BYD Shark 6 - tow test by Car Expert

[whynot]

Interesting. Some good and not so good results. But, overall, for a pre-production vehicle, I am impressed with how far they have pushed the technology.

As a former owner of an Outlander PHEV, no real surprises for me in the strengths and weaknesses of PHEV. The only minor criticism that I have of the test method is I would have liked to see test results with the motor in forced charging mode (assuming that the vehicle has one, like the Outlander PHEV).

It will be interesting to see how the Ranger PHEV goes.

[simon varley]

Ranger PHEV keeps the full 3500kg towing, so hopefully it will kill the Shark!

[Franco Cozzo]

Interesting to note its faster than the Ranger Raptor to 100 by 0.1 seconds, it stops quicker, does 6.2L/100km and its ~$30,000 cheaper.



You're looking at the new XR6 Turbo

[Falcon SXR8]

Didnt seem to tow well for very long at all, one lap ? With the engine revving its nuts off the whole time. It is cheap though so worth a look if you don't tow much or go offroad.

[smoo]

As predicted this thing is a dud for what it’s being marketed for and all the fanfare around it from the CCP cucks who are pulling their skin off it calling it a Ranger killer.
A ‘software upgrade’ isn’t gonna make a shit box 1.5 litre drag 6 tonne down the road any better. Especially when there’s hills, head wind, and a brick of a trailer thrown in the mix.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Interesting to note its faster than the Ranger Raptor to 100 by 0.1 seconds, it stops quicker, does 6.2L/100km and its ~$30,000 cheaper.

image

You're looking at the new XR6 Turbo

Imagine dropping $80k on a Hilux and getting dealt to at the traffic lights from a 1980s family sedan.

[randel]

Interesting his comment about no potentially no regen braking on long decents. Wonder if it could/would ever get to that point in real life? May not want to fully charge when staying up in the mountains, or there might be some grey nomads with cooked brakes at the bottom of big hills

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Interesting to note its faster than the Ranger Raptor to 100 by 0.1 seconds,

exactly what you'd expect from a hybrid.

[randel]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Interesting to note its faster than the Ranger Raptor to 100 by 0.1 seconds

Only unladen... which I guess most dual cabs are most of the time

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by randel

Only unladen... which I guess most dual cabs are most of the time

-Not relevant or needed-

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by simon varley

exactly what you'd expect from a hybrid.

$30,000 cheaper and faster?

[randel]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

-Not relevant or needed-

Nah, they are generally too close behind for me to see drivers or their passengers - can only see the grille!

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Interesting to note its faster than the Ranger Raptor to 100 by 0.1 seconds, it stops quicker, does 6.2L/100km and its ~$30,000 cheaper.

image

You're looking at the new XR6 Turbo

I imagine braking is all down to tyres on those things.

Oh street tyres on the Raptor would help with acceleration also. Those BFGs are real heavy and arnt known for stopping ability.

Impressed by the Triton, wonder what shoes it has.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by Falcon SXR8

Didnt seem to tow well for very long at all, one lap ? With the engine revving its nuts off the whole time. It is cheap though so worth a look if you don't tow much or go offroad.

Given my experience with a PHEV in the past, there is something about that part of the test that doesn't make sense.

A PHEV will typically hard clutch up with the drive train at around 70 kph. Sort of like it is in a gear ratio of 4th in a manual box. But at this speed, the ICE engine revs are low; around 1500 rpm, like in a manual. When full ICE power is required, the engine will declutch from the drive train, and then go to a spot on the power band where there is a sweet spot between max power out of the generator and fuel consumption. Because it is just sitting at a single spot on the power band, it doesn't vary the revs at all. And it does sound like it is working its backside off. Stand besides a petrol or diesel generator, like one running for a hospital or a high rise building, and they do exactly the same thing (i.e. run at fixed RPM).

The 75 kph peak speed looks pathetic. Until one looks across at the results from the prior tests to see vehicles like the Pajero Sport could barely reach 90 kph. I suspect that with a bit more software tweaking, that speed will be improved.

Would I rush out an buy a Shark 6? No.

But, by the same token, I think the setup that BYD have put together appears quite flexible and usable for more typical circumstances. I suspect that BDY are on a steep learning curve, and the next iteration will be interesting.

As an aside, I am curious to know what the engine oil and transmission fluid temperature on the Prado got to, at the end of its run pulling the dyno trailer around for five laps. I am not sure the Prado (or many other vehicles) would be happy doing that all day either.

