The Thailand Special Thread - New Developments/News

[whynot]

Originally Posted by smoo

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.

Well, if you are correct, then it wont be long until we see a string of broken down Shark PHEV along the side of the road. Hey?

And if we don't?

[jpd80]

Perhaps the way people use the Shark 6 will determine if there’s issues or not,
anything at the moment is pure speculation but sounds like plenty of “guinea pigs”
are prepared to be early adopters….

[smoo]

Originally Posted by whynot

Well, if you are correct, then it wont be long until we see a string of broken down Shark PHEV along the side of the road. Hey?

And if we don't?

I suspect this is gonna be a repeat of diesel Focus.
Marketing and sales sold cars to people to be used in the wrong application, resulting in a lot of burned and unhappy customers.
Going off the carsales fuel figures we will probably see a lot of unsatisfied buyers who are spending more on fuel than Ram and Silverado owners.
Time will tell, maybe we revisit this in a year and see.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by smoo

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.

Fiesta ST I use as my daily, 1.6L turbo 4 ~250,000km on the clock and its hauling me around + a boot full of tools, does a bit of farm track work and off road access to infrastructure.

6.3L/100km on average but does 7-8L/100km if I do a lot of suburban traffic.

Somewhat interestingly, its capable of matching or bettering fuel economy its naturally aspirated brother in my shitbox fleet, both 1.6L 4 cylinder engines, same driver, same tools, same routes.

Somewhat curious to see what the BYD Shark does in suburban trade type work where you're doing traffic light to traffic light with some tools, or say 1.7 tonne excavator on machinery trailer, you'd probably be able to comfortably do that with 2500kg towing capacity.

[prydey]

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…

I think these days with a lot of the modern high torque engines, it's closer to double than triple.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

I think these days with a lot of the modern high torque engines, it's closer to double than triple.

Not according to lots of American tests, even BEVs use up to triple the energy when doing a heavy tow,
It’s not uncommon for full size gasoline Utes to go from US22mpg down to 7 mpg when doing max towing.
Also, the usable range is roughly a third of max distance on the battery. F150 can get by with us36 gallon tank
but the Lightning is stuck with an impossible task of recharging on anything longer than 160 km trip.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by whynot

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.

With the new model Outlander (presume other PHEVs are the same) you can set the regen before or on the run, no need to brake just lift the throttle on a decline then adjust up or down to level 5 (max), like a retarder on a truck
Vehicle alone going down fairly steep terrain such as the kaimai range in (nz) level 4 will allow you to maintain a consistent speed with out the use of brake, I wouldn't think it would be strong enough to hold back a heavy trailer though you would need to use a bit of brake

[naddis01]

Interesting to note that news.com.au are reporting a much lower fuel consumption figure.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/m...4ca7ed95b084e0

I assume this is the exact same test as the Carsales one as they take the same route and the vehicle is the same in the photos. However there is no mention that they averaged between 14-16Lph. Just that the 2Lph claim is useless and they used closer to 10Lph.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by PooDog

, I wouldn't think it would be strong enough to hold back a heavy trailer though you would need to use a bit of brake

For regenerative braking, rotor speed is proportional to energy being recovered (aka effective braking). At slow speed, when the rotor speed of the permanent magnets is slow, there isn't a lot of magnetic flux cutting across the stator. By energising the field of the stator, it is easy to create a back EMF that helps slow the car down: and apply as much retardation force as mechanical brake pads. But that is actually using battery life, not adding to it.

As an aside, when a PHEV is cruising down the highway with the ICE on, even with the battery fully charged, there is a small amount of power being bleed off by the front generator and supplied to the rear axle motor. This is to prevent the flux from the magnet in the rear motor/generator causing energy losses due to magnetic flux.

When I had the Mitsubishi Outland PHEV, I was really impressed with the electrical engineering that had gone into the design and build. I was also really annoyed with a few engineering gripes as well (like battery life and the mechanical slop in the steering).

Just looking back through my old fuel logs for the Outlander PHEV, there was one stretch where I did 2,404 km over an eight week period. The refuel was 24.08 litres at an average fuel consumption of 1l/100 km. That is sort of like the type of city running for a tradie that the Shark will excel at.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by whynot

For regenerative braking, rotor speed is proportional to energy being recovered (aka effective braking). At slow speed, when the rotor speed of the permanent magnets is slow, there isn't a lot of magnetic flux cutting across the stator. By energising the field of the stator, it is easy to create a back EMF that helps slow the car down: and apply as much retardation force as mechanical brake pads. But that is actually using battery life, not adding to it.

As an aside, when a PHEV is cruising down the highway with the ICE on, even with the battery fully charged, there is a small amount of power being bleed off by the front generator and supplied to the rear axle motor. This is to prevent the flux from the magnet in the rear motor/generator causing energy losses due to magnetic flux.

