There is buzz emerging in the automotive world that Ford will launch a new hybrid version of the F150 in 2008 that will have a 400% improvement in fuel economy over the standard gasoline F150. Based on a joint research and technology development agreement between Ford and the EPA, dating back to 2001, the Hydraulic Hybrid Techology is poised to overtake the current gas-electric technology used in vehicles like Toyota’s Prius.
The system uses hydraulic pressure to recapture energy lost through braking, then releases the pressure during acceleration. The EPA estimates hydraulic hybrids could improve fuel economy up to 55 percent, versus 30 percent to 40 percent for a conventional gas-electric hybrid.
While he news is a little sketchy and definately under-wraps - no one at Ford has publically confirmed this - there are several online sources which point to this being more than wishful thinking. Detroit News also published a fairly comprehensive article on the efforts last year.
Considering that F150 sales are down nearly 2% in 2006 (Explorer and Expedition are down 30%), attributed to rising fuel prices, simply a 20% increase in fuel economy over the 16mpg average for the F150 would have been blockbuster. We can only suspect that a 60mpg F150 could be the ticket to turnaround for Ford, assuming they can pull it of in time.
i am 18. i’m on my second ford. my escort wasn’t worth putting more money in so i bought an explorer. i love it and love having the 4X4, it’s fun in the winter. i have always liked ford, my dad has only owned ford. i think it’s great that ford is working on a hybrid truck. i would love to upgrade to a f-150, but can’t afford the gas for it. so make it affordable, ford. and by the way, i would never buy a jap piece of sh*t! AMERICAN POWER! FORD, GM, AND DODGE! THE ONLY WAY TO GO!
By matt. October 27th, 2008 at 6:00 pmI had a hay bailer that ran off a PTO on a 3000 ford tractor 540 RPM. This was a bailer that rolled the hay on the ground into a 6 ft. wide 5 ft. high bail about 1500 to2000 lbs. everthing was hydraulic . A small gas engine will run a pump that would run a hydraulic motor that could run a pickup at over 50 mpg. I thought this back in the 79 when gas was less than 1.$ Get with it Ford I need a new pickup and don’t price it out of range. Most every thing can be bought off shelf. The wheel has already been invented.
By coleman. August 11th, 2008 at 8:10 amI agree that 60mpg is great, but not if we are paying $8 a gallon which is what we can see coming if we do not get some Congressional Mandated Corporate Reform on these Oil Pirates and put a $ cap per gallon or something to stop general public from having to bend over everytime we go to fuel up our vehicles.
By Davpissdoff. August 7th, 2008 at 10:31 ami spent several years working at gibbs diecasting,a major supplier of aluminum car parts.the automotive industry shapes a huge part of the economy.it was said in a newsletter i read back in 2001 that the big 3 (ford gm and dodge) could be bankrupt by 2005.ford has been on thin ice for a long time.this could be a great shot in the arm for them and the economy.and i would love to see us do something before the japanese for once!
By southernman. July 25th, 2008 at 3:36 amGood job Ford! I have been reading a lot about this topic and think its awesome. Far better than batteries that are expensive to recycle.
I read a great article called “Hybrid Hummer Hums” at http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com Its an H1 powered by gas/hydraulic hybrid system.
One of the developers really wants to do away with traditional transmissions, which he says are unnecessary and add weight.
By WillG. July 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pmTo the Hydraulic Hybrid designers,
By Tom, Crown Point, IN. July 8th, 2008 at 11:08 amFord and Gm; you both are still missing the boat when it comes to hydraulic design. Design the engine to be hydraulic/internal combustion in operation. This can be done with off the shelf systems. If the American auto manufacturers would get back to building vehicles with character and quality along with this above powertrain design, there isn’t an auto manufacturer that would come close. It is time for all American manufacturers to think outside the proverbial ‘box’. There is no reason for them not to except ‘GREED’. Get with it America. Oh, by the way, this engine design would achieve in the neighborhood of 70 - 90 miles per gallon without a huge capital cost for design involved. Good luck.
P.S. I am already building my own to install into my Ford F-250.
