Toyota and Ford teeming up to build hybrid system

Towing capacity is a big deal to some truck buyers. Payload is more important, and it tends to be linked to towing capacity.

When it comes to hauling heavy loads or towing, RWD is important because of physics. The load increases pressure on the rear wheels while lowering it on the front. Unless the vehicle was loaded up by a nut, the front still has traction for steering, but the traction can be reduced to the point of effecting a FWD vehicle's ability to transfer power to the road and get moving. The Honda Pilot's tow rating with AWD is about 1000# more than the FWD because of this.

Since I mentioned the Pilot, I have come across a few towing loads. One appeared way beyond it's rating, but most appeared to be within limits. Even then the back end sagged, expected, and the rear wheels went out of camber, which isn't good for the tire. I assume it is possible to design an independent rear suspension that doesn't do this, but it's this tendency that has most buyers of towing trucks preferring a solid rear axle.

FWD or RWD for a work vehicle depends on the job. The Transit Connect uses FWD because it allows a lower cargo bed and more cargo space. The Van body makes it more usable than a basic Ranger, and most buyers looking for a tower are looking at pick ups. The full size Transit offered over seas is available with either drive.

 

Automotive in general? Not much. But of full size truck buyers? HP, torque, payload and towing are the big marketing buzzwords. Just watch the commercials. Or visit any rural or farming area where the only two choices are Chevy and Ford.

 

"..marketing buzzwords.."

"...Just watch the commercials..."

No, thank you. When those MACHO truck commercials come on I either switch channels or simply kill the sound. I'm not, obviously, a target of those commecial anyway.

I'm waiting for the marketing hype, over-hyping, for the new FWD Exploder to die down and then maybe Ford will bring the new Ranger to the US.

 

Sure not you, but marketers know their market for full size trucks. They're not the people buying Ridgelines...

 

... and the marketers are right...

it's all about the torque while towing.. and if you want to hit the highway, you'll need that hp... if you're towing a 10,000lb trailer... you need power.. and you need a dully rear end (and all that body steel)...

they have to have that much power... they need to be the huge beast that they are while being quick and nimble so they can work around all of our go-cart like cars.

my father is truly disappointed in large trucks mpg. throughout life he expected large trucks to get many times more mpg than they currently do. if a hybrid F450 came out today that was rated to tow the same as the non hybrid and achieve a little better mpg.. he would trade in.... honestly... even if it was rated to tow a little less... he would test his luck and do it anyway.

i think toyota and ford are teaming up to try and keep cost down for both of them. they both know it's a powerful market. when it comes down to certain parts of the u.s.... it's only really ford and chevy anyway... so no matter what, toyota would gain since they are smaller in that industry and ford will potentially gain a little market from chevy. hopefully the price will drop for consumers too.

i see traditional cars to be a little expensive with repairs when compared to miles driven. if a rwd hybrid is anything like the prius or other current ford/toyota hybrids.... then it will be a revolution in the truck industry... as was HSD to the car industry

 

Toyota does have a truck market outside NA. Ford does too for that matter. Also, any system they develope will see use beyond the pick-ups and SUVs. It could be used in any commercial truck; dump truck, moving van, etc. Aything up to something that doesn't require a CDL. It might even work for them, but their size gives more design options.

The global Ranger has grown in size. Still smaller than than the F-150, but close enough that many won't see a difference and upgrade. Also, there is still a strong opinion here about real trucks not having a unibody.

 

We are talking SUVs and trucks here so I figured that maybe they might want them to not be neutered (or spayed if you prefer). Building a wimpy hybrid will not help the image at all.

While us here are smart enough to see through the image to reality that is not the case in most of the general public.

I can agree that Ford has not yet put an ecoboost on an econ diet vs. a horsepower diet but that does not mean they can't or won't. The 3cyl Fiesta will be the first and it will probably get near Prius econ without a hybrid system.