PS. There is a video on YouTube of a newish V6 Ranger, pulling a large caravan, going into limp mode near the top of the Toowoomba Range because of excessive transmission temperature. That is a 300 metre elevation change over 5km. Not a particularly erroneous run, and not much better than the Shark 6.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by whynot

Given my experience with a PHEV in the past, there is something about that part of the test that doesn't make sense.

A PHEV will typically hard clutch up with the drive train at around 70 kph. Sort of like it is in a gear ratio of 4th in a manual box. But at this speed, the ICE engine revs are low; around 1500 rpm, like in a manual. When full ICE power is required, the engine will declutch from the drive train, and then go to a spot on the power band where there is a sweet spot between max power out of the generator and fuel consumption. Because it is just sitting at a single spot on the power band, it doesn't vary the revs at all. And it does sound like it is working its backside off. Stand besides a petrol or diesel generator, like one running for a hospital or a high rise building, and they do exactly the same thing (i.e. run at fixed RPM).

The 75 kph peak speed looks pathetic. Until one looks across at the results from the prior tests to see vehicles like the Pajero Sport could barely reach 90 kph. I suspect that with a bit more software tweaking, that speed will be improved.

Would I rush out an buy a Shark 6? No.

But, by the same token, I think the setup that BYD have put together appears quite flexible and usable for more typical circumstances. I suspect that BDY are on a steep learning curve, and the next iteration will be interesting.

As an aside, I am curious to know what the engine oil and transmission fluid temperature on the Prado got to, at the end of its run pulling the dyno trailer around for five laps. I am not sure the Prado (or many other vehicles) would be happy doing that all day either.

PS. There is a video on YouTube of a newish V6 Ranger, pulling a large caravan, going into limp mode near the top of the Toowoomba Range because of excessive transmission temperature. That is a 300 metre elevation change over 5km. Not a particularly erroneous run, and not much better than the Shark 6.

There’s a difference between knocking it back a gear or two, scrubbing off some speed and using a 1/4 less throttle to reduce the load on the engine trans etc in the name of mechanical sympathy, to the vehicle simply not being able to do the job that’s asked of it.

How does a ‘software tweak’ make a 130kw 1.5 engine pull a load like that any quicker, assuming the batteries were well depleted by that stage and the ICE wasn’t able to recharge and drive the vehicle at the same time.
That engine would have been giving it its all, just like the similarly underpowered Mitsubishi.
Remember this thing is touted as a Ranger killer. Maybe compare it to a V6 diesel/petrol.

It seems every shortcoming of this highlighted by a couple of journos who aren’t on the CCP books, can be fixed with a software upgrade.

[jpd80]

Seriously, this is where the PHEV Ranger will shine even with a discharged battery,
the 2.3 EB and 10-speed auto bit makes all the difference……..

Now all we have to do is convince Ford to put it into an affordable XLT.

[kevino]

Originally Posted by smoo

There’s a difference between knocking it back a gear or two, scrubbing off some speed and using a 1/4 less throttle to reduce the load on the engine trans etc in the name of mechanical sympathy, to the vehicle simply not being able to do the job that’s asked of it.

How does a ‘software tweak’ make a 130kw 1.5 engine pull a load like that any quicker, assuming the batteries were well depleted by that stage and the ICE wasn’t able to recharge and drive the vehicle at the same time.
That engine would have been giving it its all, just like the similarly underpowered Mitsubishi.
Remember this thing is touted as a Ranger killer. Maybe compare it to a V6 diesel/petrol.

It seems every shortcoming of this highlighted by a couple of journos who aren’t on the CCP books, can be fixed with a software upgrade.

Pretty much every Journalist review of a Chinese car reveals issues with the driver assistance aids.
IE
Lane keep
Active cruise
Emergency braking Driver fatigue camera sensors


It seems often to keep faith with car manufacturer the standard go statement to is ''A software review is upcoming for x y z etc)

[nibble]

I think Fords approach with their upcoming Hybrid that keeps the traditional drive-line with the electric motor sandwiched between the engine and transmission is a better idea. There is something to be said about being able to "mechanically" lock front to rear and left to right drive.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Now all we have to do is convince Ford to put it into an affordable XLT.

well, it's in the Amarok and in NextGen in other countries, so its technically quite possible. Not sure if it exists in RHD though. Whether Marketing think we need it - who knows?

