Ramcharger: How (Can?) Ford Respond - A Discussion

[Samson16]

PB has been around for what, 3 years now? That relatively simple architecture is still having "fresh design growing pains?". Interesting perspective.

It’s a common theme here slowly abating as solutions for common problems are ironed out.

Sponsored

 

[Samson16]

I'm sure most of us with reservations realize that signing up means we have the option to buy - doesn't mean we have to take it. Heck, that alone is worth the $100, even if they keep it. I'm sure I'm not alone in that perspective.

I respect that and I’m interested and hopeful that RC is a smash hit! I had friends and coworkers who sneered at my choice of new truck. Thought a hybrid truck was a joke and I a fool.

 

[Dadofjax]

Ram can't sell their current fleet of trucks. What makes you think people will flock to this, which will most likely be another overpriced truck on the market.

 

[JExpedition07]

Ram can't sell their current fleet of trucks. What makes you think people will flock to this, which will most likely be another overpriced truck on the market.

Ding ding, nobody is flocking to anything because they are all overpriced. Since 2000 the automobile market has shrunk significantly as the pool of new buyers shrinks due to being priced out of the market. With the MSRP of this new BEV concept (and it being a stellantis product) idk how well it will sell. Time will tell.

 

[RickBullotta]

A few comments to open this discussion, a few of which I’ll elaborate on.

1. Todays Powerboost architecture is a dead-end.
2. An Ecoboost driven generator is inappropriate.
3. Fords PB/NA frames, today, are too weak.
4. Ford doesn’t need a new design, they need to get their shit together and quite pissing off their customers and service centers. That PB is regarded, forum fans or not, as poorly as it is reported to be is a black eye Ford needs to make right.
5. Ford may, probably can, leverage their Lightening platform.
6. Conceptually Ramcharger is very close to an ideal design. It cannot be trumped, but it can be improved.

Supporting Statements:

1. Using a torque converter shim (as PB does):
   1. Undermines efficiency in both power delivery and regen capture:
   2. Limits more HP severely.
2. Using Ecoboost as generator would make no sense. Turbo engines are typically noticable less fuel efficient per HP delivered (timing and fuel enrichment demands) relative to an NA engine.
   1. An ecoboost works in traditional sense because in normal use it’s under limited load = not under boost. As a generator such an engine, when on, would be under considerable load. NA wins here.
3. Frame: I don’t think I need to even support this, right? PB payload is already underwhelming.
4. Misc:
   1. Stop deleting content
   2. Start making customer service as important as your stock price.
   3. No, I don’t care if Ford goes direct to consumer for EV/PHEV sales. In fact I think they should.
      1. The dealers need to go back to customer service as a profit center. Something they seem to have forgotten.

What Would I Like To See?

One reason I reserved a Ramcharger so quickly is I’d already thought through what the mfg’s needed to do. Ramcharger is really close. However, here’s what I as a layman had as my ideal design, and what Ford should (IMHO) do:

1. Start with an EV “Skateboard” frame, perhaps the lightning frame can be used.
2. Narrow up the darn thing. Look, most of us don’t need 3 adult across seating in a half ton. We’re paying a drag penalty every mile for body width that has no meaning. I could cut 4-6” of width out and never miss it.
   1. Keep all that rear seat legroom though!
3. Targets:
   1. 425hp/500ft lbs
   2. 80 miles of unloaden range (I'm thinking 60KW)
   3. LFP batteries.
   4. 2000lb payload in XLT trim.
4. Driveline:
   1. 3L Nano V-6, GDI, NA.
      1. 120hp continuous @3K RPM
      2. 200 Peak @ 5k
   2. Planetary E-CVT (They already have this IP)
   3. Drive one axle from the E-CVT
   4. Remaining axle is EV only ~ 225hp
      1. Enough for day to day, even merging etc.
5. Misc:
   1. Heatpump
   2. 12KW output inverter
   3. E-LSD in back
   4. Longbed option
   5. Steal or replicate the GM tailgate.
   6. Get your supplier house in order and stop content deletes.
   7. There is growing evidence of paint delamination due to aluminum corrosion. Not a problem for an airplane, why isn’t Ford prepping the aluminum better?

What do I get vs Ramcharger?

