New F-150 with 7.2kW A/C available

[Bob Denman]

Originally Posted by rvollers

Do not forget alternators do not put out their full output potential until they spin up to max rated RPM's. That is generally 10,000 rpm's...

Ummmmm...
Magnetos work a lot like that; but alternators can be set up to develop maximum output at the normal operating range of the typical automotive engine...

[rvollers]

I thought you were going to idle the engine all night to run the air conditioner. Did not know you were using it only when you are driving it. Sorry

[Chance]

If willing to idle engine all night, there’d be little need for much of this equipment and associated costs — just run the dash air conditioner which in smaller motorhomes can keep humidity low and temperatures cool at night. Just make certain to have a couple of good CO alarms. For what it’s worth, I know of people who have slept in vans with engine idling at night. As crazy as it sounds (and I wouldn’t do it and recommend against it), it’s probably not that different than running a carburated generator all night that doesn’t even have a catalytic converter. That’s why overnight battery-powered air conditioning appeals to some who boondock.

The primary goal of many of these new and expensive RV high-capacity electrical designs is to power an A/C all night from batteries, which then leaves a huge battery bank in need of charging during the day (and solar can’t make nearly that much energy daily).

If driving most of next day, a second high-capacity alternator will do. However, if limited to an hour or two of “generator” time, a fast-charging system like those inherently used in hybrid cars is ideal. The power they can handle is so much more than even the largest auto alternators. Obviously, battery chemistry has to be compatible with very fast charging also; which hybrid-vehicle batteries are.

[powerboatr]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

That's the problem...
300 miles on a charge (under the best possible conditions); isn't going to cut it for a lot of us.
The closest charging stations to me are over 40 miles away.
I'd very much like to see 500 to 600 miles of "real-life" range on them.

300 miles is with ZERO cabin environmental controls on, like heat or a/c.
one of my trade magazines did a thing a few months back comparing estimated battery range and how the slightest things like cabin HEAT really cut range down fast almost in 1/2. heck who needs to be warm or have a clear windshield right i have to go dig it up, it was very eye opening . makes you really understand how our gov allows ratings to run and not tell the truth, except in very fine print.


then the funny thing is batteries and wiring are causing the electric vehicles to GAIN weight compared to same vehicle with gas engine, so now they are looking at how to drop weight using battery packs as structural components and lighter alloys. its a cool time for certain



a 300 mile f150 would do us well, maybe , kinda sorta

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by powerboatr

300 miles is with ZERO cabin environmental controls on, like heat or a/c.
one of my trade magazines did a thing a few months back comparing estimated battery range and how the slightest things like cabin HEAT really cut range down fast almost in 1/2. heck who needs to be warm or have a clear windshield right i have to go dig it up, it was very eye opening . makes you really understand how our gov allows ratings to run and not tell the truth, except in very fine print.


then the funny thing is batteries and wiring are causing the electric vehicles to GAIN weight compared to same vehicle with gas engine, so now they are looking at how to drop weight using battery packs as structural components and lighter alloys. its a cool time for certain



a 300 mile f150 would do us well, maybe , kinda sorta

Not really 1/2 as it depends on the vehicle.

On a really cold day (<0F) my old Focus Electric would leave you with about 60% of the range (23kWh battery).

In the same weather my 238 mile ranged Bolt will give me about 180-190 miles of range. Far from 50% (more like 75%). As batteries grow larger the percent consumed used for the heater goes down.

My next EV will work out even better (Bolt = 60kWh battery, Mach-E = 98 kWh battery). The battery F-150 will, likely, even have a larger battery.

The hybrid F-150 won't have that issue since it still has a gas engine which produces plenty of waste heat.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

.....cut.....

In the same weather my 238 mile ranged Bolt will give me about 180-190 miles of range. Far from 50% (more like 75%). As batteries grow larger the percent consumed used for the heater goes down.

.....cut....

Did you see where Tesla S can now be upgraded up to 402-mile range? That’s quite a bit more than original Tesla S if I recall correctly.

Also of interest is that a Tesla Model 3 reached 600 miles by hypermiling. No air conditioning and very slow speeds to get that 600+ miles; so not “real world”. Regardless, progress in electric cars has been remarkable. If they keep it up, I may even buy one.


https://electrek.co/2018/05/27/tesla...miling-record/

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

Did you see where Tesla S can now be upgraded up to 402-mile range? That’s quite a bit more than original Tesla S if I recall correctly.

Also of interest is that a Tesla Model 3 reached 600 miles by hypermiling. No air conditioning and very slow speeds to get that 600+ miles; so not “real world”. Regardless, progress in electric cars has been remarkable. If they keep it up, I may even buy one.


https://electrek.co/2018/05/27/tesla...miling-record/

Yeah Tesla has been gradually improving the density of their batteries and the efficiency of their motors so now you can get an S that goes 400+ miles.

Take a look at this graph:


A Chevy Bolt's range (I think this is with the smaller battery--60kWh instead of the newer one) at different constant speeds and different temperatures.