You see lots of things on the internet. There is undoubtedly a grain of truth to it but as of this writing all I have is a few links on the web that are unconfirmed. If it is true then its about time the major American car companies started to tool up for a big change because the Japanese seen it coming years ago. It seems to be the American way to wait until the last possible moment to finally see the writing on the wall and make the painful changes that HAVE to be made.
By Tim. July 8th, 2008 at 9:54 amI am not brand loyal. All the major American companies already get their parts from all around the world so the whole idea of brand loyalty to American companies no longer makes sense in the global market place. If Ford comes out with a 60mpg Focus that uses regular gas then I’ll take a serious gander at it.
In 2010 there look to be some major changes in electric plug-in technology mass produced. If Ford,Chevy and Chrysler can design something like the Prius only not so frickin ugly and much CHEAPER to buy then they will all be back in the game again. If they keep bragging in their commercials that their cars get 26mpg I’ll keep on laughing at their stupidity.Ford execs. if you can stop spending those huge salaries long enough to listen to me hear this. RETOOL ASAP and start to make these cars ASAP and stop dicking around.
People saying this would increase the price of gas dont understand the law of supply and demand. If gasoline demand plummets, so will gas prices.
By BOb. July 7th, 2008 at 5:34 amAlthough gas prices may increase as gasoline-powered vehicles are built to use less gas, there will be an advantage to the environment because of the use of less gas. Although China may be consuming more gasoline in the future, consider what will happen if vehicles don’t start using less gasoline. The oil-producing countries, including our own oil producers, are going to profit no matter what happens, and the auto industry is probably never going to do all that it is able to do to change things dramatically. That may seem cynical, yet I believe it is only realistic. Our government usually does only what industry demands. It would seem that so long as there is a profit to be made from the oil that is available, no significant changes will be initiated. I’ll settle for a 60 mpg Ford 150, if that’s all that’s possible now. I’d prefer a choice of fuels, though. Right now, the oil-producing countries have the world economy in their hands, and they will do only what brings them profit.
By Vic. June 16th, 2008 at 8:11 ampeople you need to get your heads out of your butts.are auto makers have the ability to make a car get 200mpg they wont because they are controlled by oil and gas companies.use your brains, trains have a simple diesel electric motor,that will pull like hell and get excellent fuel mileage.
By kent. June 4th, 2008 at 4:10 amTRY 100MPG ITS TIME TO STOP PLAYING!!!!
By PATRICK. May 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 amAs for my other blog, why cant you put an electric motor on the hydraulic pump? The torque of an electric motor running a hydraulic pump with only a small motor turning a generator. Someone brought up a good point. If cars and trucks were able to get 60 mpg, the price of a gallon of gasoline would triple or even more.
By Scott. May 6th, 2008 at 9:00 amThe gas companies have us by teh n–s and they know it. now I’m all for a company making good profits, but, when it affects the overall situation in this country, I.E. the cost of fertilizer, that gets passed on to the consumer, the cost of trucking, that gets passed on, and so on down the proverbial toilet we go, smiling all the way. We, as a people, need to stand up to this form of TERRORISM that is going on right here in our driveways.
I have farmed rice, cotton and milo for years, I have always said if Ford put a Hydrostatic transmission in their trucks they would have a winner. The power generated by hydraulic fluid is unmatched. I don’t see any more burn outs, but that is something the tire manufacturerswould have to deal with. My John Deere combine will out pull my 4840 and the thing out weighs it two and a half to one. All you need is a small engine powering a hydraulic pump and there you are. You could easily get 50 mpg out of an engine running at a constant speed with very little load on it. Why hasn’t anyone tried this? That is what I would like to know.
By Scott. May 6th, 2008 at 8:45 am“Positive start, sounds like someone at Ford is finally getting it — I’ll be in the market for a new truck next year - now bring back the escort, and apply the same tech, get 100 mpg, and I’d buy it Tommarrow as would most American commuters — Woody ”
This technology works best in larger vehicles.
