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.