New 2020 Ford HD gasser engine coming

[agesilaus]

Maybe a 7.3

[Groover]

Groover wrote:

wnjj wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
Current 1 ton trucks are in the 800 HP range not 200 or 350 either.

I think you meant 400.

Yep. At peak. Average power produced is probably around 200 while towing a large trailer. The Ford 3.0 is rated for 250hp so it could meet average requirements without much trouble. You would have another 350hp electric motor in reserve for accelerating and climbing hills. This motor would be able to reclaim a most of that power with regeneration in place of using brakes. Anyway, you would have 600hp on tap when needed, far more than most one ton trucks on the road. Even if you think that a larger diesel would be needed you should be able to see some benefit in never having to waste energy through braking. And judging from how a lot of people carry on about their engine brakes they must get used a lot. Also, as a side benefit studies have shown that hybrids rarely need their brakes serviced.

I came across this article this morning. It looks like Cummins is already hard at work on this idea: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180919005416/en/Cummins-Debuts-Unique-Versatile-Hybrid-PowerDrive-IAA

[agesilaus]

wnjj wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
Current 1 ton trucks are in the 800 HP range not 200 or 350 either.

I think you meant 400.

Whoops right about 450 for the 6.7

[Groover]

wnjj wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
Current 1 ton trucks are in the 800 HP range not 200 or 350 either.

I think you meant 400.

Yep. At peak. Average power produced is probably around 200 while towing a large trailer. The Ford 3.0 is rated for 250hp so it could meet average requirements without much trouble. You would have another 350hp electric motor in reserve for accelerating and climbing hills. This motor would be able to reclaim a most of that power with regeneration in place of using brakes. Anyway, you would have 600hp on tap when needed, far more than most one ton trucks on the road. Even if you think that a larger diesel would be needed you should be able to see some benefit in never having to waste energy through braking. And judging from how a lot of people carry on about their engine brakes they must get used a lot. Also, as a side benefit studies have shown that hybrids rarely need their brakes serviced.

[wnjj]

agesilaus wrote:
Current 1 ton trucks are in the 800 HP range not 200 or 350 either.

I think you meant 400.

[agesilaus]

Current 1 ton trucks are in the 800 HP range not 200 or 350 either.

[Groover]

Fordlover wrote:


As far as electric vehicles, I calculate based on time to refill vs. range gained. Electrics still really suck at this. I'm absolutely sure I've ever said to myself, "Gee, right now seems like a really good time to hang out at the gas station for 30 minutes to an hour."

At the current state of the art I agree with you and since I need a car at the current time I have been looking at some of the options out there. The Honda Clarity PHEV has a really interesting approach that could be expanded to any size of truck and offers a lot of benefits. I could see any of the big three offering a one-ton truck with their current 3 liter diesels or small gas engine, about a 40Kwh battery pack and an electric drive motor from the Model 3 (350hp) for the times when you need very little power or more than 200hp. This would offer more benefits in a truck since they have to do a lot more down hill braking than a car. In hilly terrain the ICE engine could be chugging along at an efficient speed while the electric portion would provide assist over hills and taking care of engine braking going down, saving that energy for the next climb.

I will say that the Model 3 has some really nice features that have little to do with being electric drive that the big 3 need to take note of. If you haven't looked at one it is an opener.

[Fordlover]

Groover wrote:

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 developed the torqshift for the HD trucks (gas and diesel). Then they developed a lighter duty version in 2017 (called the G, for gas) with the only current application the F250 6.2 V8. The 350 gas still uses the stronger version.
If the 7.3 puts out more power than the 6.2, it will be mated to the HD torqshift, not the torqshift G. So if the 6.2 is sunsetted in 2019, the G version will have been sold for 3 model years. Not a wise spend considering the costs for development, calibration, testing, and production, especially considering the HD version has sufficed behind the 6.2 since 2011.
You could argue the G version could go on to live in some other application, but considering the dearth of V8 engines in Ford's lineup both present and future, I think that is a long shot.

As far as electric vehicles, I calculate based on time to refill vs. range gained. Electrics still really suck at this. I'm absolutely sure I've ever said to myself, "Gee, right now seems like a really good time to hang out at the gas station for 30 minutes to an hour."

[hone_eagle]

agesilaus wrote:
And I found this on the Electrical Engineering Magazine site:

"Battery scientists have a metric called maximum theoretical specific energy; you can read about the definition in Advanced Batteries by Robert Huggins. Right now, the most energy dense batteries you can buy are lithium ion, which are in the 100-200 Wh/kg range. I don't know what the best battery is, but later in the book, Huggins shows calculations that indicate that Li/CuCl2 cells have an MTSE of 1166.4 Wh/kg. (5x the capacity of current batteries!)"

So 5X what you get from a Lithium battery. This max battery may run at 1000 deg C tho...heh, or -200 C

i agree with all your posts ,i remember a quote from a scientist once ,to paraphrase- "the period table sets the limit"- there are no new elements and the limit is already here.Fast charging is another story ,but also has a heat limit.

[harmanrk]

Groover wrote:
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.

That's rich right there. Powered by COAL.

[agesilaus]

And I found this on the Electrical Engineering Magazine site:

"Battery scientists have a metric called maximum theoretical specific energy; you can read about the definition in Advanced Batteries by Robert Huggins. Right now, the most energy dense batteries you can buy are lithium ion, which are in the 100-200 Wh/kg range. I don't know what the best battery is, but later in the book, Huggins shows calculations that indicate that Li/CuCl2 cells have an MTSE of 1166.4 Wh/kg. (5x the capacity of current batteries!)"

So 5X what you get from a Lithium battery. This max battery may run at 1000 deg C tho...heh, or -200 C

[agesilaus]

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.

[agesilaus]

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.

[Groover]

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.

[agesilaus]

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.