The Thailand Special Thread - New Developments/News

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Interesting read. Obviously not being able to plug in to charge really effects the fuel consumption with the test averaging more than what I would expect out of the Raptor in similar driving. Mind you the way it reads, they refueled at Tibooburra and averaged between 14-16Lph. That road is all sealed now and you would assume they left with the battery charged. So not great numbers there.

Also, those Conti tyres must be terrible as I saw a Shark in at Bridgestone in town getting tyres repaired when they had their launch event in Broken Hill.

Other than that it sounds alright as long as you can charge the battery when touring.

Horses for courses really
PHEV, s are more suited to short running really not ideal on long runs, he did say around town he would expect around 10l/100km which is OK

80km battery range will make it suitable for tradeys and if you have solar at home

It will be interesting to see what economy the petrol Ranger can do, it will have to be good to outweigh it's lack of battery range

[Citroënbender]

80km battery range will make it suitable for tradeys and if you have solar at home

It's probably at risk of being perceived inadequate.

I used the map app on my phone to estimate yesterday's urban mileage and it came to 160km.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

It's probably at risk of being perceived inadequate.

I used the map app on my phone to estimate yesterday's urban mileage and it came to 160km.

If you're a courier or something similar?

[Citroënbender]

That mileage was exceptional against my usual norm for urban stuff. The point being more that people seemingly like to prepare themselves against all manner of possibilities - real or otherwise - and therefore want more power, more range, more speed; whatever. Related to how Franco’s post highlighted the Kia Tasman power figures vs that of “aspirational” vehicles.

It would be interesting if any of the newer to market manufacturers sponsored/subsidised short term rental fleets to encourage people to try the product.

[BENT_8]

Isnt that the upside of hybrid tech, that when you need the unexpected additional range you dont have to stress.

Toyota are killing it with Hybrids for this reason, best of both worlds when either presents.

[Neme]

Originally Posted by PooDog

Horses for courses really
PHEV, s are more suited to short running really not ideal on long runs, he did say around town he would expect around 10l/100km which is OK

80km battery range will make it suitable for tradeys and if you have solar at home

It will be interesting to see what economy the petrol Ranger can do, it will have to be good to outweigh it's lack of battery range

10L/100km is not great though for all that EV tech?

I do 1000km a week in my company car, 2002 4WD Hilux with steel barkwork, steel tray, all terrains and it averages 10.5L/100km, mix of town, open country road and 4WD on site, and it's driven like a company car

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by Neme

10L/100km is not great though for all that EV tech?

I do 1000km a week in my company car, 2002 4WD Hilux with steel barkwork, steel tray, all terrains and it averages 10.5L/100km, mix of town, open country road and 4WD on site, and it's driven like a company car

Agree..... I. Said it was OK?, not great, we used to get 11 out of our XR8 driving economically

It will be interesting to see what economy modern petrol utes can get, because historicaly they haven't been flash

[whynot]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Mind you the way it reads, they refueled at Tibooburra and averaged between 14-16Lph.

Yeah, hard to say why type of driving they did. As a benchmark, an article in Drive.com.au stated they got 15.0L/100km for urban driving in an petrol Volkswagen Amarok.

I am curious as to the issue they had with the pre-prod vehicles only suppling 240V power when the engine was running. This would have increased the fuel consumption a bit as well. PHEV also have this awkward fuel consumption window around 50-70 kph steady state. Above 70 kph, the drive train will clutch up directly to the front wheels. Below 70, it is engine driving alternator driving motors - with the losses that entrains. Stop-start creeping city traffic is where a PHEV does better. And getting a nightly full battery recharge also helps a lot.

I cannot understand the logic of taking any vehicle equipped with just road terrain tyres on a test run like that over rock strewn roads like that. It is simply abusing the vehicle. And gifting the next motoring journalist (I use that term advisedly) with a set of tyres previously abused and with cuts all over them.

Some of the Carsales reviews of late have been a little, ummm, smug? Add this one to the list.

