New F-150 with 7.2kW A/C available

[The_Breeze]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

cut...

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).)

$1349 + shipping
Capacity (ideal) 5.2 kWh (233 Ah)
Cell Configuration 6 series of 74 parallel (6s74p) 444 cells
Weight 58 lbs (26.3 kg)
Dimensions (approximate) 27 x 12 x 3"
Voltage (nominal) 22.2 V
(re: https://hsrmotors.com/products/battery_modules)


Thank you for this. I have that much room under my steps and you have me thinking. I wonder if it could use/would require a standard alternator and/or generator to charge. I'm diggin into the pdf you included.

[Chance]

Great to see that Ford’s new Pro Power Onboard is relatively affordable as I had hoped (at least in my view). There’re not many reasons why Ford shouldn’t expand this design and option to various RV chassis. Seems a no-brained to me.

The base (on non-hybrid) 2,000 Watt Pro Power Onboard is reportedly priced at $995. That should buy a second stand-alone 24V alternator, two additional normal batteries, an inverter, and engine controls to make it work as a generator.

The hybrid option includes the 2.4 kW “generator” and costs between $2,500 and $4,500 depending on F-150 model one is starting out with. The 7.2 kW upgrade (from standard 2.4 kW) is reported around $750.


This confirms to me that future electrification of RVs must come from OEMs to be affordable. Cost is so much lower than aftermarket upgrades. Just adding a second alternator costs a lot more than that.

I hope that the base system will be offered on at least Transit and E-Series vans and Cutaways soon; maybe even F-53 stripped chassis even though that seems less likely.



https://www.carsdirect.com/automotiv...etty-good-deal

[Bob Denman]

They won't expand this technology into the RV market yet. They'll want to market it to the much larger private passenger applications first.
That's where they can make the money!

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

They won't expand this technology into the RV market yet. They'll want to market it to the much larger private passenger applications first.
That's where they can make the money!

Yeah until they get it up to scale when it gets really cheap is when they'll move it to the stripped/cutaway chassis models.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Yeah until they get it up to scale when it gets really cheap is when they'll move it to the stripped/cutaway chassis models.

Are you assuming Ford will offer it at a loss on F-150 initially? If they can make a profit on standard 2-kW on F-150 at $995, why would they lose money offering the same on Transit or E-Series? Or mark it up some if needed to turn a profit on lower volume vehicles. I’d bet even at $1,500 there’s a demand on at least Transit.

On stripped F-53 chassis I see technical issues being the bigger problem, not costs.

[Bob Denman]

It wouldn't surprise me if they did...
They need to get the technology into the hands of the buying public. Once it shows that it is reliable, and offers a useful and workable alternative: they'll price it accordingly, and look to "fish in the bigger pond".
(RVs in comparison: exist in just a large pitcher... )

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

Are you assuming Ford will offer it at a loss on F-150 initially? If they can make a profit on standard 2-kW on F-150 at $995, why would they lose money offering the same on Transit or E-Series? Or mark it up some if needed to turn a profit on lower volume vehicles. I’d bet even at $1,500 there’s a demand on at least Transit.

On stripped F-53 chassis I see technical issues being the bigger problem, not costs.

No, there is no new technology here (like there is with batteries) and thus the costs are already known. Its just that once they are making a bunch of them the costs will, naturally fall, in that case it becomes profitable to increase the sales by including the option elsewhere.

[Chance]

Yeah, there is nothing new here in alternators, AGM batteries, or inverters. None of this is rocket science. It’s all proven equipment that only requires connecting together with a few electrical wires and cables.

The technology is obviously useful to many RVers, so it just comes down to cost. That was the main reason for posting anticipated system costs.

For what it’s worth, this system in a motorhome could operate very similar to the Coachmen generator-free CrossTrek design, except it’s 2,000 Watts in lieu of 3,000 Watts, but includes a dedicated alternator for faster charging. It’s a great value if price remains around $1,000.

What could hurt this base system’s adoption for motorhome applications is the reported 24-Volt design.

[JamieGeek]

Check it out they charge an EV with the F-150:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIN...ature=youtu.be

[ducksface]

Some tricks, some preying on the ooohh aaaahhhh...I didn't know!!!, and marketing and glossy paint is all I'm seeing in any of this f150 built in inverter thing.

Northern tool and even Jc Whitney and such have sold bolt on belt drive 10,000 watt engine driven 110v/240v generator heads since maybe the 1940's.
I'm all but certain I've seen one of a ww2 era jeep.

My f150 has a 110v outlet in the cab. Inverter size is the only difference I see.

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by ducksface

Isn't charging that ev from an f150 exactly the same as charging one from a $120 harbor freight inverter? Speed amps... Adjust up to the $400 inverter if needed.

I'm seeing some tricks and marketing and glossy paint is all I'm seeing in any of this f150 built in inverter thing.

Northern tool and even Jc Whitney and such havd sold bolt on belt drive 10,000 watt engine driven 110v generator heads since maybe the 1940's.
I'm all but certain I've seen one of a ww2 era jeep.

I'm in the camp of:
If you really wanted this, you'd already own this.

Nope, need 240V 2 phase (as illustrated in the video). They run the F-150 at 7.2kW continuously for 2+ hours straight.