1. A more efficient generator, the ability to directly drive an axle when needed, charge when needed, and an infinite combination of the two / as well as drive ratios.
   1. 500cc per cylinder has been proven to be optimum displacement to boot.
2. More efficiency when running extended range (I can direct drive the thing), and/or variably gear it down and charge the battery back up.
3. Substantially less weight.
4. Longer, basically lifetime, battery longevity.
5. No concerns about oxidization for steel or aluminum.
6. Enough power to run most homes, including A/C plants now.
7. Still enough power and battery reserve to meet almost any towing demands. And if, should I need 300HP continuous for some odd reason, I’m prepared to accept there is a limit to how long I can do that. In that it’ll be something like 30 minutes, I’m pretty OK with that.
8. All of which means better efficiency around town, on the road, and while towing.

OK, what do you think Ford should, could do?

Disclaimer: While I understand a planetary E-CVT reasonably well, I do not know the efficiency implicit in running current into the motor/generator adequate to provide backpressure to force drive ratio changes. It's certainly effective in the Toyota Prime, the Ford Escape, and the Pacifica PHEV though. Still, I'm not an automotive engineer. I may be full of shite (almost a given).

The Lightning platform is not the answer - it's simply a placeholder for a new platform they are actively developing.

 

[Groovicles]

I thought the RC design is an interesting idea. That much total range and that much HP/torque would make this truck the go to for some quite specific situations. However, like the PB the max payload Ram offered will be for the most stripped down version that'll be impossible to find and will probably be the least popular for consumers. And this truck is going to be immensely heavy, like somewhere on the top end between the Lightening and the Hummer EV. But certainly the cost will be the $100,000+ straw that broke the camels back.

 

[Snakebitten]

It seems like many were stunned about the Ramcharger. This method of PHEVs has been around awhile, the Chevy Volt does the same thing and I think BMWs use similar technology of only using an ICE to power the batteries. So Stellantis hasn't done anything that groundbreaking here. Kudos to them for making a logical step of employing this tried and true type of platform to 1/2 ton pickups.

However, Ford could pretty easily pivot and counter with one of these as well. They would have to give up the frunk of the Lightning, but they could quickly un-retire the 3.3L V-6 (before they have even stopped production) and use it in the same manner that the Ram uses the 3.6L Pentastar. They could then also reduce the amount of battery mass necessary as the ICE will extend the range without the need for 98kw battery. Might be a clone, but hey Stellantis didn't invent this system either.

Then Ford would have three electric platforms for the F-150: The full EV Lightning; the PHEV Frankenlightning; and the 3.5L Powerboost. I still think there is a market for a hybrid like the Powerboost. The Ramcharger is more EV than ICE. The Powerboost is more ICE than EV. Some folks might prefer their truck's powertrain to be connected to internal combustion while still getting the benefit of a hybrid. Others not. Ford can easily and should cater to both. Seems 90% of the development of this would have already been done by the successful launch of the Lightning.

Such a reasonable post.

 

[Snakebitten]

Can you explain how the ICE is under considerable load when using it as a generator? It will come on every 18-20 minutes for around 1.5 minutes. It's highest speed is around 1300 rpm. And the turbos never spin up. It doesn't use any power generated by the turbos.

So my truck engine which runs for a minute and a half, every 18 +/- minutes, at idle, and never spinning up the turbos is supposed to be under considerable load? I hardly think so.

Atlee, I might be misunderstanding your question, but the ICE in the Powerboost is under much less "charging load" than the ICE in the RamCharger will be.

The Powerboost ICE is spinning a ~39KW generator and I haven't seen it ever generate more than about 62Amps (~17KW) via ICE. (it does generate the full 39KW with regen)

And like you stated, it only takes about 1-1½ minutes to complete the charge on that tiny little 1.5KW battery. And even that is because Ford keeps the available usage of that battery VERY narrow. About 25% of the battery energy is available for EV.

The RamCharger battery is somewhere between 50 to 60 times the size of the Powerboost battery. I assume it will be allowed to operate in a much wider range of SOC. Say 20-80%?
So effectively 100 times or more the size of the Powerboost battery.

And of course the ICE will be turning a much more powerful generator with a far bigger load (KW).

 

[Golf Cart Wizard]

I like Ram's idea, I think with current battery technology and charger infrastructure the EREV approach makes far more sense for truck use. However I would prefer a truck with an even smaller battery, as previously mentioned the Ramcharger will likely be both heavy and pricey. I think something like the Volt approach where there is just enough battery range for daily use would be the most practical solution, but regardless this is a much better approach than a BEV for how I drive.

