Workhorse REx Hybrid Truck
 

Interesting. 310 km range on the range extender. Which should cover all range anxiety issues for the typical user.

And that typical user probably won't go more than a dozen miles over the 80 mile battery range, anyway.

-

Was wondering what glider they were using, but pleasantly surprised to find they've built a bespoke chassis rather than buying a cheap Chinese one.

But given how small the company is, I wonder if they've done proper crash testing on it, yet.

I see huge potential for hybrid trucks, but I can't figure out how one could optimize operation and fuel economy without a healthy dose of operator intervention.

Ideally the engine would be sized just a tiny bit more powerful than needed to cruise down the highway at near peak efficiency. The electric motor would supplement the engine for acceleration and hill climbing.

On shorter trips you would want to use EV only. On longer trips with hill climbs, you would want to preserve enough of the battery capacity to assist the pull up the hill, and if pulling a large load, that could require nearly the whole battery capacity. That would take some prior planning to preserve the EV charge for the hill climb, or even instruct the engine to charge the battery prior to arriving at the hill.

Without proper planning and operator intervention, plug-in vehicles get poorer fuel economy on long trips than their non-plug-in counterparts. This is seen in EPA MPG ratings on vehicles like the Ford Fusion hybrid (41 MPG) vs the Ford Fusion Energi plug-in (38 MPG).

The MPG hit does not need to be as dramatic as it is but REX models
Tend to skimp on the Rex in one way or another.

In the Gen I Volt they used the cheapest motor they had in the stable and tuned it
On the BMW they only cared about weight and skipped efficiency
On the Ford they did a poor job of packaging the drivetrain/battery and again lost efficiency

I think if we start getting into ultralight materials coupled with a more energy dense battery we will likely get to where there is no edge for the straight hybrid model

Further, every hybrid on the road could have a plug, use the same battery and gain 3-6 city miles of range.

Workhorse plans on selling $52,500 plug-in hybrid trucks that will get 28/32 later this year.

Perhaps when the EV systems become more powerful that makes sense. As it is, the Prius can only go about 1 mile on EV with a full charge. People with no access to charging will still prefer the price advantage of a hybrid over the bigger battery in a plug-in.

I'm not sure what minimum size battery would make sense in a truck and still produce sufficient power. My guess would be around 30 kWh. At a 2.5C discharge rate, that would give you a 100 horsepower electric boost. That's half the size and power of the Bolt EV battery and motor. Couple that with a 150-200 HP engine, and you might have a very capable and fuel efficient full-size truck.

Mount the 4-cylinder engine horizontally to make the truck FWD and you can eliminate the driveline and rear differential. Then mount the electric motor in the rear for part-time 4-wheel drive, and the battery under the bed to keep center of gravity as low as possible and shift some weight back so the truck rides smoother and handles better.

That's my idea for a hybrid truck, anyhow.

But I get pretty close to that with my '88 Toyota 4x4 :-(

I'd guess I can haul as much or more weight, too, and I don't have to worry about scratching the pretty thing. The electric outlets would be nice, though.

Electric outlets are easy.
You don't need a $50,000 truck to get plugins.

I am sure that you could add that feature for less than $52,500.

What is the payload and towing limits for your Yota? What are the torque and horsepower ratings? Consumers have demanded more over the years.

Don't know about actual limits. I can fill the bed with logs, and tow a moderately-sized trailer, no problem. Can also pull stumps in 4-Low :-)

Customers may demand more (or at least the appearance of more), but that doesn't mean they need or use it. Just like the aerodynamic benefits of the tailfins on a '59 Cadillac :-)

Not saying it's reasonable, just saying that is the reality. There's a reason your Toyota is an '88 model, and not the current model, as customers wouldn't stand for your vehicle today.

Truck commercials are always touting the power, payload and tow ratings. Consumers might settle for a truck that is as powerful as the previous year and is more fuel efficient, but they certainly won't accept something that is less powerful and less capable than the previous year.

Just imagine if they said in 1988 "This truck has awesome utility. Let's maintain that and increase fuel economy." What kind of MPG would it get now?

