Ford Maverick hybrid pickup starts at $20,000

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

A bed cover would probably boost that MPG even more, huh?

Australia's Holden Ute had a factory tonneau and Cd 0.308, I believe the lowest for a 'pickup.'
Gale Banks Racing used one on their GMC Sonoma to get to Cd 0.315.
RAM's fuel miser 1500, Cd 0.357, also had an OEM tonneau as part of the mpg kit.
GM's Avalanche also, although I don't recall them blowing any trumpets.
Ridgeline.
They'll certainly be offered in the aftermarket.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

When an engine is into the boost, it's not in economy mode anymore.

It used to be the case when port-injection outnumbered direct injection on the turbocharged gassers, as it required a richer AFR to decrease the risk of knocks while on boost.

[Hersbird]

I realize the turbo while in boost is no longer in economy mode, but both trucks had similar weights pulling the same weight up the same hill, with the exact same speed and acceleration. To me that means they both required the exact same energy usage and yet one was 33% more efficient. Normally that's a gas vs diesel kind of difference with the diesel having more energy per unit along with a more energy efficient motor. Basically that EcoBoost must go rich as hell over a certain boost level.

[redpoint5]

I think another problem with turbo engines is they tend to lower the compression ratio. My guess is the motor with more displacement had a higher compression ratio than the ecoboost.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I realize the turbo while in boost is no longer in economy mode, but both trucks had similar weights pulling the same weight up the same hill, with the exact same speed and acceleration. To me that means they both required the exact same energy usage and yet one was 33% more efficient. Normally that's a gas vs diesel kind of difference with the diesel having more energy per unit along with a more energy efficient motor. Basically that EcoBoost must go rich as hell over a certain boost level.

The naturally asperated truck was more fuel efficient in one very specific use case - towing up a 8 mile long grade at a set speed. That doesn't mean the NA engine will beat a turbo in all cases or even an average use case.


There is also a lot more to this test than just the engine. Were both tow rigs running the same gearing? It is entirely possible that the speed limit on that stretch of highway puts the Ecoboost hybrid at a particularly inefficient RPM and slowing down or speeding up 5 mpg could have completely different results. Also the hybrid battery would deplete very quickly on a long steady uphill. Hybrids do better in rolling hills or stop and go.


EDIT: Found the article. Completely different gearing - 3.21 vs 3.73 rear ends. One geared to tow 7,800 lbs and the other 11,000 lbs.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by JSH

The naturally asperated truck was more fuel efficient in one very specific use case - towing up a 8 mile long grade at a set speed. That doesn't mean the NA engine will beat a turbo in all cases or even an average use case.


There is also a lot more to this test than just the engine. Were both tow rigs running the same gearing? It is entirely possible that the speed limit on that stretch of highway puts the Ecoboost hybrid at a particularly inefficient RPM and slowing down or speeding up 5 mpg could have completely different results. Also the hybrid battery would deplete very quickly on a long steady uphill. Hybrids do better in rolling hills or stop and go.


EDIT: Found the article. Completely different gearing - 3.21 vs 3.73 rear ends. One geared to tow 7,800 lbs and the other 11,000 lbs.

I agree to some extent, but energy required is energy required. Physics is physics. That Ford Ecoboost is not a thermally efficient engine. The final gearing should have not really come into play as they weren't running in the highest overdrive, nor were they accelerating for more than a few seconds of the overall mountain at the very bottom, the least steep part. So the rest of the way the Ford's 10 speed should have been able to find the right gear for the right RPM even better than the Rams's 8 speed.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I think another problem with turbo engines is they tend to lower the compression ratio. My guess is the motor with more displacement had a higher compression ratio than the ecoboost.

Even though direct injection is supposed to allow for a higher compression ratio with fewer risk of knocks, whenever there is turbocharging in a gasser even the ones with direct injection get a lower compression ratio. But anyway, due to the naturally colder intake temperatures at an aspirated engine with port injection, it still seems better suited to heavier duty.

[redpoint5]

A turbo seems unnecessary in a hybrid vehicle because one could simply increase the power output of the electric motor to make up for lack of power in the ICE. Assuming a sufficiently sized battery and motor combo, I can't see a practical reason why you'd ever need more than 100 hp from the ICE.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

A turbo seems unnecessary in a hybrid vehicle because one could simply increase the power output of the electric motor to make up for lack of power in the ICE.

Reminds me of a talk I had with the son of the owner of an eyeglasses shop, when his father had bought a hybrid Volvo S60. It was quite interesting to notice Volvo resorted to the twincharger approach instead of that pneumatic impeller featured to a twin-turbo Diesel to mitigate turbo-lag. Whenever some altitude compensation is desirable, even though turbo-lag will remain more noticeable at higher altitudes, it's hard to point out a turbocharger as unnecessary at all.

Assuming a sufficiently sized battery and motor combo, I can't see a practical reason why you'd ever need more than 100 hp from the ICE.

Considering what older trucks were expected to do with engines which would nowadays be seen as underpowered by the average Joe even if they could fit into some random econobox, I wouldn't be so surprised to see engines under 100hp into something within the size bracket of the Ranger and Chevy Colorado. Once in a while I still see some S10 from the '90s adapted with the 153 engine (or its Brazilian 151 derivative).

[redpoint5]

The gen III Prius has a 1.8L 98 HP engine and does 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds. By US standards that's somewhat slow.

I would think a 3 cylinder 1L engine could be paired with a plug-in hybrid drivetrain that could be both more efficient, and output more total power over some short period of time; say under 5 minutes. It would be both quicker and more fuel efficient.