40-60 miles is as far as I normally go in a day, however I need to make some longer trips over 200 miles, AND these almost always involve a trailer so would require a BEV capable of 400+ miles. EV charging infrastructure is almost nonexistent and not designed for towing so a pure BEV with less range would not be practical. So to do my job with a BEV I would need something like the Silverado where they just kept shoving batteries until they ended up with a $80,000 8000+ pound 1/2 ton work truck. IMO completely overkill and wasteful when I would normally only need 10% of the battery capacity. Plus I'd bet the cost to replace that battery out of warranty would total the truck.

Just give me a battery with somewhere around 60-100 miles, so I can accomplish all of my normal driving and then some in pure EV mode without lugging around an extra 3000 lbs of batteries. Then put a small simple NA 4 cylinder gas motor to run generator duty when I need to tow. This would keep the cost and weight down out of the realm of insanity, as well as preventing the vehicle from becoming scrap one day because the battery replacement cost exceeds residual value.

 

[Samson16]

How long do you think it will take for the ICE to charge the HVB if a charging station can’t be found or is not convenient? What sort of reduced output power can we expect in August above 7000’ for the hardworking V6? Will it still have to meet vehicle emissions standards or will standby generator emissions rules apply?

 

[Samson16]

It seems like many were stunned about the Ramcharger. This method of PHEVs has been around awhile, the Chevy Volt does the same thing and I think BMWs use similar technology of only using an ICE to power the batteries.

I was surprised because when you say “Chevy Volt” I don’t think great idea for a truck! I think failed crappy excuse for a vehicle that never sold well and was discontinued 5 years ago. That’s why.

 

[nitrobass24]

Does ford really need to respond?…its still a RAM. I’d take a ford any day over any ram.

 

[turbopilot]

Munro is really trying to be nice to the RAM folks, but I think he has it right.

Too much weight, complexity and cost to make a V6 ICE generator make sense.

 

[Buyer2021]

OK, what do you think Ford should, could do?

Not gonna go there, but in the spirit of friendly discussion a couple of thoughts about your " What Would I Like To See? "

• Re: "narrower" - less-than-generous 3-wide seating might work for you, but IMO that'd have a serious negative impact for the market at large; if ya can't meet the market-at-large then your truck won't sell enough numbers to survive.
• Re: 120hp continuous / 200hp peak ICE hybrid drivetrain (hybrid in the sense that you expect the truck to operate on the ICE when the battery is depleted) - I'm doubtful that the ICE you specify could meet the performance goals most folks want in many driving situations (e.g. high altitude, hills, highway-passing, towing, etc.) while also charging a low HV battery. IMO that effectively re-introduces the 'useful range anxiety' issue for many folks.

Certainly, your prerogative to imagine a 'dream truck' that works for you, and maybe you've nailed that, but IMO you'll never see it if the market niche for that vehicle is too small, and I respectfully think that's the case with your proposal.

Has Ford 'nailed it for all buyers' with the PB? IMO no, but after 3 years it's selling pretty decently and there's lots of happy owners (witness @Snakebitten, among many).

Has Ford 'nailed it for all buyers' with the Lightning? IMO far from it (pardon the range anxiety pun).

Will Stellantis 'nail it for all buyers' with the RamCharger? IMO not likely, but likely it will offer an attractive alternative addressing many of the things folks find limiting in the two mentioned above (while doubtless introducing its own set of limitations / compromises).

What should Ford do? IMO what they're already doing: Continue evolving and innovating in the never-ending quest of 'better' half-ton pickup options to meet (also evolving) market demands. Nope, I've no idea what form those will take nor do I have a considered specific suggestion(s) for the direction(s) Ford should pursue.

Do I expect there to be some 'misses' along with the 'hits' insofar as future innovations? Absolutely, I'm a realist; but I also know the other reality: There's no progress without trying and taking the chances on the market that come with that.

We'll see if it proves to be a hit or a miss, but I say "Kudos!' to Stellantis for boldly stepping out with the Ramcharger. And yeah, I look forward to Ford's "response". whatever that may be.

 

[Snakebitten]

Here's a fact no one seems to be mentioning..

It has 8 lug wheels.

Clearly not a half ton.

So for a 3/4 ton.... the Hamcharger has absolutely pathetic payload and towing numbers.

Pathetic.

Good point. But!......

If the 8-lug wheel indicates that this truck indeed could be at a nice trim level, still have HDPP-type Payload capacity, yet ride and handle like a Lightning? (which by the way is one of the strengths of the Lightning regardless of one's views regarding EV's. The Lightning has a brilliant ride and even handles towing weight fantastic for a half ton)

Again, intrigued.
Maybe this is an HDPP 1/2 ton Hybrid?

Sponsored