So if you set the cruise to 25 mph and its 70F out you can eek out 400 miles.

The graph is from this page if you really want to get in-depth...(ah yeah its all theoretical based on a single constant speed drive; interesting)

Wow those pages have tons of stuff, here is another graph comparing a Bolt to a Model 3 at different constant speeds:

[Bob Denman]

There's no doubt that the engineers have a lot more battery space with the F-150...
If they use it wisely!
Don't compromise ground clearance and off-road capability!

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Yeah Tesla has been gradually improving the density of their batteries and the efficiency of their motors so now you can get an S that goes 400+ miles.

Take a look at this graph:


A Chevy Bolt's range (I think this is with the smaller battery--60kWh instead of the newer one) at different constant speeds and different temperatures.

So if you set the cruise to 25 mph and its 70F out you can eek out 400 miles.

The graph is from this page if you really want to get in-depth...(ah yeah its all theoretical based on a single constant speed drive; interesting)

Wow those pages have tons of stuff, here is another graph comparing a Bolt to a Model 3 at different constant speeds:

All those graphs confirm what many engineers already know — drive slowly at constant speed and you’ll improve fuel economy significantly. The same theories apply to motorhomes as they do to electric cars. The quantities (numbers) are different, but principles are pretty much the same.

The one main exception is that efficiency of internal combustion engines drops off quickly at very light loads, so when we drive a motorhome slowly it requires a lot less energy per mile just like electric vehicles, but engine inefficiency at lower speeds wastes some of that potential MPG gain. That’s why a smaller engine is necessary to maximize fuel economy when driving a motorhome at lower speeds.


How severe can this become? In the Tesla 3 hypermiling test, they reduced energy consumption to 110 Watt-hours per mile by driving at 25 miles per hour. That works out to the Model 3 only needing 2,750 Watts to hold their 25 MPH test speed, which is well under 4 HP.

I’m not suggesting anyone drive their motorhome at 25 MPH, just that when smaller motorhomes are driven at constant +/- 60 MPH, they could benefit from a smaller engine that can operate efficiently at that lower power level and thus return even higher fuel economy.

Ok, back to electricity.

[Bob Denman]

[QUOTE=Chance;241
Ok, back to electricity. [/QUOTE]
"Watt" a bright suggestion...

[JamieGeek]

Yeah even 5 mph slower can be significant.

The funny thing is that after driving EVs now for 7 years (give or take) I now also get better mpg when I drive a gas car simply because my habits have changed.

[Bob Denman]

That's a pretty cool thing to have happen.

[Chance]

Back on topic, the thing to consider is that these new “generators” like the ones for the 2021 F-150 work similar to a hybrid car in that the vehicle’s engine doesn’t necessarily have to be running in order to have electricity available.

Particularly at low power levels, like when charging a couple of power tool batteries on the job site, power can come solely from batteries and inverter. The engine doesn’t have to run as if it were a “real” generator. At higher loads Ford say the engine will remain on to prevent cycling on-and-off too frequently.

If this system was expanded to RVs, its effectiveness would not only depend greatly on battery bank capacity and available charging rate, but also on how it was used. The base F-150’s Pro Power system doesn’t compare favorably in energy storage or charging rate with RV systems already available (particularly the Volta), so OEM lower-cost and higher-reliability may be best one can expect for now — until motorhomes’ drivetrain includes hybrid transmission which then allows charging a large battery bank in very short time. That will be the future game changer, but doesn’t appear close yet unless Ford offers it on Transit RV chassis in next couple of years.

For the time being, idling a 7.3L V8 to get 2 kW of electricity while stationary doesn’t sound like a great improvement, but if it allows running rooftop A/C without a generator while driving it might be worth it. A much higher capacity alternator in range of 5~6 kW (or higher) like Volta uses, but from Ford factory, would be very nice to have in a motorhome. And the cost could be much more affordable than aftermarket.

I hope Ford makes a version of this Pro Power for motorhomes.

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

Back on topic, the thing to consider is that these new “generators” like the ones for the 2021 F-150 work similar to a hybrid car in that the vehicle’s engine doesn’t necessarily have to be running in order to have electricity available.

Particularly at low power levels, like when charging a couple of power tool batteries on the job site, power can come solely from batteries and inverter. The engine doesn’t have to run as if it were a “real” generator. At higher loads Ford say the engine will remain on to prevent cycling on-and-off too frequently.

If this system was expanded to RVs, its effectiveness would not only depend greatly on battery bank capacity and available charging rate, but also on how it was used. The base F-150’s Pro Power system doesn’t compare favorably in energy storage or charging rate with RV systems already available (particularly the Volta), so OEM lower-cost and higher-reliability may be best one can expect for now — until motorhomes’ drivetrain includes hybrid transmission which then allows charging a large battery bank in very short time. That will be the future game changer, but doesn’t appear close yet unless Ford offers it on Transit RV chassis in next couple of years.

