Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,807 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I’m sorry but I’ve just seen the advert for the new puma ecoboost hybrid and I thought 2 things

1. that it looks really nice
2. About time ford caught up

so I go do some googling

I’m sorry what!! 48v battery? Can’t be driven ever on just electric?? Soft hybrid???

what is wrong with the industry??

what are ford doing?

why are we still thinking self charging hybrids are acceptable??
 

·
Premium Member
VW ID.3 Worst Edition
Joined
·
5,438 Posts
why are we still thinking self charging hybrids are acceptable??
Like them or not, anything that advances fuel efficiency in ICE cars is welcome.

It’s not the industry alone that needs to change, it’s the buying public as well.

Attacking people who buy mild hybrids is not going to advance the EV cause much.

I’d be more impressed that people are even thinking about fuel efficiency instead of just the cheapest diesel econobox or executive saloon that they could go and buy more cheaply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,807 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I can’t see how it increases fuel efficiency if zero distance is covered in battery
Unless there is ALWAYS available charge then the extra drain on the ICE reduced efficiency.
The puma aligns with fords engine policy - reduce size and add power through other means (Ricardo have been supporting ford for ages on small turbo charged, electrically supercharged and of course now electrically assisted)

I 100% agree the public need to sort themselves out ;)

All I’m wondering is why are ford not up there in development? What are they doing?

also saw the advert today for the Subaru forester self charging hybrid. And I get this approach for the smaller manufacturers buying into older tech but why have ford not paved the way?

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
I can’t see how it increases fuel efficiency if zero distance is covered in battery
Unless there is ALWAYS available charge then the extra drain on the ICE reduced efficiency.
The puma aligns with fords engine policy - reduce size and add power through other means (Ricardo have been supporting ford for ages on small turbo charged, electrically supercharged and of course now electrically assisted)

I 100% agree the public need to sort themselves out ;)

All I’m wondering is why are ford not up there in development? What are they doing?

also saw the advert today for the Subaru forester self charging hybrid. And I get this approach for the smaller manufacturers buying into older tech but why have ford not paved the way?

JJ
Well there are a couple of points here. Firstly Ford are in a bit of a poor situation money wise at the moment so developing loads of new tech isn't really on the cards though that may (probably will) come back to bite them.
Secondly a soft hybrid is better than no hybrid. Infact its one of the cheapest and least emission intensive (production wise) ways to reduce exhaust emissions in an ice. Its very similar to the early hybrids where they were more of a fancy stop-start system with a little boost to take the edge off acceleration.
The electricity comes from regen for the most part so all they are really doing is saving waste. They do work though as the engine can stay off for much longer and it needs to work a little less to accelerate all from the back of energy which would otherwise be brake dust and heat. They also add very little weight, complexity, cost and size to a powertrain so are very easy to just stick into almost anything already being churned out.
The hard limit for EU6 and its associated industry standards comes in 2023 so pretty much everything apart form the very cheap, very small stuff will need to have a system like this as a minimum or makers are going to get some pretty hefty fines.
Its not ideal but its better than nothing. Infact its a pretty large impact for such a small system. Around 15-20% is being claimed by most makers using such things but since thats on different cycles its a bit awkward to get a real idea of how much its actually doing.
Of course if it saves 5% of ice emissions thats 5% less we need to worry about.
 

·
Premium Member
VW ID.3 Worst Edition
Joined
·
5,438 Posts
that’s the thing - the puma cant drive at all on the motor alone

JJ
Whether an engine saves fuel by allowing short periods of driving with engine off or does it by having electrical assistance from a 48v alternator is kind of irrelevant, as long as it does it.

If you take your stance and say ‘no 48v hybrids’, then what? A higher emission standard ICE car instead?

The electric revolution isn’t coming as fast as many people think, and meantime there is a place for simple and relatively inexpensive tech that moves us forward even a modest amount.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Could it be that as there is going to be a ban on all petrol/ diesel only cars by 2040, this is an easy option?
i though the ban is only for new car to be register and I am sure when the ban come the definition of hybrid would have a set of criteria like minimum battery range or Max CO2 emissions...etc
With my 225xe only achieving ~60mpg, and my previous IS300h could only do 50ish when I drive like a granny and drop to mid 30s when I push it. I see very little attraction of “soft/mild” hybrid for the extra purchasing price, unless someone live in the ulez and relying on the rule of ulez not changing in short future
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
"Replacing the standard alternator, the BISG enables recovery and storage of energy usually lost during braking and coasting to charge a 48‑volt lithium-ion air-cooled battery pack. "

Which then provides assistance to the engine when accelerating only. Just another refinement of the ICE engine which appears to save 7g/km CO2 on the equivalent non-hybrid version. Hadn't realised MHEVs were a thing though I was aware of the integrated alternator/starter motors which have been around for a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
Could it be that as there is going to be a ban on all petrol/ diesel only cars by 2040, this is an easy option?
Unless the regulations are typed up by OPEC I would imagine it will mean at least some electrical range by then. Of course there are another two or three generations of powertrain before that so the engines being thrown out now will be long obsolete anyway.
The most popular option for the 2040 (or whenever they change it to next week) rules seems to be an electric motor where the clutch/torque converter was and appropriate battery power to make use of it.
Weather its then worth them adding a bit more battery and a plug will largely depend on the legislation.
 

·
Registered
Nissan Leaf 24 Tekna '64 reg
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
The 2020 Ford and VW 48v hybrid is less electrified than 1998 Toyota Prius hybrid. It's not catching up, it's manufacturers doing the absolute least required to meet regulation.