When I had the Mitsubishi Outland PHEV, I was really impressed with the electrical engineering that had gone into the design and build. I was also really annoyed with a few engineering gripes as well (like battery life and the mechanical slop in the steering).

Just looking back through my old fuel logs for the Outlander PHEV, there was one stretch where I did 2,404 km over an eight week period. The refuel was 24.08 litres at an average fuel consumption of 1l/100 km. That is sort of like the type of city running for a tradie that the Shark will excel at.

Umm OK, ill take your word for it on the electrical wizardry
Yep,, we bought it knowing it was an old tech cobalt battery, Mitsi own Yuasa so I presume it's made by them

They Seam OK in respect to catching fire etc, charge range can vary a lot it can be anything from 70 to 100km?

We've had it down to 1l/100km also, it actually comes up that the fuel could be getting stale if you don't use any for a while and runs the motor so you have to add fuel..... Quite technical really

[whynot]

Have a bit of a dig around on Google using the following key words;

"Technician Training Guide" "PHEV Outlander" "Mitsubishi Motors Australia"

The 2014 version is getting a bit dated now (it is over a decade old). That said, it is a great guide to how PHEV technology works, with lots of breakout coloured diagrams of the various subsystems and how they work together.

[XR Martin]

Yuasa batteries are not owned by Mitsubishi.

They do have a joint venture with them in producing Lithium batteries though.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by XR Martin

Yuasa batteries are not owned by Mitsubishi.

They do have a joint venture with them in producing Lithium batteries though.

Wikipedia says there parent company GS Yuasa is a joint venture between GS Yuasa and Mitsubishi

So what do you want to call them joint owners?

[whynot]

There is an article in today's Brisbane Times (sister publication to The Age and SMH) about the 20 most common vehicles in Queensland. For those outside QLD, The Brisbane Times leans to the whiney left. As such, it is full of articles that are; anti-SUV, pro-EV, pro-small cars, pro-public transport ... etc.

Anyway ... the articles is about recent Federal Department of Transport data about the most popular vehicles in Queensland. Which surprised me coming from the Brisbane Times as it often talks down to its readers who don't subscribe to its view of the world. I am somewhat surprised that article wasn't cancelled as fake news.

The list in the Brisbane Times is as follows

1. Hilux 239k (vehicles)
2. Corolla 147k
3. Landcruiser 147k
4. Ranger 114k
5. Mazda 3 109k
6. Triton 101k
7. Prado 95k
8. RAV4 90k
9. i30 86k
10. Navara 85k
11. Camry 81k
12. Falcon 75K
13. Commodore 74K
14. D-MAX 61K
15. CX-5 60K
16. X-TRAIL 57K
17. Colorado 51K
18. Outlander 50K
19. Lancer 46K
20. Patrol 46K

Demographics and Queensland's decentralised population (when compared to NSW & VIC) would have quite a bit to do with these figures.

More details, including breakup by postcode, is on the Brisbane Times web site.

[Warrenk]

The Ford Ranger Super Duty https://www.carsauce.com/car-news/20...-ute-unveiled?

[whynot]

Originally Posted by Warrenk

The Ford Ranger Super Duty https://www.carsauce.com/car-news/20...-ute-unveiled?

From the cabin photos, can one assume that Ford are returning to a more traditional gear selector in 2026?

[vbomber]

Originally Posted by whynot

From the cabin photos, can one assume that Ford are returning to a more traditional gear selector in 2026?

Nah it's what you get now on the base/lower models, the photo is from the XL

[XR Martin]

So longer wheelbase and dually?

[Dr Smith]

Can they fit a V8 in it.....from an F-250?...but I'd settle for a Coyote.

[DFB FGXR6]

I'm confused, is the Super Duty a single cab only proposition? Or will there be dual cab too? As much as I love the single cab, this thing will be sales proof if they don't do it in dual cab...................and it pains me to say that.

In single cab form, I guess they are targeting Landcruiser 70-series.

As for if the Ranger can sustain those increased limits, you only have to look at the chassis rails on a Ranger, then compare to what the Isuzu/Toyota/Mitsubishi are offering. The Ranger has considerably larger chassis rails, actually they make the competition equivalents look like a joke.

Having said that, I suspect those new numbers come from not having the heavier dual cab body, so they have more room to play with regarding GVM.

[prydey]

To me it looks like Americans prefer to use these types of vehicles over the jap small truck style vehicle.

This mindset is slowly being trialled on Australians. If someone drives around in a small jap truck, no one looks twice. If someone drives a large ute, suddenly there's outrage.

I think it's a mindset thing in this country because the general public isn't used to seeing the ute style of vehicle used for light truck duties.

This will go one of 2 ways. Be intersting to see how ford engineers it. If they go GVM of 4500 then they need to make sure it can actually compete with the small trucks otherwise no one will buy it due to the increased rego, insurance, tolls etc.