Hopefully Amarok sales will incentivize Ford.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by simon varley

well, it's in the Amarok and in NextGen in other countries, so its technically quite possible. Not sure if it exists in RHD though. Whether Marketing think we need it - who knows?

Hopefully Amarok sales will incentivize Ford.

PHEV Ranger is confirmed for Australia in 2025,
hoping it’s not restricted to just high trim levels
but understand a toe in the water approach

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

How does a ‘software tweak’ make a 130kw 1.5 engine pull a load like that any quicker, assuming the batteries were well depleted by that stage and the ICE wasn’t able to recharge and drive the vehicle at the same time.

It was clear on the captures of the screen - and it was mentioned in the video - that the power output was limited to 100 kW, whereas the petrol engine is rated to 135 kW. For whatever reason, that output is only 70% of what is actually available from the ICE.

Keeping in mind the vehicle under test was pre-production, that initially points to software. But another possibility is that the coupled generator is only rated to 100 kW, with the design assuming that with the vehicle at speed, the ICE could split its power output between generator (and onto the electric motors) and direct drive to the front wheels.

Methinks in the real world, this particular test, specifically the sequence of the testing is, as Paul said himself, an edge case. Possibly forcing the engine management system into a software corner where it elected to declutch the direct drive. I can only assume that in doing so, this restricted the output from 135 kW to 100 kW.

Remember that the Shark just had a flogging doing a full acceleration run with the trailer dyne connected. And had done a unknown number of laps around the proving ground, pulling at 2.5t trailer up and down hills using max available acceleration. Fair chance that the testing had driven the battery SoC down to its lower limit of, say, 23%. That the trailer dyne test only got one lap completed, with the battery capacity now down to 13%, points to a test where the ICE wasn't forced on.

Just a back of the envelop extrapolation using the Outlander PHEV as a benchmark. In a test I did back in 2014, the 2.1 t PHEV used 10 kWh to climb the Toowoomba range (300 metre elevation change over 5km). Peak power draw was 60 kW in the 90 kph zone. That was in pure battery power mode (no ICE).

The Shark under test was loaded to its GCM of 5750. Ignoring differences in drive train losses and assuming that there is a rough linear relationship in the performance of the Outlander v Shark drive train; the Shark at GCM will need 27 kWh (of energy), with a peak power draw of 180 kW. This is well within the rated capability of the electric drive train. (Until it reaches the thermal limits of the electric motors, and then derates itself from 320 kW to 150 kW)

If the ICE in the Shark is forced on (something that was a button push in the Outlander), then the calculations gets interesting. Instead of having to provide the full 27 kWh / 180 kW power, the ICE will provide around 12 kWh / 135 kW of the power requirements. In turn, that would mean that the electric motors wouldn't reach their thermal limits. Neither would the battery. The ICE wouldn't declutch.

Just to keep restating what I have already said; I am not running out to buy a Shark 6. Clearly there are issues with the driver aids, cross-axled power delivery, and hill climbing. There are some other issues that clearly point to a lack of understanding out remote travel. For example, the lapping of the stone shields.

But, I wouldn't be so dismissive of PHEV technology.

Now, if Ford made a PHEV Everest, I think I would be completely sold.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by whynot

It was clear on the captures of the screen - and it was mentioned in the video - that the power output was limited to 100 kW, whereas the petrol engine is rated to 135 kW. For whatever reason, that output is only 70% of what is actually available from the ICE.

Keeping in mind the vehicle under test was pre-production, that initially points to software. But another possibility is that the coupled generator is only rated to 100 kW, with the design assuming that with the vehicle at speed, the ICE could split its power output between generator (and onto the electric motors) and direct drive to the front wheels.

Methinks in the real world, this particular test, specifically the sequence of the testing is, as Paul said himself, an edge case. Possibly forcing the engine management system into a software corner where it elected to declutch the direct drive. I can only assume that in doing so, this restricted the output from 135 kW to 100 kW.

Remember that the Shark just had a flogging doing a full acceleration run with the trailer dyne connected. And had done a unknown number of laps around the proving ground, pulling at 2.5t trailer up and down hills using max available acceleration. Fair chance that the testing had driven the battery SoC down to its lower limit of, say, 23%. That the trailer dyne test only got one lap completed, with the battery capacity now down to 13%, points to a test where the ICE wasn't forced on.