Safety and features increased, which increased weight, which required heavier frames, which increases weight, which requires more powerful engines, which increases weight...

It basically becomes a feedback loop where things must get larger and heavier. Consumers also expect things to be faster and more powerful as time goes on...

The only way I see truck manufacturers meeting consumer expectations going forward is to develop hybrid trucks. Instant torque and power from EV motors, increased fuel economy from downsized engines and energy recapture from braking. Trucks probably have the most to gain in terms of fuel economy from hybridization when compared to relatively small cars like the Prius. They also suffer handling issues due to horrible weight distribution, which may be mitigated by adding EV components in strategic locations.

Safety are the only features that matter to me, but it frustrates me that they have a similar effect to weight belts.

Weird. I asked James if he had 20" rims, bluetooth, wifi, built-in navigation, a DVD player, heated leather seats, steering wheel, and mirrors, and I forget what else. Where did that go?! Help help! I am being repressed!

... and I'm somewhat opposite-minded. My safety plan mostly includes not getting into a wreck and relying as little on airbags and seatbelts as possible. Given that I ride a motorcycle, vehicular safety systems are less important to me. I accept that I'm much more likely to die just like everyone else; by cardiovascular disease or cancer.

I once blew the fuse on my Acura that allows the trunk to release from the keyfob. I always thought that feature was dumb, even as I used it. Then when it stopped working, it annoyed the heck out of me. Now I've got a Mazda with a hatch that opens and closes itself, and that seemed dumb too, but when you have an armload of groceries and a baby, not so dumb. Technology is nice, and I might be willing to pay for some of it both in direct cost, and in fuel economy and acceleration. Consumers seem to agree.

First-World problems.

In Latvia, there no modern features, only potato.

I don't know about that. The reason my truck's an '88 is that I could buy it for $2800 a decade ago :-) (And sell my previous '84 that I couldn't get to pass smog for $1100.) As for customers not standing for the vehicle today, there are plenty of people still driving these trucks. Looking at the local Craigslist, I see a dozen '85-90 ones for sale, asking prices ranging from $2K-$8K. And I occasionally get people asking if I want to sell mine...

So it's not that there's not a market for this sort of truck, it's that (just as with small cars) the manufacturers don't want to build them.

That is exactly how my Volvo V60 D6 plug in hybrid works.

It has an 5 cilinder twin turbo diesel with 215hp 440Nm with a 6speed automatic on the front wheels.

And an 68hp 200Nm electric motor to the rear wheels, the battery of 10,8kWh (8kWh useable) in the trunk floor. I wish i had 10kWh useable. That would give me a full electric ride to work and back home. Now i come 3 to 5 km short. In full electric mode at 130km/h the diesel engine jumps in.

Manufacturers don't build used cars though. The point is that new car buyers won't stand for a "new" '88 Toyota and associated price tag.

Only new vehicles are relevant to the discussion as they will become tomorrow's used vehicles.

I have a cordless drill from workhorse, it was $50 and while it's not very powerful it was a great value. I expected it to last 6 months for light duty around the house crap now it's with me working a full time job.

And how do you know this, exactly? If manufacturers refuse to build something like a new '88 Toyota, how do you know that new truck buyers won't buy it? What you have is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For a parallel, you could go back to the early '70s. Nobody built small trucks back then (though the big pickups of the day were quite a bit smaller than now). Toyota icould have said "nobody buys small trucks, so let's not bother making one". Instead, they introduced the small truck, and it sold. Same with the Volkswagen Beetle, or Japanese care in the '70s and '80s.

All that means is that my cars will continue to age without suitable replacements

I am noticing a lot of street legal Japanese kei cars hitting the market in recent months

A 3cylinder 660cc 6speed 2wd Dual range mini truck looks quite attractive.

So now the thread is about the irrelevance of hybrid technology in light of the fact that we could just build smaller trucks, exactly as were built in 1988, and consumers will love not having any of the technology found in modern vehicles... and something about cordless drills.

Anything you build, there will be at least one sucker who will buy it.