Just like the "self-charging" marketing catchphrase, these 48v systems shouldn't be allowed to be marketed as hybrids. It's essentially beefed up starter system. If that's the case, any standard ICE car with energy recovery and stop/start could also be called a hybrid! A nano-hybrid!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,731 Posts
Saving 10% CO2 on all cars a company sells reduces the CO2 fines a lot more then selling a few pure EVs or long range plug in hybreds. These systems also work for small cars that have very limited space to add a plug in hybred type system, and not enough space for a 200 mile range as a pure EV.
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
6,256 Posts
The Ford system as applied to the Puma has an 11.5 kW charger/starter. This is small in comparison to the regeneration available in most EVs and is aimed at filling in the gaps in power delivery in modern highly boosted high compression engines. Not just is this a quick way to achieve efficiency savings in the whole fleet, but allows manufacturers to do so without significant reengineering.
Personally I am more disappointed that the public still continue to purchase SUVs and crossovers. :rolleyes:
When will we see the hybrid turbos from F1 in production?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
The 2020 Ford and VW 48v hybrid is less electrified than 1998 Toyota Prius hybrid. It's not catching up, it's manufacturers doing the absolute least required to meet regulation.

Just like the "self-charging" marketing catchphrase, these 48v systems shouldn't be allowed to be marketed as hybrids. It's essentially beefed up starter system. If that's the case, any standard ICE car with energy recovery and stop/start could also be called a hybrid! A nano-hybrid!
Less electrified but more efficient. The point here is that they work to reduce emissions which they do. Since its a cheap and easy system to impliment it also means there could be 100% roll out in one model cycle if the regs were there to require it.
Moan about hybrids all you like but the fact of the matter is these small systems rolled out into pretty much all ices will have a much larger impact on overall emissions than 10% bev sales from a similar maker.
If you have 100kWh of batteries do you build one Tesla which might only use that capacity a few times in its life or 100 of these which will use all that capacity multiple times per day?

The question then is are we looking to really reduce emissions or just sit and let it burn until bevs can replace all ices?
I'll take a 5% cut in fleet emissions over a 5% market share for bevs any day of the week because its a much better use of resources and a much larger cut in overall emissions.
Its the difference between being evangelical or intelligent.
 

·
Registered
Nissan LEAF30
Joined
·
6,256 Posts
The 2020 Ford and VW 48v hybrid is less electrified than 1998 Toyota Prius hybrid. It's not catching up, it's manufacturers doing the absolute least required to meet regulation.

Just like the "self-charging" marketing catchphrase, these 48v systems shouldn't be allowed to be marketed as hybrids. It's essentially beefed up starter system. If that's the case, any standard ICE car with energy recovery and stop/start could also be called a hybrid! A nano-hybrid!
Don't blame the manufacturers - blame the legislators if you must. Surely the key should be reducing energy usage in any vehicle, not what technology is used to achieve it? I don't think that Audi E-Tron or Tesla Model X are an acceptable answer - they are hugely inefficient and whilst some electricity is still generated by fossil fuels their waste of energy and other resources is more unacceptable than say a Dacia Sandero with a Euro 5 petrol engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,731 Posts
Moan about hybrids all you like but the fact of the matter is these small systems rolled out into pretty much all ices will have a much larger impact on overall emissions than 10% bev sales from a similar maker
I'll take a 5% cut in fleet emissions over a 5% market share for bevs any day of the week because its a much better use of resources and a much larger cut in overall emissions
Don't blame the manufacturers - blame the legislators if you must. Surely the key should be reducing energy usage in any vehicle
Personally I care much more about polution effecting us locally then worldwide CO2 levels. Hence I would like to see taxi/uber being forced to use these 5% macket share EVs, as that will improve air quality a lot more then a small improvement in many cars that are never driven into cities.

Yet the EU cares more about CO2, then about the fact my wife gets ill when she has meatings in a city.
 

·
Registered
Nissan Leaf 24 Tekna '64 reg
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
The question then is are we looking to really reduce emissions or just sit and let it burn until bevs can replace all ices?
I'll take a 5% cut in fleet emissions over a 5% market share for bevs any day of the week because its a much better use of resources and a much larger cut in overall emissions.
You say that as though 5% fleet emission reduction is across the all cars on the road. But the truth is, it's 5% emission reduction across all cars sold over that year. Compared with 5% market share for EV, the overall wold-wide emission is similar.

But locally, any increase in number of EV's on the road is much much better for air quality.

Then, there's 10 years down the line. The 10 years old ICE cars with batteries used multiple cycles daily will likely produce more pollution than when they were tested. Whereas the EV usage pollution (power used to charge) would have gotten greener.

The point isn't about reducing a single metric: CO2 emission. Your thought processes are exactly those of the car manufacturers.
The point is to move away from fossil fuel usage. To do that, marketing benefits of EV ownership should be first and foremost, investing in charging infrastructure should be number 1 (eg. Ford help make Ionity affordable for everyone).
Whereas what do we see today? "self-charging" "mild-hybrid" "MHEV" and more SUV's.
 

·
Registered
2017 Golf GTE
Joined
·
2,473 Posts
Don't blame the manufacturers - blame the legislators if you must. Surely the key should be reducing energy usage in any vehicle, not what technology is used to achieve it? I don't think that Audi E-Tron or Tesla Model X are an acceptable answer - they are hugely inefficient and whilst some electricity is still generated by fossil fuels their waste of energy and other resources is more unacceptable than say a Dacia Sandero with a Euro 5 petrol engine.
Now you've hit upon a fundamental problem with all cars.A significant proportion of car buyers see the car a a status symbol, not just a means of transport. Hence extravagance is attractive since it shows that you can afford it. That can be the extravagance of being able to buy the latest, largest car available or demonstating that you don't need to concern yourself with economy by driving that huge car at high speed everywhere.
At least the BEV ones don't poison people in the immediate vicinity too.
How long will it take to change human nature?
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top