(They even mention in the video that you can pick up a nice Honda inverting generator to do the same thing but its a $5k investment.)

If we still had a travel trailer or a 5th wheel I'd already have this F-150 ordered.

(And I still contend that Ford needs to put this powertrain in the F-53 and E-Series chassis for RVs.)

[Bob Denman]

It may not have proven to be efficient: but it did prove that the Ford could handle the task!

[Bob Denman]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

...(And I still contend that Ford needs to put this powertrain in the F-53 and E-Series chassis for RVs.)

If they did: they could call them the "Boondocker" models!
With the larger chassis that they could use: the battery sizes could be pumped up significantly.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Nope, need 240V 2 phase (as illustrated in the video). They run the F-150 at 7.2kW continuously for 2+ hours straight.

(They even mention in the video that you can pick up a nice Honda inverting generator to do the same thing but its a $5k investment.)

If we still had a travel trailer or a 5th wheel I'd already have this F-150 ordered.

(And I still contend that Ford needs to put this powertrain in the F-53 and E-Series chassis for RVs.)

Yeah, it’s just a matter of time before OEM high-capacity inverters make it to RV chassis. With 7.2 kW of power a motorhome could power two rooftop air conditioners and still have enough to power a microwave at same time. Days of running a generator while driving to stay cool should be coming to an end.

Having said that, we might see the 7.2 kW ProPower Onboard on a Transit before an F-53 or E-Series. I expect this because the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 engine and 10R80 hybrid transmission of the hybrid F-150 are much closer related to Transit EcoBoost drivetrain.

The F-53 and E-Series are 7.3L V8 and 6R140 transmissions, so not as interchangeable. And I doubt Ford will install 3.5L EB V6 in a large motorhome chassis.

If ProPower Onboard is as successful as you and I think it will be, Ford may expand it into F-250 and F-350 Super Duty pickups, which would then lend itself to RV use.

Short-term Ford may offer the base ProPower Onboard that is based on a traditional alternator. It’s not as powerful, but could at least power one A/C or microwave without needing the generator. We’re all just guessing because there are so many possibilities.

The good news is that the hard part has been accomplished already. Now it’s a matter of packaging into different applications and meeting whatever demand there is.

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

Yeah, it’s just a matter of time before OEM high-capacity inverters make it to RV chassis. With 7.2 kW of power a motorhome could power two rooftop air conditioners and still have enough to power a microwave at same time. Days of running a generator while driving to stay cool should be coming to an end.

Having said that, we might see the 7.2 kW ProPower Onboard on a Transit before an F-53 or E-Series. I expect this because the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 engine and 10R80 hybrid transmission of the hybrid F-150 are much closer related to Transit EcoBoost drivetrain.

The F-53 and E-Series are 7.3L V8 and 6R140 transmissions, so not as interchangeable. And I doubt Ford will install 3.5L EB V6 in a large motorhome chassis.

If ProPower Onboard is as successful as you and I think it will be, Ford may expand it into F-250 and F-350 Super Duty pickups, which would then lend itself to RV use.

Short-term Ford may offer the base ProPower Onboard that is based on a traditional alternator. It’s not as powerful, but could at least power one A/C or microwave without needing the generator. We’re all just guessing because there are so many possibilities.

The good news is that the hard part has been accomplished already. Now it’s a matter of packaging into different applications and meeting whatever demand there is.

Good point: would probably not even need the full 7kW for a Transit motorhome.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Good point: would probably not even need the full 7kW for a Transit motorhome.

Practically all Transit motorhomes are limited to 30A service, so 3,600 Watt inverter should be the upper limit.

I shouldn’t suggest all hard work is already done, because these stand-alone ProPower Onboard systems don’t have to function with larger batteries, shore power, or solar add-ons etc. that are common with motorhomes.

While on shore power the inverter would need some type of transfer switch, and also it would make sense for RVs to have a larger battery and also a way to charge from shore power so that electric chassis A/C can keep motorhome cool. For Transit van Class B applications, I would hope Ford eventually includes OEM dual electric air conditioners so that rooftop RV can be eliminated. It’s going to take a little work to fully integrate the hybrid capabilities for RV use. At least it’s a lot closer.

[Bob Denman]

Yeah... technology is getting closer to our wish-lists.

[JamieGeek]

Of course this video is far more relevant to the forums here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz4P...ature=youtu.be

He really needed to turn on the A/Cs.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Of course this video is far more relevant to the forums here:

He really needed to turn on the A/Cs.

Perhaps a standard air conditioner’s start-up current is too high for inverter, although he probably didn’t think about A/C because it was cold and was running heater at about 1,000 Watts in one trailer. With soft start the 7.2 kW ProPower Onboard should run two A/Cs easily.

For trailer towing or home emergency power it looks great, but for motorhome application it would need the tiny battery to be bumped up to between 10 and 15 kWh so truck engine doesn’t have to idle constantly. That’s just not acceptable.

At $300 or less per kWh installed, a much larger battery would add less than $4,000 which rivals an Onan generator’s cost. Then you’d be able to power an A/C overnight without truck engine running.

[Bob Denman]

While this looked impressive: he should have just hooked up to one 5er, and lit the fuse under everything in it...
That would have been the real test.