By Matman. May 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pmTo everyone who thinks its not possible with our technology now we can do 70 mpg vehicles but the gas companys pay the car companys not to make a high fuel efficient vehicle because they would all go out of buisness
By ;a;d;ad. April 12th, 2008 at 10:57 amHas anyone heard if they are comming out with the hydraulic option in 09′? I am looking to purchase a new truck and the only thing that is stopping me is the inadequate mileage they provide. Thanks
By jeff. March 10th, 2008 at 10:05 pmI have to hand it to you ford people. At least your not driving a Jap Truck/Car. But did you know ford is a supporter of gay people. So I’ve been boycoting ford. But I will not drive Jap. I’ll buy a horse to pull my chevy truck before I drive jap. How about a hemispherical engine, or a Air engine,? I hope ford makes this Hydraulic Hybrid, work. & I hope the American Car companys get to use it after ford releases it. Not toy?
By Jeffrey. February 28th, 2008 at 6:07 amI have rarely been to a site with so many people having so many good ideas! To be honest I own a Scion ha, but miss my pick up!….I would def consider a Ford PU if it got average 45mpg! I am impressed with everyones concrete ideas on this topic ! and Hydrolics is a great idea ( Id even go with the “Meyer water engine”( water is broken down its said with sound waves generating quick large amounts of Hydrogen gas to fuel auto)….but Myers was alledegely killed by oil people…he got patent here and abroad / brother suppose to have had working prototype and vehicle, yet have heard nothing since whether technology was sold to anyone ?? )…. anyways hope to hear more positive hybrid info !
By Dave. February 12th, 2008 at 4:31 pmPeople have to realize that Ford is has been the leader in fuel efficiency for decades, we just haven’t been paying attention here in the US. Ford has been leaving the US because the other markets around the world have been much more open to their technologies. I have done some studying on the hybrid system and i think they can get very high increases in both highway and city MPG’s. A VW Jetta TDI can get 45-55 MPG on the highway. it weighs a little less than the proposed F-150 but if the engine is sized correctly it will be able to archive those numbers. The Hydraulic Assist will be great for city driving mainly but will also increase highway economy. I have been a Ford owner for over twenty years and not had an issue with any of their products that I have owned. I have followed Ford for many years and have seen that out of the American companies they have done their best to do what is right (just look at their stock prices compared to GM and Chrysler). I believe that this is a step forward but not the answer. Electric vehicle technology is not as green as it is made out to be but is defenatly greener than our current technologies in use. Electric vehicles still require re-charging from an electrical source, these sources are primarily feed by coal, gas, or nuclear energy sources. they will spew more pollutants into the air and water to make the electricity for the re-charging stations. it is a catch 22, I think that if people would change their point of view and look at the whole picture it would be easier to accept new technology. I hope that Ford does get this put out on the market soon. I am a contractor and would love to be able to use these vehicles in my fleet.
By Scotty. February 10th, 2008 at 11:08 amall i got to say is Stanley Meyer Water Fuel Cell
By Bob Dods. January 20th, 2008 at 12:51 pmSounds like presser wood make the truck ran faster and uses smaller amounts of feol so, I am scepticle. Maybe Ford should market this because technology is low.
By Brian Anacol. December 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 amYES IT CAN BE DONE, I KNOW FOR SURE THEY CAN MAKE A HIGH MPG TRUCK! BUT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT EVERYONE TO GET 50 OR 100 MPG. WHY , YOU SAY? THE LOSS OF REVENUE FROM EVERYONE BUYING LESS GAS, HOW WILL THEY MAINTAIN THE NATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND PAY FOR USELESS HOLY WARS?
By ALEX. October 24th, 2007 at 5:16 amJust remember that when you are getting 60mpg the cost of gas will be $45 a gallon. Do you think that the oil companys are going to lose there profits???
By kelly. October 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pmFord never stated 60 mpg. I guessing it will be around
By Bulldog. October 19th, 2007 at 5:53 am28 mpg at best!
In 1967 I did a Master’s Thesis at RPI on using a system like this to improve economy of an automobile. At that time it looked the most promising hybrid arrangement because it could absorb and dispense enerrgy quickly and efficiently. Batteries cannot charge/discharge at high efficiency at high power levels, precisely what is needed when starting and stopping a vehicle. The downside of the hydraulic system was its low energy density, the acccumulators barely can hold the energy to accelerate 0-60 mph unless they are relatively large and heavy compared to the vehicle weight.