Now...the C should beat it and so on and so forth but that doesn't lessen its importance...especially since a lot of that buying public I spoke of above will not buy a hybrid for whatever reason.

 

Has there been an official announcement for the ecoboost Fiesta? The 2.0 will be available in the Edge and Explorer next year. Unfortunetly, not in AWD for those that want it.

 

This is about all I have seen:

Report: Ford confirms U.S. availibility of EcoBoost three-cylinder Fiesta

But whether here or overseas, if it exists it exists. I do hope they are smart enough to bring it here...if its not a Geo Metro I think it will be popular.

 

Just as long as its smaller than the F-150, and unibody = progress. New Ranger has DFI engines but NO turbocharger requiring engine FE derating.

 

...

 

Does anyone drive a pick up on this forum besides me.
I have talk to people who have ecoboast engine , they have A lot torgue, and sucks gas

I look at a Ford Transit for about 2mins, pass

 

If a Ford Ranger, 2.3L I4, stick shift, single cab, qualifies then yes, I do. I would jump at the chance to buy an A-Bat.

 

The a-bat may be coming in 2014, but may not be hybrid at first:

Report: Scion Pickup Coming in 2014 Based on Toyota A-BAT Concept - PickupTrucks.com News

 

Cleanmpg.com did an extended road trip with an ecoboost F-150, and managed to get over 30mpg with it. It was 2WD with the shortest rear end possible. While any report that involves Wayne Gerdes might have you think that they used the 'that's insane hypermiling techniques', that wasn't the case. They used basic techniques, mostly steady state driving around 50mph. Also the truck was technically over weight. By around 50lbs. I don't recall if that was with or without passengers.

Now, on truck site that reported on it, there was many comments along lines of "there's no way I can go slower than 70".

I loved my Ranger, and I would like to see it return. I would have preferred it remained it currents size. Ford had no problem selling them the world over that way. The fact is though, without the spike in gas prices back in 2008, the market would have been Rangerless here for 2 years now, and the majority of truck buyers wouldn't have noticed.

They feel like the above commentors, and believe that unibody and independent rears can never do the same work as full frames and solid rears. They may talk of wanting better fuel economy, but not if it costs more or requires change on their part.

 

30mpg under ideal highway conditions doesn't seem far fetched for the most fuel efficient F150, perhaps more attainable than 20mpg city. Too bad we don't have a method to compare vehicles with basic hypermiling techniques. As is, it is so subjective based on the driver. Something repeatable from one test to another, even if not a thorough procedure like the EPA uses, would be interesting.

I'm still astounded when I see some of the results on the internet for vehicles that don't even have an autostart feature where the ICE is running 100% of the time. The nice thing about electric motors is the high torque at zero RPM, something truck buyers should appreciate. Even modest gains for something that gets 12-16 mpg city would be a huge reduction in fuel consumption on a fleet basis.

 

Fleet owners and individuals that buy their trucks, or cars, for actual business use do appreciate improvements to furl economy. They just aren't the majority vehicle purchaser in this country.

You sure that's so. It isn't for my car.

 

The pick-up had 5 people in it and the bed was loaded with cargo. They did make use of FAS on some downgrades.

However, after the sea-to-sea drive, he did do some testing with modified steady-state (i.e. some DWL) and towing the Fiesta and showed it to be efficient

As with any turbocharged engine, if you're going to make heavy use of the turbo don't expect efficiency. Some people are going to be very disappointed.

 

Some people were disappointed with the Prius after short trips or lots of heavy acceleration.

We can use technology to improve economy, but drivers need to realize that they can directly improve it with knowledge.

 

Sorry- I should have used the word impressed, rather than astounded (that some might infer as disbelief). People that consistently get signifcantly above the EPA city figures on unmodified, conventional gas engines have serious expertise. In fact, they should charge for lessons. Heck, I could do with some lessons from people that routinely get well above 60mpg in their Prius