV semis lose, etc.

I'm going to quickly cover some things that I think most people really miss:

EV FS Trucks & SUVs don't really work for most families as they are do it all vehicles for most families. EV trucks, like the Silverado with a 205 kwh pack end up needing environmentally catastrophic battery capacity that doesn't really get used 95% of the time, but then when you need it, it's still not enough to tow or road trip. You have weight, road damage, danger to other road users, long charge times, etc.

Electric motors are very good at a few things, they are GREAT at propulsion and efficient use of their energy. They are also luxurious as heck, smooth and quiet with amazing torque.

Batteries however are not good at dense energy storage. For example, a Model 3 battery pack at 75 kwh holds the equivalent energy of only 2.2 gallons of gasoline! It's just that the electric propulsion system is very efficient at using this energy and has the advantage that you don't need to 'leave a couple of gallons in the tank so you don't pick up air'.

There are so many commonsense reasons that EV's don't really work (and I'm a closet greenie that happens to LOVE driving EVs) for most people in the USA including the grid structure is poor, a majority of people don't have a dedicated parking space to charge, the depreciation is severe due to rapidly improving technology (erasing all fuel savings), public charging is generally more expensive than the equivalent gasoline, time matters, etc..

I can't say how Stellantis will implement their new Ramcharger, but rest assured this IS the future of full-size vehicles in the USA.

 

[amschind]

I don't see prolific use of CMCs in products available to the general public anytime soon. Those are how the US is ahead in jet engines by 2 generations. Not so much their presence, but the secret to manufacturing them at scale economically (in aerospace terms anyway). It allows for much hotter core temps as the turbines can withstand the heat allowing for more power and fuel efficiency. Their use in the XA100 is just nuts. They've got that engine to 50klbs thrust on the test stand. It should be dropping into F35s in a couple years and I expect it to be the engine of choice in the B21 without the afterburner. I'd also put $ on it going into NGAD (both AF and Navy versions) unless P&W can pull a rabbit out of the hat.

If I had to guess they'll give pratt's F135 CMC integration the go ahead to bump the F35b which gets no love from the AETP. Someone needs to pay for the certification program though. It could go backwards on F135 rebuilds as it's a cheaper option than out-right replacement and keep those birds in the typical lessor roles. Maybe some fuel savings reductions can be rolled into the cost equation as has occurred with the 52.

I'm not expecting to see ceramic carbon combos in mass production soon barring some big jump in economies of scale/manufacturing leaps, which again has national security implications and would probably be shut down under said implications for now. Maybe once NGAD is rolling off of the production line? A big of a tangent but I just don't see CMCs becoming more prolific anytime soon. It'd help out though being able to run hotter EGTs safely allowing for leaner combustion reducing risks to turbos.

Aptera is interesting and at a good price point, it's just not really inspiring. Priced right, but at the same time the model 2 is at least appearing to be able to match it cost wise if they're able to get it out the door in the low 30s, while being able to apply the tax credit on top of that. 1 shot casting a vehicle saves a whole lot of labor, steps, and time. At the same time delivering a very strong package and six sigma quality. Its appearance will likely hinge on how profitable the CT is and tesla's ability to make themselves known to more people as their pricing strategy has run its course in the US at least.

I think your point on CMCs is accurate, but I do think on that a lot can happen in 20 years. WRT NGAD/AETP, I worry that the complexity that dogged the F35B will come out in spades on both. This is a completely different discussion, but I suspect that the Air Forces ideas on air dominance from the 1950s are finally coming true: huge interceptors firing BVR missiles at over the horizon formations. I think that the "fighter" of the next 100 years looks more like a cross between a stealth bomber and an AWACS and tops out at Mach 0.85. If your airplane is slow and efficient but your missiles are speedy with sufficient range, the utility of a high OR low bypass engine falls, potentially below it's reliability cost, because your missile is the "fast low bypass" part of the system. I fear that the ability of SCRAMJETs to combine range and speed is going to make even the AIM260 obsolete in 30 years, and we'll be attacking with and defending against >mach 8 AA missiles with >1000nm ranges. Maybe the only extant parallels that we have now are a Tomcat fully loaded with Phoenixes or the air to air B1 concept.

Anyway, that's wildly off topic but it is a super cool theoretical discussion.

 

[Suns_PSD]

It's important to note that cost to fuel these sorts of vehicles is very location and use dependent.

Where I live in TX, electricity prices are very low (getting hiked to 11 cents per kwh soon, still low).