Just a back of the envelop extrapolation using the Outlander PHEV as a benchmark. In a test I did back in 2014, the 2.1 t PHEV used 10 kWh to climb the Toowoomba range (300 metre elevation change over 5km). Peak power draw was 60 kW in the 90 kph zone. That was in pure battery power mode (no ICE).

The Shark under test was loaded to its GCM of 5750. Ignoring differences in drive train losses and assuming that there is a rough linear relationship in the performance of the Outlander v Shark drive train; the Shark at GCM will need 27 kWh (of energy), with a peak power draw of 180 kW. This is well within the rated capability of the electric drive train. (Until it reaches the thermal limits of the electric motors, and then derates itself from 320 kW to 150 kW)

If the ICE in the Shark is forced on (something that was a button push in the Outlander), then the calculations gets interesting. Instead of having to provide the full 27 kWh / 180 kW power, the ICE will provide around 12 kWh / 135 kW of the power requirements. In turn, that would mean that the electric motors wouldn't reach their thermal limits. Neither would the battery. The ICE wouldn't declutch.

Just to keep restating what I have already said; I am not running out to buy a Shark 6. Clearly there are issues with the driver aids, cross-axled power delivery, and hill climbing. There are some other issues that clearly point to a lack of understanding out remote travel. For example, the lapping of the stone shields.

But, I wouldn't be so dismissive of PHEV technology.

Now, if Ford made a PHEV Everest, I think I would be completely sold.

Not doubting PHEV tech. Personally I think it’s good a manufacturer has finally raised the bar with new tech to an over priced and mediocre segment that has stagnated in development the last 10-15 years.

But, I’m doubting the high expectations people have of this to be a complete ICE dual cab replacement for anything outside of short running urban environments.

[smoo]

Paul addresses some of the responses from fanatical near religious like BYD fans who’ve been sold a lie from the CCP. I wonder if it’s not to late for them to cancel their orders?
A classic case of shoot the messenger to mask the buyers remorse.

[simon varley]

a 12% gradient is the industry standard for low speed towing. We used to use it as a robustness test. If the car could survive a half hour or so at 12% and GTM, we were pretty sure all other conditions would be ok. Its pretty steep really, and there are very, very few places in the world where you can find a sustained 12%

[whynot]

Yeah, I saw that video earlier on today. It left me with more questions than answers. I have watched it twice now, and I am still coming up with inconsistencies. Nothing sinister, but probably due to having wads of data and having to cull that to just a few key points.

Credit to Car Expert for doing a consistent empirical test. That is, not a spin around the country side for a bit, and then come back with subjective feelings.

And, one must also recognise how difficult it is and how much effort is involved in 'writing up' any test report. And, then converting it to video.

The first concern that I had was that battery save was switch off. Paul stated that "Battery save was set at 70%". However, he did sort of admitted that the tow test was done with the SoC at 20%. He provided a justification for the test at that value. That answers a lot of my questions about the first video and is more in agreement with my expectations after driving an Outlander PHEV.

It also confirms my comments I made a few days ago about the conditions of the test getting the software into a corner. There is still no clarity about whether the engine was running in pure generator mode, or clutched up to the final drive, or some mix of the two. Regardless, its power output was being throttled to 70% of its power rating. I don't buy the explanation that it was recharging the battery. PHEV never do that when running at max capacity. However, what they do is run the generator at partial output to send at least some power to the rear wheels. This is because, if the rear wheels are not powered, then spinning the permanent magnet motors at road speed causes too much parasitic losses and overheat the stators. From an energy conservation approach, it is better to be sending partial power to the electric motor driving the rear wheels.

As I said, more questions than answer for this part of the test.

It would have been super interesting to see the trailer dyne lap test done with the battery near full SoC. If nothing else, to figure out how much battery energy was being bled off per lap. And, if and how, the electric motors entered a derating mode.

We know from prior test results that a vehicle producing 140 kW (e.g. Isuzu MU-X) can reach 90 kph, but not 100 kph, in the trailer dyne tow test. And this is considered perfectly adequate by MU-X buyers. From the same test, we know that the Everest V6 required its 184 kW to get to 100 kph. Simple maths suggest that the trailer dyne is drawing off 75 kW at 90 kph, and 83 kW of power through the towbar at 100 kph. The difference being windage, friction, and drive train losses. One would have thought that when the Shark 6 is sorted out, it would be able to get much closer to 90 kmh in the trailer dyne test on ICE alone.