[Sprintey]

"We’ve refuelled and the numbers are startling and disappointing. No vehicle has been able to better 14L/100km and the white Shark averaged more than 16L/100km. Clearly, sustained high speed running increases the demands on the petrol engine"

Wow, a 100 Series petrol V8 at sustained high speed running could better that.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

"We’ve refuelled and the numbers are startling and disappointing. No vehicle has been able to better 14L/100km and the white Shark averaged more than 16L/100km. Clearly, sustained high speed running increases the demands on the petrol engine"

Wow, a 100 Series petrol V8 at sustained high speed running could better that.

How many people are going to buy this, sucked in by the claimed fuel figures or on the pretence it’s a hybrid so it’s good on fuel, only to use it to tow or predominately do highway driving and seeing running costs significantly worse than a diesel Ute that uses 50% less fuel under the same conditions.

Going back to over stressed, or asking a lot from a small engine.
16l/100km is huge fuel burn for a 1.5 litre four cylinder. Curious to know how this engine holds up if it’s consistently put under this much load. Life span can probably be counted in months not years.

[Big_Daz]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

"We’ve refuelled and the numbers are startling and disappointing. No vehicle has been able to better 14L/100km and the white Shark averaged more than 16L/100km. Clearly, sustained high speed running increases the demands on the petrol engine"

Wow, a 100 Series petrol V8 at sustained high speed running could better that.

Its funny you say that, I had the argument with a mate whose ordered a Shark in the first allocation. He wouldnt listen, I assume he will find out the hard way...

For some more context, My 600HP SSV Redline AVERAGES 14-15L/100km when I drive it (and I dont drive it with economy in mind).

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

Going back to over stressed, or asking a lot from a small engine.
16l/100km is huge fuel burn for a 1.5 litre four cylinder. Curious to know how this engine holds up if it’s consistently put under this much load. Life span can probably be counted in months not years.

Maybe not. For example, some turbo four cylinders drink like a fish with a similar fuel consumption. A CX-7 (turbo four) has a similar weight to a Ford Territory (NA six), similar fuel consumption, and similar life expectancy.

The duty cycle on the ICE component in a PHEV is completely different to the duty cycle on the ICE in a traditional application.

I have zero insight into how the PHEV in the Shark is designed. But I had three years with a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. I assume that the Shark borrows most of these design concepts. For example, when running on the highway, the Outlander PHEV petrol engine does not run all of the time. When the battery state of charge (SoC) reaches a nominal low value, the petrol engine would start and clutch up to the drivetrain. Importantly, the petrol engine would actually run harder than needed (you could see this by the instant fuel consumption on the dash). In turn, the generator would act as a drag on the drivetrain, and syphon off electrical power to recharge the battery. If one started to drive up an incline, the control system would tell the generator to back off, so there was sufficient power to climb the hill. If the power demand was sufficient, the generator would turn into an electric motor to help the petrol engine up over the hill. Once the SoC reached a certain value, the ICE would be switch off.

The point being that when the ICE was running, it was doing so at a (generally) steady load in its preferred power band. There are other tricks for engine life that the Outlander PHEV can use to help with engine life. For example, the water pump is electric. So, unlike an ICE fitted with a mechanical water pump, the electric water pump can run on to prevent hot spots from forming inside the block. Ditto, with the electric oil pump. So consumables like engine oil have a more moderate duty cycle.

Further, the way ICE engine life is consumed in a PHEV is completely different. Granted, yes, a Shark towing max load up hill and down dale may be chewing through mechanical life. But, if the owner is also charging it at night and using it mainly as a town car; then there are extended period where the engine is barely running, if at all, with zero engine life being consumed.

Is a Shark in my buy list? No.

But that said, I would be careful in rushing to judgement on aspects like engine wear rates until there is more empirical evidence available. It will be interesting to watch how the Shark (and the Ford Ranger PHEV) handle the workloads.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by whynot

Maybe not. For example, some turbo four cylinders drink like a fish with a similar fuel consumption. A CX-7 (turbo four) has a similar weight to a Ford Territory (NA six), similar fuel consumption, and similar life expectancy.

The duty cycle on the ICE component in a PHEV is completely different to the duty cycle on the ICE in a traditional application.