Making gvm 4500 also weeds out the posers. Only those who need one will buy one.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by prydey

To me it looks like Americans prefer to use these types of vehicles over the jap small truck style vehicle.

This mindset is slowly being trialled on Australians. If someone drives around in a small jap truck, no one looks twice. If someone drives a large ute, suddenly there's outrage.

I think it's a mindset thing in this country because the general public isn't used to seeing the ute style of vehicle used for light truck duties.

This will go one of 2 ways. Be intersting to see how ford engineers it. If they go GVM of 4500 then they need to make sure it can actually compete with the small trucks otherwise no one will buy it due to the increased rego, insurance, tolls etc.

Making gvm 4500 also weeds out the posers. Only those who need one will buy one.

I know the GVM numbers are different, but that didn't stop people buying 70-series Landcruisers to simply pose in. The amount of pristine 70-series I see getting around suggests a significant number never get used as intended.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I'm confused, is the Super Duty a single cab only proposition? Or will there be dual cab too?

My uneducated guess is that the Super Duty is the stretched dual cab with the space cab tub that was seen a couple of years ago.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I know the GVM numbers are different, but that didn't stop people buying 70-series Landcruisers to simply pose in. The amount of pristine 70-series I see getting around suggests a significant number never get used as intended.

One of the things there that makes the VDJ79 popular amongst the poser crowd was the V8, even though it was a turd rolled in glitter.

I don't think you'd get posers in Ranger SD, somewhat curious to see changes required to the platform to get 4500kg GVM and whats under the bonnet, would give it ~1500kg payload in single cab variation.

Its a good test of the market, its a shot across the bow at Isuzu N series which is the highest selling Jappo truck in our market and has been for ~30 years.

Originally Posted by prydey

To me it looks like Americans prefer to use these types of vehicles over the jap small truck style vehicle.

This mindset is slowly being trialled on Australians. If someone drives around in a small jap truck, no one looks twice. If someone drives a large ute, suddenly there's outrage.

I think it's a mindset thing in this country because the general public isn't used to seeing the ute style of vehicle used for light truck duties.

This will go one of 2 ways. Be intersting to see how ford engineers it. If they go GVM of 4500 then they need to make sure it can actually compete with the small trucks otherwise no one will buy it due to the increased rego, insurance, tolls etc.

Making gvm 4500 also weeds out the posers. Only those who need one will buy one.

Americans hate cab overs, even though you get more load space on a shorter vehicle they prefer bonneted trucks.

Though they have Isuzu N series with GM L8T 6.6L unleaded V8 as their base model engine with diesel optional.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I know the GVM numbers are different, but that didn't stop people buying 70-series Landcruisers to simply pose in. The amount of pristine 70-series I see getting around suggests a significant number never get used as intended.

4500 gvm pushes it in to a whole new class of licence. It's the reason RAM etc detuned their base models to 4495gvm.

4500gvm needs a light truck licence.

Rego also higher as well be insurance, toll roads etc.

70 series can still be driven on a car licence.


I'm also not going to buy in to the 'as intended' discussion.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by prydey

4500 gvm pushes it in to a whole new class of licence. It's the reason RAM etc detuned their base models to 4495gvm.

4500gvm needs a light truck licence.

Rego also higher as well be insurance, toll roads etc.

70 series can still be driven on a car licence.


I'm also not going to buy in to the 'as intended' discussion.

It'll be 4495kg to keep it out of LR I reckon, like the Jap trucks.

You won't miss 5kg of payload, and it opens it up to a much bigger category of customer (car licence) and allows you to have alcohol and drive, where as with truck licences you need to be .00 like P platers.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

It'll be 4495kg to keep it out of LR I reckon, like the Jap trucks.

You won't miss 5kg of payload, and it opens it up to a much bigger category of customer (car licence) and allows you to have alcohol and drive, where as with truck licences you need to be .00 like P platers.

I fear you will be right.

[XR Martin]

Current Ranger has a 1960kg rear axle load rating, and 3350kg GVM. Factory tyres are load rating 111, or 1090kg.

Now I'm guessing the rear axle limit will have to jump to 3250kg. That mean tyres will have to be load rating 126 or so (1700kg) I don't think these exist in the current Ranger size.
So I'm guessing it will have to be duals on the back.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by XR Martin

Current Ranger has a 1960kg rear axle load rating, and 3350kg GVM. Factory tyres are load rating 111, or 1090kg.

Now I'm guessing the rear axle limit will have to jump to 3250kg. That mean tyres will have to be load rating 126 or so (1700kg) I don't think these exist in the current Ranger size.
So I'm guessing it will have to be duals on the back.

Surely would just go up a wheel size to put it in something with 126 load rating, surely easier to add a wheel size to the platform than a new rear axle and body mods to cover up duallies.