Let's look at some of Paul's other comments, starting at 1m 13s.

"I was really impressed with it. For most people, it is going to serve their purpose perfectly fine. Gonna be able to tow up a big hill. Got plenty of punch and it was to keep the battery charge sustained."

This statement also answers some concerns that I had with the way the first video was presented. In normal driving, up hill and down dale, the ICE-generator combo was able to work with the battery for towing 2.5 tonnes and max GCM.

Just as an aside, my old Outland PHEV had a 1500 kg braked towing limit. I suspect that the Mitsubishi engineers had a better understanding of what the 98 kW ICE was capable of at the limits.

It is also worth pointing out some other scandalous comments that Paul made around the 8 minute mark.

" ... this (test) is an edge case ...for 99% of buyers this is going to be the perfect vehicle. Drives great on the road. Has plenty of guts. It is fun to drive. For towing, it is going to cater for what most people are doing. As you saw on the hill road, it is going to be perfectly fine to tow at capacity on those types of roads."

With all of the above in mind, I am inclined to file the trailer dyne part of the test away as something to be mindful off, but not particularly problematic. The vehicle was still able to do 74 kph under the test. And there are plenty of trucks I have been stuck behind that have climbed hills and ranges far slower than that.

No, the real interest engineering limitation with the Shark 6 that is coming to light in the last few weeks is the torque limits, specifically at the rear. I suspect that BYD have more development work to do there.

All up, I think that Paul and Car Expert have done BYD a favour with this test. It does prove that PHEV are quite compatible with doing dual cab duty. Clearly, there are some rough edges. That said, I suspect that BYD will iterate through these in the next version.

It does not put me off the PHEV, as an engineering option, one little bit. Like all things, the final choice comes down to cost verses application.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by simon varley

a 12% gradient is the industry standard for low speed towing. We used to use it as a robustness test. If the car could survive a half hour or so at 12% and GTM, we were pretty sure all other conditions would be ok. Its pretty steep really, and there are very, very few places in the world where you can find a sustained 12%

Definitely done to find the extreme limit of the Shark 6.

I smiled when Paul M said Thers no point in testing a fully charged BYD with a 2,500 kg caravan
going round and round as the BYD would do that all day, just like every other diesel Ute..

[Franco Cozzo]

Got a friend looking to replace their D23 Navara with something not diesel, given it shit injectors at 38,000km,

I'm going to suggest the BYD Shark 6, they mostly just drive around suburbia, its their daily driver, but they don't really use it as a ute.

I think this is the perfect use case for them, and its something the vehicle will operate in perfectly.

[whynot]

Without trying to derail this thread too much ... I was reading a few days ago an interesting technical report on e-trailers being attached to diesel power prime mover for a semi-trailer.

With an e-trailer, a electric motor is added to the middle axle on the trailer, with one or more battery banks tucked up in the body of the trailer. It effectively can turn any ICE rig into a PHEV.

The trick has been designing a control unit on the e-trailer that cooperates with the ICE in the event of a dynamic upset - and can be retrofitted to any existing prime mover. And the physics gets really interesting - because there are motors pushing the semi along - with doubles, triples, and quad e-trailers.

I should really keep the jibes in check about being stuck behind a truck climbing a hill. Give it 10 years and it might be the PHEV powered e-trailer getting stuck behind me.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by whynot

Without trying to derail this thread too much ... I was reading a few days ago an interesting technical report on e-trailers being attached to diesel power prime mover for a semi-trailer.

With an e-trailer, a electric motor is added to the middle axle on the trailer, with one or more battery banks tucked up in the body of the trailer. It effectively can turn any ICE rig into a PHEV.

The trick has been designing a control unit on the e-trailer that cooperates with the ICE in the event of a dynamic upset - and can be retrofitted to any existing prime mover. And the physics gets really interesting - because there are motors pushing the semi along - with doubles, triples, and quad e-trailers.

I should really keep the jibes in check about being stuck behind a truck climbing a hill. Give it 10 years and it might be the PHEV powered e-trailer getting stuck behind me.

I reckon thats a mint idea, plus you can use its regen function to slow you down in addition with engine brakes AND service brakes.

Would be handy for running things like bunk coolers and big inverters no dramas as well having 300-600V DC onboard too.



Already exists