By Don. September 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pmComponents of that day were heavier and less efficient than those published by the EPA and when done it appeared that the concept would only be useful in the city, likely reducing efficiency on the highway due to the added weight and reduced drive efficiency.
the worst part of hydraulic would be if u blew a line but the truck will still run as normal. Electric hybrids are a pain computer degree too work on one and the batteries and generation systems are tempermental. U would have too be mental too put up with one. Closing marks praise the lord for mister ford
By stm. September 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pmFirst I believe that I heard that the HLA works from 0 - 28 MPH, next the Highly efficient Lyon Diesel engine will take over from 28 MPH and up. HLA is best suited to the F-150 because the 5000 PSI nitrogen cylinder and the Hydraulic Fluid Accumulator can be mounted safely under the Pickup Bed. A small car is too cramped to mount the hardware.
5000 PSI and a Hydraulic Motor should be able to easily get the F-150 up to speed regardless of payload, etc.
Also I heard Eaton Corp., the EPA and Ford are working on this together.
The hardest thing on fuel economy is getting the mass rolling. Have you ever pushed a car that doesn’t run? The worst part is starting it off.
The important thing is that if it even gets close to 60 MPG there would be no need for the Ranger Pickup that delivers worse MPG. More F-150 sales would keep the F-Series the leader. Plus F-150 got 5 Stars in crash tests, so it is safer than a Ranger, (Don’t get me wrong, I thing Ranger is a great truck for Ford)
I’m Rooting for you Ford!
Waldo
By Waldo. August 21st, 2007 at 7:05 pmI THINK MOST PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE AWESOME POWER OF HYDRAULIC ADVANTAGE. I THINK THE HYDRAULIC HYBRID WILL BE THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY TECHNOLOGY TO POWER OUR VEHICLES.
By GEORGE JAMBOR. August 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pmFord’s tv commercial could show the truck running over a meatball sub. I wonder if I could fit an accumulator tank on the roof of my Prius.
By Doug. May 25th, 2007 at 5:24 pmDoes anyone know where I can find a clutch fork for a 1991 Taurus SHO?
By Joshua Jaiyes. February 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pmVery helpful insight from everyone. I think Tony’s comment on Aug 19th makes a great point. If the power and efficiency is created by lost energy during braking, highway MPGs will not see a great increase. This idea is better suited for delivery vehicles and city transportation vehicles. It’s encouraging to see major delivey companies already testing the new vehicles. However, I can see a benefit for those consumers who commute in HEAVY traffic cities (i.e. LA, New York, Houston, etc.), and spend a great deal of that commute in “bumper-to-bumper” traffic.
By Jim. February 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 amSomeone also made a great point about the current tech mark ups on hybrid autos. The maintenance costs and vehicle’s mark up (avg ~$3k) outway the fuel efficiency benefit. Take an avg 5 yr note, avg your gas cosumption costs, and there’s no way you save $3k in gas and maintenance in 5 yrs.
I think the only way Ford scores big on this idea is bite the bullet up front by not jacking up the prices on the vehicles (too much), and reap the benefits of ridiculous amounts of units sold. As a current F150 owner, I’m eagerly anticipating the results. I hope they come out as good as advertised, so I can trade mine in and get the new and improved F150. Good luck Ford!
that’s good. i was thinking of doing that ever since i was in my second year college. Now that i’ll be graduating this coming march, i will try to get my chance to work w/ ford, and make that a reality. Amen to that!
By dexter b. dincog. January 31st, 2007 at 8:57 pmI am supprised that so many people responded to this post without checking out how the hydraulic tek works. The fuel is not running the truck, it is powering the compressor. Just like a fork lift uses hydraulics to lift the forks, the compressor runs the wheels of the truck. UPS says they are getting better then 60 mpg on some of their test delivery vechiles.
By DataDude. January 23rd, 2007 at 9:36 amYay FORD!