I have zero insight into how the PHEV in the Shark is designed. But I had three years with a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. I assume that the Shark borrows most of these design concepts. For example, when running on the highway, the Outlander PHEV petrol engine does not run all of the time. When the battery state of charge (SoC) reaches a nominal low value, the petrol engine would start and clutch up to the drivetrain. Importantly, the petrol engine would actually run harder than needed (you could see this by the instant fuel consumption on the dash). In turn, the generator would act as a drag on the drivetrain, and syphon off electrical power to recharge the battery. If one started to drive up an incline, the control system would tell the generator to back off, so there was sufficient power to climb the hill. If the power demand was sufficient, the generator would turn into an electric motor to help the petrol engine up over the hill. Once the SoC reached a certain value, the ICE would be switch off.

The point being that when the ICE was running, it was doing so at a (generally) steady load in its preferred power band. There are other tricks for engine life that the Outlander PHEV can use to help with engine life. For example, the water pump is electric. So, unlike an ICE fitted with a mechanical water pump, the electric water pump can run on to prevent hot spots from forming inside the block. Ditto, with the electric oil pump. So consumables like engine oil have a more moderate duty cycle.

Further, the way ICE engine life is consumed in a PHEV is completely different. Granted, yes, a Shark towing max load up hill and down dale may be chewing through mechanical life. But, if the owner is also charging it at night and using it mainly as a town car; then there are extended period where the engine is barely running, if at all, with zero engine life being consumed.

Is a Shark in my buy list? No.

But that said, I would be careful in rushing to judgement on aspects like engine wear rates until there is more empirical evidence available. It will be interesting to watch how the Shark (and the Ford Ranger PHEV) handle the workloads.

The Mazda engine is a 2.3 litre and if I’m not mistaken is regarded as one of the worst engines to go in a Mazda, pretty sure they’re unobtainable as a second hand engine because they shit themselves prematurely but I don’t think that’s due to them being inadequate for the job.

Regardless of what sort of duty cycle of the BYD engine, that is still a huge load factor it is placed under for doing normal highway driving.
Would it be even possible to make an Ecoboost of the same size have that level of fuel consumption in a Fiesta or Focus…

I’ve worked with road trains and the most common engine pulling four trailers (170-200t) uses around twice as much fuel as an on highway truck at 50-60t (100l/100km v ~50l/100km).
On highway truck will usually get 1-1.2 million km before needing opening up.
Our road trains would make it around 550-600,000km before we rebuilt them.

At the same time our Volvo engines the bottom end was strong on them but the cylinder heads were susceptible to valve recession. Same story, on highway 1 million plus km no dramas, at 170-200t a cylinder head would last anywhere between 350-500,000km, while one road train in another company, the biggest truck on t he road in Australia 230 tonne were only getting 250k out of a head.
Dramatically increase the load on an engine = shortened lifespan.
Effectively that 1.5 in the BYD is tripling its normal load that it be usually used for in a small car to making a 2+ tonne Ute maintain 110kmh.

[PooDog]

It will be interesting to see whether these small turbo engines have reduced longevity running as stop starts and PHEV, s which operate similarly

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Isnt that the upside of hybrid tech, that when you need the unexpected additional range you dont have to stress.

Toyota are killing it with Hybrids for this reason, best of both worlds when either presents.

I think we were all guilty of panning the hybrid in the early days, in particular, the hideous Prius. But just look at how its evolved for Toyota. I don't want or need a hybrid, but for 99% of the population, a hybrid is the best solution there is at the moment, especially in countries with large distances between towns/cities.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

Dramatically increase the load on an engine = shortened lifespan.
Effectively that 1.5 in the BYD is tripling its normal load that it be usually used for in a small car to making a 2+ tonne Ute maintain 110kmh.

For the sake of the discussion, for the moment, I will accept your hypothesis that increased load per cubic inch will decrease the lifespan of the engine.

However, where the shortened engine life hypothesis then comes unstuck is that it assumes that the engine in a PHEV will be running at that high output per cubic inch its entire life.

In reality, it will not.

