New 2020 Ford HD gasser engine coming

Part two
From MIT:
"A better battery could change everything. But while countless breakthroughs have been announced over the last decade, time and again these advances have failed to translate into commercial batteries with anything like the promised improvements in cost and energy storage. Some well-funded startups, most notably A123 Systems, began with bold claims but failed to deliver"

and from a Quara magazine article:
"Lab Experiments Rarely Scale Up. It's pretty much a given than 95% of the great battery lab experiments that look so dramatically promising are never able to be scaled to production, meaning almost all of those wonderful advances in the lab you read about on Gizmodo or Engadget or wherever never, ever pan out in the real world. A pouch cell or button cell in the lab generally performs very, very differently from a scaled production battery. Don't get too excited about lab results -- even lab results from world-class researchers who spent years developing them. See #6 above. This makes investment very, very, very hard."

If you ever took college chemistry you may recall 'half cells', if not look them up. Half cells (redox reactions) are the theoretical underpinning that drive battery tech. There are tables of half cells in every college chem book and in chemistry references. Those half cells provide the theoretical max voltage for and battery chemistry. Battery tech is inching up to that theoretical limit and improving recharging and current output along with increasing longevity. But that is all tinkering with the engineering and does not touch the theoretical limits.

There are a whole lot of people spending a bunch of money trying to do what you say is impossible and seem to be having some pretty good success at it. I guess that they just aren't nearly as smart as you. And, Elon is building about 10,000 new charge stations per year charging at 480V and so far is using solar panels, not turbines to power them.
---------------------------------------------------------

No they are trying to push the technology that last 25 or 50%. Or develop other chemistries that don't use Lithium which has a lot of drawbacks. And if you track these 'wow a NEW wonder device!" press releases you'll find that many if not most never make it off the lab bench.

agesilaus wrote:


You may not know this but there isn't a lot of room for theoretical improvement in chemical batteries. Certainly not a doubling or more of capacity. And producing a battery with 60 times the current capacity would mean a battery 50 times or so the weight and volume. And would take a dedicated gas turbine generator to charge at 3000 volts....heh. And don't try the theory can be wrong line, chemistry is a very well understood science. Especially this sort of inorganic chemistry. Look at noble prizes in Chemistry most of them have been going to biologists or biochemists. There isn't much new being discovered in basic chemistry these days.

There are a whole lot of people spending a bunch of money trying to do what you say is impossible and seem to be having some pretty good success at it. I guess that they just aren't nearly as smart as you. And, Elon is building about 10,000 new charge stations per year charging at 480V and so far is using solar panels, not turbines to power them.

You may not have read the reports but Tesla seems to be getting 600 miles per charge on the class 8 prototypes and they have
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I have read some reports, and what the press releases say and what actually comes off the production line are two completely different things. If anything comes off the production line. Color me skeptical of vaporware claims.

As far as I can tell these people are aiming for the sensible target of commercial trucks, plumbers and electricians ect. They can live with a reduced payload and don't need in many cases, great range. I flatly disbelieve that they can produce a HD truck with a 3000 pound payload and a 600 mile range.

You may not know this but there isn't a lot of room for theoretical improvement in chemical batteries. Certainly not a doubling or more of capacity. And producing a battery with 60 times the current capacity would mean a battery 50 times or so the weight and volume. And would take a dedicated gas turbine generator to charge at 3000 volts....heh. And don't try the theory can be wrong line, chemistry is a very well understood science. Especially this sort of inorganic chemistry. Look at noble prizes in Chemistry most of them have been going to biologists or biochemists. There isn't much new being discovered in basic chemistry these days.

agesilaus wrote:
The biggest threat to the new transmission is electric drive trains. I drove a Model 3 dual motor a few days ago and learned what power really is. Keep in mind that Tesla is using the same motor package in their new class 8's so don't say that they are not sturdy enough for a pickup. They do plan to use 4 in the class 8's but that still leaves them plenty sturdy for a pickup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe but the massive battery pack would drastically cut into the payload and I don't see an electric getting 500 miles/tank like my diesel does. It's 'Pie in the Sky' as Joe Hill once said.
s

I am not ready to go full electric yet, mostly until charge stations become more common and more powerful but they are coming. I would love a serious hybrid based on a two wheel drive truck with the front axle driven by an electric motor of 200hp or more and about 50 times the battery pack that Ram is using. It will be interesting to see what Ford comes out with in 2020.

You may not have read the reports but Tesla seems to be getting 600 miles per charge on the class 8 prototypes and they have a very useful payload. It can and will be done sooner or later. Probably sooner if Elon has his way. The battery packs probably won't weigh any more than a Cummins with transmission. A few numbers to chew on, in this country Tesla outsold BMW last month and the Model 3 brought in more revenue than any other car. Be careful not to get the deer in the headlights look when he starts making pickups.

The biggest threat to the new transmission is electric drive trains. I drove a Model 3 dual motor a few days ago and learned what power really is. Keep in mind that Tesla is using the same motor package in their new class 8's so don't say that they are not sturdy enough for a pickup. They do plan to use 4 in the class 8's but that still leaves them plenty sturdy for a pickup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe but the massive battery pack would drastically cut into the payload and I don't see an electric getting 500 miles/tank like my diesel does. It's 'Pie in the Sky' as Joe Hill once said.
s

Maybe they will have both engines available like RAM does. 6.2L for the XL and XLT (work truck) and the 7.3L for the Lariat etc. It's a money maker to upcharge for the bigger gas engine.

Fordlover wrote:
Ford just developed a new version of the torqueshift transmission for the F-250 6.2 for 2017. I doubt they are going to throw all that development $$ away and dump the 6.2 along with it 3 years down the road unless there is a major market shift or some other unforeseeable event. That kind of poor development $$ spend will get you fired quick like.

They develop transmissions for general power and torque ratings, not specific engines. I doubt that the new transmission will be discarded just because a new engine came out, especially one that was in development when the transmission was released.

The biggest threat to the new transmission is electric drive trains. I drove a Model 3 dual motor a few days ago and learned what power really is. Keep in mind that Tesla is using the same motor package in their new class 8's so don't say that they are not sturdy enough for a pickup. They do plan to use 4 in the class 8's but that still leaves them plenty sturdy for a pickup.

Ford just developed a new version of the torqueshift transmission for the F-250 6.2 for 2017. I doubt they are going to throw all that development $$ away and dump the 6.2 along with it 3 years down the road unless there is a major market shift or some other unforeseeable event. That kind of poor development $$ spend will get you fired quick like.

I can see a actual big block gazzer in the higher GVWR F350 SRW and DRW trucks leaving the smaller 6.2 for F250 and maybe some of the 10k gvwr one ton SRW trucks.

More than one Ford truck owner bit into the 6.2 towing a 15k lb trailer then complained about performance and then swapping for the 6.7 diesel.
The seven three big block would fill the void between the 6.2 and 6.7 diesel.