By alex gonzalez. January 21st, 2007 at 7:52 pmcool car
By lisa vanpoten. January 10th, 2007 at 10:14 amhaha\
By lisa vanpoten. January 10th, 2007 at 10:13 amIf anyone can do it, FORD can!
By Joe. January 9th, 2007 at 7:00 amAre you kidding me? Ford can’t even make a transmission or a rear end that doesn’t leak and you think they will be able to store hydraulic fluid under more than 1000 psi of pressure without a leak?
Sounds like a nightmare type of system to maintain.
By Powerdude. January 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pmHaha, I heard about this back in 2001. Most other people heard this they thought it was a joke. Still there’s a lot of skeptics. Well as most of you know hybrid is not the way to go. Most hybrids pump out high MPG numbers because they are underpowered. If you look at the lexus and Honda hybrids that have the same horsepower as their non-hybrids, the MPG difference is only about 4-6. If you consider the higher price tag, plus the higher maintenance cost, plus the (if you keep it long enough) the cost of replacing the large battery in 3-5 years, it’s really not worth it. Not to mention trying to sell or trade it in when you’re done with it, because today’s hybrid technology will be obsolete compared to what they will roll out in the future. Traditionally Ford has opted not to go with the electric-hybrid route, sure they have hybrids available but Ford has put it’s money on hydrogen combustion engine and ethanol, which are both more viable options. Don’t get me wrong, electric-hybrids did wonders to switch direction in the automotive industry, but at it’s current stage it’s pretty much taped out until further development. And natural gas, well natural gas is a by-product just like propane. Well about Ford’s hydraulic hybrid system. From what I understand everything you heard is probably true (I’m skeptic on the 60 MPG figure I’m thinking more that 40-50 MPG is more realistic). The hydraulic system uses it’s stored energy to help rotate the driveshaft. Those of you who work with idustrial machinery is familiar with the impressive capacity of hydraulics. Look at construction machines and airplane wings. For the size it has impressive power. Imagine trying to do the same with an electric motor. Imagine trying to tow a 5,500 lbs. trailer with a electric-hybrid engine compared to a hydraulic-hybrid engine, which makes more sense? This idea is not so new and crazy. I once met this old man that served as an air force mechanic when he was young. and they had airplanes that used a can of compressed air to start the engines. This is was a big improvement over cranking the engine yourself. Ofcourse the use of compressed air became obsolete when they started using electic starters. As far as the milage I think 40-50 is very possible. Especially since Ford is researching on building materials. I think cars will be leaner in the near future. by 2008 40-50 MPG should be somewhat average for all cars anyways. Look at the new Camry with a 265 HP V6 it gets an impressive 31 MPG. that was Civic territory a few year back, a car with about 170 HP V4. We’re already seeing 7-speed transmission. I think with all the improvements in these parts we’ll see cars putting out great milage across the board.
By kryle. November 27th, 2006 at 10:32 amI sure hope Ford just comes close to 60 mpg. I was thinking about triding my 2005 F150 for a 2007, but I will wait now for the 2008 year.
By Jason McDougald. September 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pmI hope it comes soon. I’m going to be in the market in the near future to start replacing personal and business vehicles. This technology would be a great start.
By Noel. September 24th, 2006 at 7:35 ami dont think it matters if it cant pull a wheelbarrow, because most people dont use a truck for what it is meant for. its kinda like v6 mustangs. they cant do anything, but people buy it to look cool
By 460Ford. September 19th, 2006 at 5:50 amThe European focus with the 1.6litre TDCI Diesel claims 45.6mpg city, 70.6mpg highway with a combined figure of 58.9mpg. Granted it’s real small and couldn’t pull a wheelbarrow, I’d bet the Hydraulic Hybrid Techology could push it over 100mpg in the city. Trucks tend to get about half the mpg that cars do, so 50 or 60 mpg isn’t out of the question in my mind. Not to mention Diesels have always been the right engine if you looking for torque.
By Nick. September 6th, 2006 at 8:47 amThis system could only get a 400% increase in fuel economy in around town driving because of all the stop and go, On the freeway, you will not have braking so the hybrid system will not work on the freeway. Fuel Efficiency for this Vehicle is probably closer to 50 city / 16 Hwy. A system like this would go well in delivery vehicles and city buses. This system in an E150 might be better, they could sell to FEDEX, DHL, Etc. Comanies like these would potentially see the benefits of a system like this.