Consider the scenario where a tradie does a 200 km round trip per work day, with a heavily loaded Shark, with most of the journey on the highway at 100 kph. Now assume that the tradie will recharge the Shark at home each evening (simply because the tradie is a tight-wad and electricity is still cheaper than petrol per km). Further assume that the Shark will do about 80 km on electricity before switching over to do the last 120 km per day on petrol. The duty cycle will be 40% on electricity and 60% on petrol.

If we accept your hypothesis about accelerated wear on the smaller engine, we must also accept that this wear is only occurring for about 60% of the distance travelled. To me, any accelerated wear is offset by the fact that the engine will be off for a significant amount of the time. That is something that you don't get with a truck diesel because it has to run 100% of the time. And engine life is helped along in the PHEV because while it is in the off part of its cycle, the electric water pump is still running if the bloc is at temperature (something that doesn't happen with a traditional ICE) and ditto the electric oil pump.

Until we have actually seen some long term examples of how the Shark PHEV will age, then we are guessing. But one would hope that its engineers would have considerable insight into its design parameters.

I think where the Shark PHEV is going to be stress tested is more with the pounding it will get on our substandard roads. It takes quite a few years of watching things break unexpectedly to sort out the quality control.

[prydey]

I don't think you can accurately extrapolate data from one industry and use it in another. There would be very little correlation.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

I don't think you can accurately extrapolate data from one industry and use it in another. There would be very little correlation.

Why not, it's all the same at the end of the day.
The road train example I gave they’re effectively working twice as hard as another application and engine life is significantly reduced.
Tell us why the same won’t happen when the 1.5 BYD is subject to something similar. Probably worse at 16l/100km which as pointed out is huge fuel consumption for a 1.5 which will most likely use a third of that in a small car.

Yeah I get the PHeV won’t be relying on petrol 100% but how many of these are going to be bought by people who think hybrid = good on fuel not realising they're the wrong application for them, or how many salespeople are going to sell them regardless of application (remember diesel Focus and DPF issues 10-15 years ago).

I had a Kia Sorrento PHeV rental a couple of months ago and didn’t charge it once because it wasn’t practical or I CBF.
Got about 5km worth of EV driving through regen braking but that was it.
Despite best intentions I’m sure many BYD owners will fall into the same trap and rely on petrol most of the time.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

Why not, it's all the same at the end of the day.

Ahh, that was Prydey who made that comment you are quoting.

Originally Posted by smoo

The road train example I gave they’re effectively working twice as hard as another application and engine life is significantly reduced.

Well, my old 1977 XC Falcon 4.1 l made 92 kW of power, about 23 kW/l. Roll forward 40 years, and the last of the Falcon FPV F6 made 310 kW from the same 4 l engine capacity. That works out to be around 77.5 kW/l. Even though the F6 produces over three times the power output of my old XC, does that mean engine life is any worse?

The Shark's 1.5 l engine has a maximum power output of 135 kW, or about 90 kW/l. This is similar to the Ford Ecoboost 1.5L Dragon power output of 135 kW which is fitted to the Ford Bronco. That seems to be where state of the art is with engine outputs.

Originally Posted by smoo

Tell us why the same won’t happen when the 1.5 BYD is subject to something similar. Probably worse at 16l/100km which as pointed out is huge fuel consumption for a 1.5 which will most likely use a third of that in a small car.

An engine in a road train is working for a living. It gets routinely loaded up to is max permissible weight.

Look at the engine power (700 kW?) to total weight ratio of a 200t road train. That engine has to work very hard just to get up to speed.

Now look at the power to weight ratio of a Shark. Tell me the truck and the PHEV are the same power to weight ratio???

From memory, the Outlander PHEV was only drawing around 25 kW of power to do 100 kph. There is just no way that the petrol engine in the Shark has to produce anywhere near max power for considerable period of time. The battery is there to help with surge power demands.

I just think we need to keep an open mind on matters like engine life in a PHEV as the whole package works differently to a traditional ICE engine.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by whynot

Ahh, that was Prydey who made that comment you are quoting.



Well, my old 1977 XC Falcon 4.1 l made 92 kW of power, about 23 kW/l. Roll forward 40 years, and the last of the Falcon FPV F6 made 310 kW from the same 4 l engine capacity. That works out to be around 77.5 kW/l. Even though the F6 produces over three times the power output of my old XC, does that mean engine life is any worse?