But you can't justify the cost of development, certification, marketing, distribution, parts supply planning, mechanic training and etcetera on just one sucker. You need a lot of suckers.

Manufacturers don't sell manuals anymore because there aren't enough suckers buying manuals.

Manufacturers refuse to sell basic small pick-ups because market research tells them that they're not going to get enough suckers to fund the push unless they drop the price to where it's not profitable to sell them brand new.

US manufacturers generally have good market research, which is why they don't even try to attack non-profitable segments. Out here in Asia, it's more of a Wild Wild West theme... manufacturers will attack any niche looking to create a new market.

But people aren't interested in back-to-basics cars. Even in India, where they drive auto-rickshaws and twenty year old rebadged Kei cars dressed in new sheetmetal... cars like the Nano have a hard time, because people want bigger, better, more.

Manufacturers don't sell manuals because too many suckers pay extra for automatics.

They don’t offer manuals for US vehicles
(when they have an already designed drop in units overseas)
Because they would have to spend many millions of dollars on additional crash tests.

It would cost manufacturers basically zero to offer engine and transmission options that they already sell but our platform laws make it illegal and very costly to do so.

These same laws make it illegal for Toyota to glue on a 15 lb solar panel to the roof of their prime and sell it here while it’s perfectly legal to sell roof racks that carry hundreds of pounds.

At some point you have to say enough.

Offering more transmission options is not zero cost, with or without legislation.

You have to stock spare clutches for all those manuals. Then you have to train people to replace them. That adds up to overhead costs. Limiting buyers to a single transmission option simplifies things. It's easier for a mechanic to change fluid than to change a clutch.

And then, there is the cost to the consumer. You don't need perfect control of your transmission to sit for hours in traffic. Or to wait at a stoplight. Or to drone along at the speed limit on the highway. Those of us who actually drive are vanishingly few. Most people buy cars to commute with. Preferably with minimum fuss and effort. Leg pain is a very real problem for Asian drivers, and I've seen some completely destroy a clutch due to traffic in as little as six months.

As markets mature, more and more buyers are switching to automatics. Here in the Philippines, where we have NO intrinsic crash or emissions regulations, only a third of all consumer models offer manuals... mostly the cheaper cars... many crossovers and SUVs don't offer a stick. Being in the industry, I hang out with marketing people and product planners a lot. When the question of offering a manual variant for a new crossover or midsized sedan comes up, we laugh.

We laugh because every time someone decides to offer this option, the take rate is vanishingly low. People with money don't buy sticks. Only skint buyers and enthusiasts like us do. And enthusiasts are more likely to buy used because they don't like new cars, anyway.

As people get more prosperous, they start to value the convenience of an auto over the savings of a manual. And the whole 'jinba ettai' ethos of being as one with your car goes out the window when you're sitting in a four hour traffic jam. Sure, switching to MT saves gas, but you don't see most people turning off their AC to save gas, either. (I do, but I'm weird)

In other Asian markets, manuals still dominate, but automatic uptake is on the rise, and automatic sales are predicted to outstrip manual sales in the future. In China, luxury cars are almost all autos. Only in the budget category do manuals rule. In Australia, autos dominate. In India, the last bastion of hairy chested balls-to-the-walls driving, MTs still dominate, but the AT segment is growing by leaps and bounds (helped in part by the popularity of cheap automated manuals).

The MT transmission is dying, by bits and pieces, around the world. America is one of the most mature markets out there, so whatever is happening in the USA, the rest of the world will eventually follow.

I'll be sad to see the stick go, but then, I was sad to see the manual choke go, too.

While true on the head of things, especially in your market,
in the US “legislative compliance cost” is up to 30% of vehicle cost to the consumer on “volume” models, on low volume models even higher, on very high volume models much lower.

I too work in the industry and generally if the take rate isn’t high enough to reduce regulatory costs under 30% it won’t be considered,
historically us auto makers would allow you to buy a custom car offering options that may only have a take rate in the dozens.

The consumer simply paid the shipping and overhead costs for customization.