By Tony. August 19th, 2006 at 5:32 amhot dang!! a 500mpg pick up…. hot dang!!
By billybob. August 11th, 2006 at 4:14 amJudging from the fact that UPS is currently testing the hydraulic launch system in Livonia Michigan, added to the revelation that Parker-Hannifenn just bought the largest Japanese hydraulic parts manufacturer, I’m starting to believe there’s a diesel powered full hydraulic F-Series truck coming to my driveway soon.
If it averages 30mpg or better, I will be all the happier
By Bo. August 9th, 2006 at 11:39 amDoes anyone realize that 30 mpg on gasonline, much less than 60mpg does not even make sense on a F-150? If the EPA rating of the 2006 model is 19mpg highway — which means a contstant rate of speed with NO BRAKING how does a hydraulic regenerative system magically add 40mpg to that figure? Sheesh.
Even a small, aerodynamic, efficent 4-cyl car like the prius only does 55mpg on the highway. Keep smoking fellas.
By Greg. August 9th, 2006 at 10:57 amIf ford actually makes this, I will start to respect them again. Didn’t they also promise a 70 mpg Focus out of their $2 Billion investment in the Ford Europe division in England? Maybe 60 mpg here would be a little over the top, but whol knows?
By Joe. August 9th, 2006 at 6:26 amSomebody pulls the number 60 out of their wazzoo and everyone regergitates it on the internet…now you believe it to be true. I would love for it to be but the factual truth comes from the EPA patented and published information stating 25-30 percent improvement in mgp. That puts the f150 at about 18 city and 24 hwy. Not bad but certainly not 60 mpg.
By Joe. August 4th, 2006 at 9:24 pmHow do you take a 6000 lb vehicle, offer great towing and decent acceleration and get 60MPG at a reasonable price? The answer is you can’t! If you made the entire truck out of aluminum and put a small engine on it, you might be able to get 60 MPG. Of course, the truck would then cost $100K.
You should do more due diligence.
By DIYTrucker. August 3rd, 2006 at 12:32 pmthat would be very good news! I just hope Ford would also bring back the the discounts for their F-150.
http://www.ebloggy.com/blog.php?username=Jaystevens&id=1&entry=42
By Jay S.. August 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pmIf they, could I would buy a truck even thou I’ve nevered considered it before.
By Timo. July 25th, 2006 at 10:08 amVery promising! I’m looking forward to checking one out in the near future.
By Terry Brown. July 20th, 2006 at 10:37 pmFord is making a BOLD move. Go American Made!
By John Power. July 20th, 2006 at 6:11 pmUgh, if the wife finds out about this she is going to REALLY start dogging me about selling the ‘86 Bronco (BB 460) for one of these 60mpg F-150s
By Motrhed. July 20th, 2006 at 1:08 pmWhere did you guys get the 60 mpg figure? I saw an estimate for a Expedition making 32 mpg city with a hydraulic system.
In any case, it sounds promising! It seems like a system like that could pull almost any load out of the hole, good stuff for a truck. If they can make 60+ mpg from a F-150/Expedition platform for a $1000 markup, its not a case of thinking about getting one, I will have to!
By Brian. July 20th, 2006 at 9:56 amIf they can do it, great!
But I bet it can’t pull itself out of a pothole, much less pull a 10,000 lb trailer.
By Wesley. July 20th, 2006 at 9:33 amWow. 60mpg in a truck. Unheard of. I hope SUV’s are next.
By Cletus. July 20th, 2006 at 9:32 amPositive start, sounds like someone at Ford is finally getting it — I’ll be in the market for a new truck next year - now bring back the escort, and apply the same tech, get 100 mpg, and I’d buy it Tommarrow as would most American commuters — Woody
By Woody. July 20th, 2006 at 6:53 amPeople will still say it isnt enough. Even though I find it awesome that they jumped right over everyone else with this in terms of MPG!
By Wildo. July 19th, 2006 at 4:37 pm