The Shark's 1.5 l engine has a maximum power output of 135 kW, or about 90 kW/l. This is similar to the Ford Ecoboost 1.5L Dragon power output of 135 kW which is fitted to the Ford Bronco. That seems to be where state of the art is with engine outputs.



An engine in a road train is working for a living. It gets routinely loaded up to is max permissible weight.

Look at the engine power (700 kW?) to total weight ratio of a 200t road train. That engine has to work very hard just to get up to speed.

Now look at the power to weight ratio of a Shark. Tell me the truck and the PHEV are the same power to weight ratio???

From memory, the Outlander PHEV was only drawing around 25 kW of power to do 100 kph. There is just no way that the petrol engine in the Shark has to produce anywhere near max power for considerable period of time. The battery is there to help with surge power demands.

I just think we need to keep an open mind on matters like engine life in a PHEV as the whole package works differently to a traditional ICE engine.

I don’t think you get what I’m trying to say.
Im not talking about power or weight. It’s about load factor.
For that 1.5 to be returning 16l/100km, load is likely going to be somewhere near 100%. Or it’s producing 100% of its power all the time. Keep in mind this isn’t towing, it was those journos driving in the highway.
This is going to have an effect on longevity if it is consistently used that way.

Yeah you can make the point that what I just said is irrelevant because the intended purpose of this vehicle is not to have the engine going flat out all the time, but that is dependant on what it is used for and whether the owner treats it like a plug in hybrid or gets used to the convenience of an engine to provide the charge/drive. Or whether they simply bought one of these on false pretences and now has to live with it.

How many people are gonna take delivery of one and hook up the boat or van and do a summer 2000km round trip expecting to get 10l/100km. I think they’re gonna be in for a huge shock after seeing the fuel figures from the car review posted on the previous page.

If it returns 16l/100km maintaining 110kmh, what is it going to do towing 2.5t and 500kg on board…

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

If it returns 16l/100km maintaining 110kmh, what is it going to do towing 2.5t and 500kg on board…

I don't think you have watched the full video.

First, over the total trip, the average fuel consumption was 14l/100km over 1800 km round trip. This included playing in the dirt and sand. The review suggested 10l/100km was a more realistic fuel consumption.

Here is the video again starting at the section on fuel economy.

https://youtu.be/TVpRN-R0ifA?si=NFjfvCvyFZi1d_Xd&t=760

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by whynot

Ahh, that was Prydey who made that comment you are quoting.



Well, my old 1977 XC Falcon 4.1 l made 92 kW of power, about 23 kW/l. Roll forward 40 years, and the last of the Falcon FPV F6 made 310 kW from the same 4 l engine capacity. That works out to be around 77.5 kW/l. Even though the F6 produces over three times the power output of my old XC, does that mean engine life is any worse?

The Shark's 1.5 l engine has a maximum power output of 135 kW, or about 90 kW/l. This is similar to the Ford Ecoboost 1.5L Dragon power output of 135 kW which is fitted to the Ford Bronco. That seems to be where state of the art is with engine outputs.



An engine in a road train is working for a living. It gets routinely loaded up to is max permissible weight.

Look at the engine power (700 kW?) to total weight ratio of a 200t road train. That engine has to work very hard just to get up to speed.

Now look at the power to weight ratio of a Shark. Tell me the truck and the PHEV are the same power to weight ratio???

From memory, the Outlander PHEV was only drawing around 25 kW of power to do 100 kph. There is just no way that the petrol engine in the Shark has to produce anywhere near max power for considerable period of time. The battery is there to help with surge power demands.

I just think we need to keep an open mind on matters like engine life in a PHEV as the whole package works differently to a traditional ICE engine.

By design, a motor-generator setup gives a more consistent and controlled load on the engine
and in the Shark, the engine will never be required to lift a fully laden Ute from rest as there
will always be some charge stored from the last regen braking event.