Now days the “custom car” is all but impossible because the cost of the customization is pennies on the dollar compared to the regulatory cost, you can’t divide a 25 million dollar regulatory cost over a few thousand cars.

That is why everything is standard at OEM and only the aftermarket can offer true options.


Compare the US for example to Europe, most US volume models offer at most 2 engine/ transmission options, in Europe the same car may have 6 or more drivetrain options and that is on a much smaller market with much lower volumes, legislation first and foremost makes the decision for the automakers, if this wasn’t the case the Euro zone would not have significantly more drivetrain selection than the US, they should have less.

But if you already have most of the development &c done, as with say the '80s Toyota pickup, it costs nothing to keep making them, and very little to keep making incremental improvements.

Compare with computers, for instance. Intel doesn't start with a clean sheet for every new CPU, it keeps the same basic design and improves it, so you can run 30 year old software on the latest generation.

This is where the benefits of globalized regulations come into play.

Europe and Asia can naturally offer more options because you can export vehicles between the markets, because of shared regulatory requirements.

That's what Ford did with the US-only Focus and Ranger. Incremental improvements to outdated hardware.

And when they became too far out of sync with their global counterparts, they had to be dropped. You can only make so many incremental improvements to an old chassis. At some point, it becomes more expensive to improve it than to make an all-new one.

China is starting to get some of those. And for the same reason... cost savings.

China-only cars based on previous generation models.

But I believe the same fate will eventually befall them. They're going to die out in favor of globalized products with a wider appeal.

Agreed,
at a minimum, I believe that used cars (over a model year) from other first world countries should automatically be compliant cross directionally between markets. That was how it was before Ronald Reagan’s gray market laws took effect.
Even if they left a tariff on it, at least you could put a little pressure on domestics and you could then see a small percentage of cars never offered make their way here.

I also believe that globalized standards would reduce cost and increase consumer satisfaction, the desires to protect the US auto market via regulatory cost probably loose auto makers more sales to the cost of compliance than gains from isolation.

Ah well, too bad so sad.

But if you look at the aftermarket for say '80s Toyota pickups, you discover that the hardware (at least as far as the frame/chassis goes) isn't all that outdated. Indeed, it's arguably better than many later vehicles.

An old ladder frame rig will, of course, be great for off-road enthusiasts.

That's why they kept recycling the Defender.

Why they keep reissuing old Land Cruisers... and why the ancient Nissan Patrol is still on the market.

Also why the new Suzuki Jimny is debuting with little more than a new body shell and some extra cross-member reinforcement on the ladder frame (and what appear to be extra triangulation points and reinforcements for side impact).

But they're rubbish for all other things a "new" car needs to be good at. Ride quality. Handling. Fuel economy. Refinement. Optimization for lightness (for fuel economy and material cost issues). Optimization for crash testing. Etcetera.

You can still buy old ladder frames. But they're not marketed to regular consumers. They're built for enthusiasts and field work, and the prices reflect this.

Disagree, at least with the points I know enough about to comment. Ride quality & handling are perfectly fine (at least since I replaced the steering bushings - a sub-$10 part). Fuel economy could of course be improved, but it's better than similar newer vehicles. Don't know exactly what you mean by "refinement", but adding a cupholder or two isn't exactly rocket science, and some of the other things I can think of I'd pay extra not to have :-)

Hey, if it's good enough for James, it's good enough for everyone. The James lense is the only one that matters after all. Who knows why manufacturers make anything that James doesn't buy.

The comment was in regard to purpose-built off-roaders. Not small pick-ups.

Buuuut...

I slalom new trucks every year as part of quality assessment. Your standard 80s Toyota Hilux can't hold a candle to a modern truck in terms of on-road performance and safety. Or refinement. Or load capacity. Or etcetera.

You or I might be perfectly fine with the compromises, and willing to buy a small ladder frame truck. People who actually buy them new aren't. The global compact pick-up class that grew out of the Hilux-Ranger market demographic has now grown to the point where Mercedes is willing to pitch rebadged Nissans as luxury items, where Ford had to ditch the Ranger nameplate due to cannibalization of F150 sales (the new Ranger is quite big).