To give you an idea of what it cost to fuel an EV truck here: the Ford Lightning travels 2 miles per kwh. Let's say I drive 100 miles per day and in my PB at 20mpg this costs me $18.25/ day in fuel at $3.65/ gallon fuel costs. In the Lightning 100 miles/ day requires 50 kwh at 11 cents per kw, Worth noting is that charging loses about 10% in heat, so I'll need to use 55 kwh at the meter to get 50 kw into my electric truck. So that's $6.05/ day in 'fuel' for an EV truck operating on batteries alone.

So clearly where I live, running on electricity day to day, saves me significant money. Also on my daily commute, I invoke no wear and tear on my ICE nor do I produce any tailpipe emissions.

However, a truck is still a truck to me and about 1x per week I need to drive 250+ miles, often hauling things. So, that one day a week I get a good break on my fuel bill until the batteries run low and then I just start burning fuel.

However, the advantages don't end there because my truck is getting the economy of an EV, no idle time, recharging on the downhills, less drivetrain losses, killer power, etc.

Where-as now while towing my truck gets about 13 mpg, I suspect that between starting off with a full battery charge and adding in the other advantages of an EV my towing economy will be north of 20 mpg in a truck.

I also have a generator for my home, my job or camping site.

As long as Stellantis gives us the option to charge the batteries using the ICE while parked, this product has nearly unlimited potential.

So here is the deal, on days where you stay exclusively on batteries and with current fuel prices you'd getting the equivalent of 60 mpg and this is the majority of most people's trips.
On days where we drive long enough, or tow heavy enough, we'd be on the ICE the fact remains that we'll get way better economy, way less ICE wear and maintenance AND NO LIMITATIONS. This alone often allows people to just have 1 car, instead of 2. This is an environmental and cost advantage.

 

[amschind]

There is also the emerging point that if you've got roof solar, that can give you "free gasoline" to the extent of your battery capacity.

Broadly, a PHEV series hybrid gives users MORE choice rather than less, and as a result everyone wins.

 

[amschind]

It's important to note that cost to fuel these sorts of vehicles is very location and use dependent.

Where I live in TX, electricity prices are very low (getting hiked to 11 cents per kwh soon, still low).

To give you an idea of what it cost to fuel an EV truck here: the Ford Lightning travels 2 miles per kwh. Let's say I drive 100 miles per day and in my PB at 20mpg this costs me $18.25/ day in fuel at $3.65/ gallon fuel costs. In the Lightning 100 miles/ day requires 50 kwh at 11 cents per kw, Worth noting is that charging loses about 10% in heat, so I'll need to use 55 kwh at the meter to get 50 kw into my electric truck. So that's $6.05/ day in 'fuel' for an EV truck operating on batteries alone.

So clearly where I live, running on electricity day to day, saves me significant money. Also on my daily commute, I invoke no wear and tear on my ICE nor do I produce any tailpipe emissions.

However, a truck is still a truck to me and about 1x per week I need to drive 250+ miles, often hauling things. So, that one day a week I get a good break on my fuel bill until the batteries run low and then I just start burning fuel.

However, the advantages don't end there because my truck is getting the economy of an EV, no idle time, recharging on the downhills, less drivetrain losses, killer power, etc.

Where-as now while towing my truck gets about 13 mpg, I suspect that between starting off with a full battery charge and adding in the other advantages of an EV my towing economy will be north of 20 mpg in a truck.

I also have a generator for my home, my job or camping site.

As long as Stellantis gives us the option to charge the batteries using the ICE while parked, this product has nearly unlimited potential.

So here is the deal, on days where you stay exclusively on batteries and with current fuel prices you'd getting the equivalent of 60 mpg and this is the majority of most people's trips.
On days where we drive long enough, or tow heavy enough, we'd be on the ICE the fact remains that we'll get way better economy, way less ICE wear and maintenance AND NO LIMITATIONS. This alone often allows people to just have 1 car, instead of 2. This is an environmental and cost advantage.

We posted concurrently, but I completely agree. I've been harping on this drivetrain philosophy for a while, and I'm clearly really excited to see a glimmer of hope that it hits mass production. Roof solar, particularly in the South, is very tough to argue against, and BEVs give us the chance to use otherwise wasted electrons for transport. I don't see battery tech making more big strides in energy density which could approach 10% of gasoline, but it seems like they're getting much better on LONGEVITY. A 2-8K cycle battery that only gets to 8k if you keep the SoC between 30-70% is totally different from a >20k cycle battery. The other huge advantage of a series hybrid is that you can stay within tighter SoC parameters without having your range.

I continue to worry that the first wave of EV battery "failures" (not detonation, just "My range sucks now. What's up with that?") will turn a lot of consumers off of EVs for reasons that aren't carved in stone.

Sponsored