When it comes to diesel road train converting to motor-Gen set and electric drive motors,
that may provide cost savings in other areas, regen braking for one could save a lot of cost
with brake maintenance and also provide a level of safety in down hill braking avoiding
chance or runaway condition due to overheated brakes. The question is whether a road train
would ever need to be more than a smaller battery hybrid diesel just to pick up some low hanging
fruit with regards keeping the diesel for providing power in open running cruise but yes,
hills happen and that’s up to fleet managers to decide what makes sense for their company.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by whynot

I don't think you have watched the full video.

First, over the total trip, the average fuel consumption was 14l/100km over 1800 km round trip. This included playing in the dirt and sand. The review suggested 10l/100km was a more realistic fuel consumption.

Here is the video again starting at the section on fuel economy.

https://youtu.be/TVpRN-R0ifA?si=NFjfvCvyFZi1d_Xd&t=760

Didn’t watch the video but read the written carsales review.
Fuel consumption averaged between 14-16l/100km and fuel consumption at highway driving 14-16l/100km.
Unless all of these are being used for short haul city work and are being charged every night, my point still stands.

Curious to know if it had say a 3.5 ecoboost, what fuel figures would be like under the same circumstances. Wouldn’t be surprised if the V6 is more fuel efficient as it won’t have to work anywhere as hard.

After seeing their on test fuel economy, do you want to guess how much fuel that thing is going to burn towing 2.5t and have extra weight in the tray?
Will that small 1.5 engine provide the batteries with enough juice over a sustained period of time to keep it moving at 100kmh when it’s loaded up to GCM??

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

After seeing their on test fuel economy, do you want to guess how much fuel that thing is going to burn towing 2.5t and have extra weight in the tray?
Will that small 1.5 engine provide the batteries with enough juice over a sustained period of time to keep it moving at 100kmh when it’s loaded up to GCM??

Without access to detailed test results (that neither you or I have), I would have thought somewhere around 20-25l/100km. To pull additional mass needs extra fuel, there is no getting around the physics.

But remember, that a PHEV - unlike a traditional ICE - can recover energy. This is something that you are completely overlooking when considering engine wear. Consider hilly terrain for a traditional 4WD diesel towing a trailer and a PHEV (with a flat battery) towing a trailer.

• Up the first hill, both engines in the ICE and PHEV have to use rated power to climb the hill.
• Descending the first hill, the ICE has to liberate all of that potential energy into its braking system as waste heat. However, the PHEV can use its regenerative braking to recover part that energy.
• Up the second hill, once again, the ICE has to use its rated engine output to climb the hill. Whereas the PHEV can use its ICE plus the energy stored from the previous descent. The engine in the PHEV simply does not have to work as hard and is not exposed to the same duty cycle.

Looking at the Carsales test, I suspect (but cannot prove until more info is available) that forcing the Shark PHEV to be set at 70% may have resulted in a higher fuel burn than necessary. In my Mitsubishi Outlander, the interaction between ICE and battery was different at "charge hold" than it was at just letting it do its thing around 26% SoC.

Again, I think it is unrealistic to extrapolate data in the way you have been doing so. There seems to be a theme that a greater power output per cubic inch of displacement per se automatically equates to reduced engine life.

I had a bit to do with standby generators in a previous work life. So, this morning I dug out some old generator fuel consumption charts from my archive. Unfortunately, all of the charts I have access to are for fuel burn for either diesel or LPG fuelled generators. (Petrol is not a preferred standby fuel for the large units because of shelf life issues.) But given the calorific value of diesel and the energy density per litre is close enough to petrol for some rubbery maths, I have used the diesel fuel burn rates.

Anyway, looking up the fuel burn for 14l per hour gives an average power output around 39 kW from the prime mover. This is hardly stressing an engine rated at 135 kW. If we double fuel burn to 28 l per hour, this gives an average output from the prime mover around 80 kW. Once again, this is from a ICE prime mover connected in parallel with a battery to do levelize the load on it.

It would be fascinating to see the Car Expert SUV test expanded to include a BYD Shark attached to the trailerdyne. That would definitely provide more insight.

Granted, all of the above is rubbery maths and I am happy to stand correct on exact fuel burn rates and power outputs.

I can see the point you are trying to make; but given my experience with generators (and that is what a PHEV is - a generator on wheels plus a battery), I just cannot see how one can extrapolate the engine wear rates on a 200 t road train onto the engine wear in a PHEV. Then conclude it is stuffed out of the box just because it is a small turbo charged engine.