Now nobody can get a compact pick-up anymore. Unless you're willing to buy a unibody conversion in South America, a sketchy 'thing' from China, or a bare-bones cab-forward "dropside" in Asia. The compact pick-up buyer no longer exists.

As buying demographics grow more prosperous, they start wanting nicer things. Bigger things. And even bigger things. Until you have to create a new vehicle to fill the void left by your ever-inflating model line-up. That said, nobody is trying to fill the void left by small pick-ups. Because all the market research tells them it's not worth their money. And I agree with the resarchers, because from years of handling magazine questions, I know what brand-new truck buyers want: Bigger, Better, Bestest.

That's how it goes.

Some of these vehicles designed specifically for China can actually also have some appeal in other regions. IIRC the Chevrolet Cavalier and the Sail are already available in Mexico, plus the Sail is also not unheard of in other countries closer to Brazil. I even saw some previous-generation ones in Uruguay.


So, apart from the market becoming more "mature", what about the influence of JDM second-hand imports? At least in Paraguay, the prevalence of automatics might have been a result of this. When it comes to brand-new vehicles, the last one with Paraguayan plates and manual transmission I spotted was a Chinese SUV with its drivetrain being some random copy of older Isuzu designs.


The traffic volume might persuade many Chinese drivers to increase the pick rate for the automatics even in smaller econoboxes. Well, they might just copy some random Japanese transmissions as they frequently do anyway... Australia had some influence from the United States through the Canadian subsidiaries of Ford, GM and Chrysler which supplied RHD versions of American cars for overseas markets, even though Australian-made cars ended up having a higher local content than some of its counterparts in South Africa for example. When it comes to India, ease of repair with improvised resources might lead manuals to survive a little longer...


I could really care less about a stick-shifter. What about paddle-shifters? :D


Dude...

Yes, that's the one advantage China-only cars have over US-only cars... more applicable to developing markets that share Chinese tastes. Eventually, those developing markets will sign on to EURO emissions and NCAP requirements, though... but China has that covered... CNCAP is finally up to the same specs as Euro NCAP.

The Sail is quite popular here, but the turnover rate is suspiciously high... lots of one year olds selling at low prices. Have to investigate.

The last of the super JDM secondhands from the 90's are finally clearing out. But with or without them, typically those wanting manuals are looking at cheaper secondhand cars, anyway.

Chinese companies are now heavily investing in new AT technologies. AMTs are already popular, as they are in India, and CVTs are gaining ground. Several manufacturers have deals with companies like JATCO, others are building their own.

As for India... AMTs seem wildly popular there compared to anywhere... manual tranny ease of maintenance, automatic tranny convenience... some compromises, but easy to live with once you get used to the quirks. I hate the loathsome thing compared to a full manual, but if I had no choice, and if I were the one paying the fuel and maintenance bills, why not?

Last AMT I drove, the replacement clutch cost was less than my personal MT.

If they come with a starter clutch, I'm fine with sequential paddles. :D

:D What can I say? I have my pet advocacies!

It's not a matter of sharing tastes, it's a matter of low budget. Well, maybe if it has a Western badge instead of some obscure Chinese brand it also seems more attractive. When it comes to emissions, even though it's still usually enforced at a less strict stage compared to Europe, it seems to be enforced at a tougher pace than safety standards.


Nowadays due to the lack of manuals among the JDM second-hand arrivals in Paraguay, even those who in the past would prefer a manual basically have not too much choice by now.


I don't remember having ever seen a Chinese car fitted with AMT, even though some newer SUVs from JAC and Lifan now feature AT as an option.


Lower cost of maintenance compared to a conventional automatic has attracted mostly truck and bus fleets here, but in cars the AMT is still pointed out to be somewhat "inferior" to a conventional automatic, and most people dislike its rough behavior coming to a stop. Well, at least it applies to single-clutch ones (hadn't tried a dual-clutch yet).


Are you serious? Starter clutch like earlier generations of Scania's Opticruise?