For the time being, idling a 7.3L V8 to get 2 kW of electricity while stationary doesn’t sound like a great improvement, but if it allows running rooftop A/C without a generator while driving it might be worth it. A much higher capacity alternator in range of 5~6 kW (or higher) like Volta uses, but from Ford factory, would be very nice to have in a motorhome. And the cost could be much more affordable than aftermarket.

I hope Ford makes a version of this Pro Power for motorhomes.

Yeah I would much prefer if they made the 7.2kW version with its hybrid engine available for motorhomes. There even would be the opportunity to have a bigger battery than the paltry ~1kWh one they are putting on the F-150.

[Bob Denman]

It's a nice first step: just not ready for RV's... Yet!

[Chance]

At least diesels anyway. Ford excluded the diesel F-150 from the Pro Power Onboard option. My guess is that they don’t want diesels idling for extended periods due to emissions equipment.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Yeah I would much prefer if they made the 7.2kW version with its hybrid engine available for motorhomes. There even would be the opportunity to have a bigger battery than the paltry ~1kWh one they are putting on the F-150.

If there’s demand, it may not be that difficult for Ford to offer a Transit hybrid similar to F-150. However, one article quoted Ford as estimating hybrid F-150 around 10% of total, so Transit volume may not justify Ford investing much on a Transit hybrid.

Both F-150 and Transit share 3.5L EcoBoost V6 (slightly different) and 10R80 transmission. I’m certain it would take a lot of work to modify a Transit van or Cutaway, but it’s not out of the question.

For RV use I’d want at least 10 kWh of battery capacity, and that’s around 7 times more than the F-150’s 1.5 kWh. It’d be tough to find that much room under a Transit chassis.

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

If there’s demand, it may not be that difficult for Ford to offer a Transit hybrid similar to F-150. However, one article quoted Ford as estimating hybrid F-150 around 10% of total, so Transit volume may not justify Ford investing much on a Transit hybrid.

Both F-150 and Transit share 3.5L EcoBoost V6 (slightly different) and 10R80 transmission. I’m certain it would take a lot of work to modify a Transit van or Cutaway, but it’s not out of the question.

For RV use I’d want at least 10 kWh of battery capacity, and that’s around 7 times more than the F-150’s 1.5 kWh. It’d be tough to find that much room under a Transit chassis.

Ah but if they put the hybrid powertrain elsewhere it could greatly enhance the production scale of it and lower its cost.

10 kWh of battery isn't that much when you consider a small car such as my Bolt has 60kWh (and now 66kWh).

A Tesla Model S battery module is 27" X 11" X 3.5" and holds about 5kWh--two of those on top of each other (27" x 11" X 7") isn't that big for 10kWh (weighing in around 110lbs for both).

(Size from here--page 13 (pdf).)

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Ah but if they put the hybrid powertrain elsewhere it could greatly enhance the production scale of it and lower its cost.

10 kWh of battery isn't that much when you consider a small car such as my Bolt has 60kWh (and now 66kWh).

A Tesla Model S battery module is 27" X 11" X 3.5" and holds about 5kWh--two of those on top of each other (27" x 11" X 7") isn't that big for 10kWh (weighing in around 110lbs for both).

(Size from here--page 13 (pdf).)

Agree that spreading Research & Development costs over multiple vehicles should help in making system more affordable. After F-150 pickup, Transit van and Cutaway seem like a logical next step to me, but Ford may apply similar technology in F-53 and E-Series; at least a version of the base system since there’s not a hybrid 6R140 or 10R140 transmission yet that we know of.

The F-150 hybrid 1.5 kWh battery is reportedly only 30X15X5 inches in size, but I’m guessing it was a tight fit. I’m not sure I’d compare installing batteries under an F-150 or Transit van to an electric car because there’s so much more stuff in the way. On these there are the fuel tank, driveshaft, exhaust system and spare tire which take up a lot of space under the vehicles. And if added to a Transit van for a Class B, batteries would further compete with needed space for holding tanks.

From an engineering standpoint, I believe the RAM ProMaster van would be much easier to upgrade to hybrid because of its front wheel drive design. There’s no driveshaft, the fuel tank is under the cab area, and the exhaust can be rerouted easily to the side (similar to Euro Ducato or Winnebago Travato). That leaves a lot more free space under van for batteries and holding tanks.

I know Ford has plans for all-electric Transit, but I don’t recall seeing anything about a hybrid version of the full-size van yet. I have seen information on plug-in version of European Transit Custom, but that’s FWD with electric drive backed by range extender. See picture below.

.

[JamieGeek]

Ah that is the beauty of the hybrid design on the new F-150: It fits in the same space a conventional rear-wheel drive train does. So all that is needed is a spot to put the battery.

The 7.2kW system wouldn't require a generator which leaves a pretty big hole for a battery (and weight). (Yeah I'm thinking E-Series and F-53 chassis here, not class-B's. You're probably right that the class B chassis' are likely too small and lightweight for the "big" hybrid system.)