No one is forcing you to buy one. And there are still alternatives in the market if that is what you prefer.

But I would have more faith in the engineers who designed the PHEV system that they had considered all of the above points - including what to rate the drivetrain for when towing - when selecting components.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by smoo

Didn’t watch the video but read the written carsales review.
Fuel consumption averaged between 14-16l/100km and fuel consumption at highway driving 14-16l/100km.
Unless all of these are being used for short haul city work and are being charged every night, my point still stands.

Curious to know if it had say a 3.5 ecoboost, what fuel figures would be like under the same circumstances. Wouldn’t be surprised if the V6 is more fuel efficient as it won’t have to work anywhere as hard.

After seeing their on test fuel economy, do you want to guess how much fuel that thing is going to burn towing 2.5t and have extra weight in the tray?
Will that small 1.5 engine provide the batteries with enough juice over a sustained period of time to keep it moving at 100kmh when it’s loaded up to GCM??

Generally, most vehicles doing max towing use roughly three times the fuel compared to light cruise.
So if a vehicle gets 8 litres/100 km on the highway then expect around 24 litres/100 km when heavy towing.
It’s not perfect but seems to work for a lot of full sized gasoline pickups in the US but turbo petrol can be even worse.

Diesel engines seem to give about 30% better fuel economy when towing compared to petrol engines..

Hope this helps with estimations…

[Itsme]

Have any of you guys experienced regenerative braking in electric vehicles? not really practicable in traffic conditions to have full regenerative braking, it is like braking heavy all the time unless you want someone up you're a**
Regenerative would be ideal for engine braking down steep inclines when towing, as for charging effectiveness I say very little amount to be effective.
My knowledge comes from working with electric trains years ago that employed this technology.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by whynot

Without access to detailed test results (that neither you or I have), I would have thought somewhere around 20-25l/100km. To pull additional mass needs extra fuel, there is no getting around the physics.

But remember, that a PHEV - unlike a traditional ICE - can recover energy. This is something that you are completely overlooking when considering engine wear. Consider hilly terrain for a traditional 4WD diesel towing a trailer and a PHEV (with a flat battery) towing a trailer.

• Up the first hill, both engines in the ICE and PHEV have to use rated power to climb the hill.
• Descending the first hill, the ICE has to liberate all of that potential energy into its braking system as waste heat. However, the PHEV can use its regenerative braking to recover part that energy.
• Up the second hill, once again, the ICE has to use its rated engine output to climb the hill. Whereas the PHEV can use its ICE plus the energy stored from the previous descent. The engine in the PHEV simply does not have to work as hard and is not exposed to the same duty cycle.

Looking at the Carsales test, I suspect (but cannot prove until more info is available) that forcing the Shark PHEV to be set at 70% may have resulted in a higher fuel burn than necessary. In my Mitsubishi Outlander, the interaction between ICE and battery was different at "charge hold" than it was at just letting it do its thing around 26% SoC.

Again, I think it is unrealistic to extrapolate data in the way you have been doing so. There seems to be a theme that a greater power output per cubic inch of displacement per se automatically equates to reduced engine life.

I had a bit to do with standby generators in a previous work life. So, this morning I dug out some old generator fuel consumption charts from my archive. Unfortunately, all of the charts I have access to are for fuel burn for either diesel or LPG fuelled generators. (Petrol is not a preferred standby fuel for the large units because of shelf life issues.) But given the calorific value of diesel and the energy density per litre is close enough to petrol for some rubbery maths, I have used the diesel fuel burn rates.

Anyway, looking up the fuel burn for 14l per hour gives an average power output around 39 kW from the prime mover. This is hardly stressing an engine rated at 135 kW. If we double fuel burn to 28 l per hour, this gives an average output from the prime mover around 80 kW. Once again, this is from a ICE prime mover connected in parallel with a battery to do levelize the load on it.

It would be fascinating to see the Car Expert SUV test expanded to include a BYD Shark attached to the trailerdyne. That would definitely provide more insight.

Granted, all of the above is rubbery maths and I am happy to stand correct on exact fuel burn rates and power outputs.

I can see the point you are trying to make; but given my experience with generators (and that is what a PHEV is - a generator on wheels plus a battery), I just cannot see how one can extrapolate the engine wear rates on a 200 t road train onto the engine wear in a PHEV. Then conclude it is stuffed out of the box just because it is a small turbo charged engine.

No one is forcing you to buy one. And there are still alternatives in the market if that is what you prefer.

But I would have more faith in the engineers who designed the PHEV system that they had considered all of the above points - including what to rate the drivetrain for when towing - when selecting components.

I have no intention of buying one. I’m highlighting there may be some very disappointed buyers out there who have been sold on one of these due to deceptive marketing campaigns, sycophantic media coverage and preconceived idea that being a hybrid = lower running costs. When the bulk of their driving may be towing and long distance highway work. Or, plugging in to charge every day, or multiple times a day isn’t practical.

The analogy I gave for the road train is to show a significant and sustained increase in load on an engine shortens the service life on it.
The real measure of how hard an engine has worked isn’t mileage or engine hours, it’s fuel burn.
I’d rather a vehicle with 500,000km on it that has spent it’s life on cruise control driving up and down the highway at 8.0l/100km than one that has spent 250,000km doing the same towing 3.5t at 15l/100km.

14lph might equate to 39kw on an old TD42 Nissan, not on a modern supposedly fuel efficient low capacity turbo petrol.

Fact is, having a modern 1.5 four cylinder average 16l/100km or 16l/hr give an indication on how much load that engine is under. 25l/100km, I sceptical an engine that size has the ability to burn through that much fuel, there will be a point where air and fuel in vs the work produced will reach a ceiling. Hence my question, will this thing be able to keep with up with the demand of moving 6 tonne GCM along the highway at 100kmh for hours on end.

I don’t have faith in engineers. Look at the shit being released in the automotive world in the past 20 years. There’s probably more dud engines across all manufacturers full of inherent design faults and cost cutting measures that jeopardise the longevity of it than what there is decent engine. Even Honda have gone for a wet belt set up in one of their engines ffs.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Generally, most vehicles doing max towing use roughly three times the fuel compared to light cruise.
So if a vehicle gets 8 litres/100 km on the highway then expect around 24 litres/100 km when heavy towing.
It’s not perfect but seems to work for a lot of full sized gasoline pickups in the US but turbo petrol can be even worse.

Diesel engines seem to give about 30% better fuel economy when towing compared to petrol engines..

Hope this helps with estimations…

Yes, so assume the same engine in in a small car the size of a fiesta.
It will most likely average low 5l/100km.
It’s burning three times that pushing this thing down the road at highway speeds when the battery reserve is depleted. That is a huge increase in the amount of work that engine has to do.


For reference. I’ve had both 100 series petrol V8 and turbo diesel.
Towing the same weight approx 2.2 tonne diesel in the vicinity of 14l/100km, petrol V8 20l/100km.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by Itsme

Have any of you guys experienced regenerative braking in electric vehicles? not really practicable in traffic conditions to have full regenerative braking, it is like braking heavy all the time unless you want someone up you're a**
Regenerative would be ideal for engine braking down steep inclines when towing, as for charging effectiveness I say very little amount to be effective.
My knowledge comes from working with electric trains years ago that employed this technology.

Yes, but don't mix up the one pedal brake setting that the driver can choose with the amount of regenerative braking that the computer applies.

When I drive an EV or a PHEV, I leave the one-pedal setting "off" as I cannot stand it.

But when one puts their foot on the brake pedal, one can usually see on the dash board how much retardation that the regenerative brake is applying. Keep pushing the brake pedal, and at some point the car applies pads onto disk. These days, it is hard to tell exactly when the pads are hitting the disk during braking.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

14lph might equate to 39kw on an old TD42 Nissan, not on a modern supposedly fuel efficient low capacity turbo petrol.

No, that is a fuel burn off a reasonably recent generator chart and would include parasitic losses, but exclude drivetrain losses (as there is no drivetrain as such). It is used to calculate run times in a power outage with a known load given a fuel reserve of a known size.