 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / July 2008Can I add hydraulic assist to my 2005 Expedition ?
Can I add hydraulic assist to my 2005 Expedition ? The EPA version back in 2004 turned an Expedition from 14/19 mpg to 32/22 mpg. Here are a EPA paper about hydraulic launch assist: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/technology/420f04019.pdf http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/02/epa_eaton_and_p.html http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/epa-unveils-hydraulic-hybrid-ups-delivery-truck/ I figure the steps are: 1. remove the drive shaft 2. replace automatic transmission with a hydraulic pump 3. add a hydraulic turbine / pump to the rear axle gear 4. add a hydraulic 20 gallon storage tank 5. add a hydraulic 20 gallon pressurization tank 6. Here is the tough part: add various control valves, hydraulic hoses and connect to the brake pedal and gas pedal Where do I get all these parts and what is the cost ? If Ford would add this to their 2009 trucks and SUVs, their sales would double or triple. They are crazy not to complete the hydraulic assist launch project. Lynn The EPA version > back in 2004 turned an Expedition from 14/19 mpg <to 32/22 mpg. Go ahead if you want to blow the engine within 12 months. Might as well hook up nitrous oxide while you're at it, so you won't have to worry about driving it for very long. > Can I add hydraulic assist to my 2005 Expedition ? The EPA version > back in 2004 turned an Expedition from 14/19 mpg to 32/22 mpg. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Where do I get all these parts and what is the cost ? As with many of these 'enhancements', what is the payback time? What is the reliability? Is it street legal?  SignatureIf there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying! All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!! http://home.att.net/~andyross > Can I add hydraulic assist to my 2005 Expedition ? The EPA version > back in 2004 turned an Expedition from 14/19 mpg to 32/22 mpg. Getting big heavy SUV's and trucks to 32/22 mpg isn't going to turn heads of most people. Getting small, light, econoboxes from 32/22 to 50/60 mpg is what is turning heads these days. And that is what Ford and the other big 2 are going to do, because if they don't, they know they are going to be out of business. And, it is possible with today's hybrid technology. As for the people who absolutely cannot drive anything other than a big heavy truck or SUV, well, you will have a wide selection of very lightly used and well-maintained USED vehicles to choose from. But, you won't have any relief from gas prices. Your only going to be able to keep doing this if your able to just drive less, or if your driving your big heavy truck for business (like a farm) because you can then pass along the price increases to your customers. The days of the 60 mile round-trip city-to-suburban commute by one person in a giant SUV or big empty truck are gone with the wind. Ted > Getting big heavy SUV's and trucks to 32/22 mpg isn't going to turn > heads of most people. Sounds like you arent buying $300 a month of gas to feed this beast. I get 12/17 mpg. 32/22 mpg would make me ecstatic even if on diesel. In fact, I would prefer diesel and have been asking Ford for it many years. > Getting small, light, econoboxes from 32/22 to 50/60 mpg is what is > turning heads these days. And that is what Ford and the other big 2 > are going to do, because if they don't, they know they are going to be > out of business. And, it is possible with today's hybrid technology. I still want my Expy. And 32/22 would be good. The 2009 model reputedly will have a 4.4L V8 diesel that gets 16/22 mpg. And adding the hydraulic launch assist for less than $2,000 will allow these vehicles to get 32/22 mpg. BTW, I can already get a small econobox (a prius) to do 50 mpg. Small econoboxes are going electric to the equivalent of 100+ mpg with a generator after 30/40 miles. > As for the people who absolutely cannot drive anything other than > a big heavy truck or SUV, well, you will have a wide selection of very > lightly used and well-maintained USED vehicles to choose from. Ford, GM, Chrysler and Toyota will still make big trucks. That is not going away until we get to $20/gal. Too many people who make $200K/yr want them. > The days of the 60 mile round-trip city-to-suburban commute by > one person in a giant SUV or big empty truck are gone with the wind. Not yet. We havent even hit $10/gal yet. BTW, my work commute is 10 miles (round trip). Its my trips to California, Oklahoma, Dallas, etc that are burning all the gas. Lynn > The days of the 60 mile round-trip city-to-suburban commute by > one person in a giant SUV or big empty truck are gone with the wind. I thought the day would never come. Dave it is obvious from this statement that you do not drive on any roads leading into new york city from anywhere in new jersey. >> The days of the 60 mile round-trip city-to-suburban commute by >> one person in a giant SUV or big empty truck are gone with the wind. 1. Your can obtain all the parts you will need from an industrialo supply company 2. With out the advantage of the economies of scale of a manufacturer the cost for all of the necessary components is likely to be around $5,000+ 3. The high pressure tank (2,500 PSI) alone will be VERY expensive and require a State Certificat, as well as an annual state inspection by an Autorise Boiler Inspecter, if it is larger than 5CF that I would suspect would be needed 4. You likely do not have the technisa knowledge to design the system. 5. An Engineer will likely charge an arm and a lega to design the system for you. 6. Your 2005 vehicle likely already has around 50,000 miles on the clock. 7. This Engineer believes, if one was to make such a conversion, one would be better adise to make the conversion on a new vehicle that would allow one to sell of the existing new parts to reduce the costs 8. I would suggest you would be better off to trade you vehicle on an Escape or a Mariner hybrid or one of the GM SUV hybrids, if you need a larger vehicle > Can I add hydraulic assist to my 2005 Expedition ? The EPA version > back in 2004 turned an Expedition from 14/19 mpg to 32/22 mpg. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Lynn > 2. With out the advantage of the economies of scale of a manufacturer > the cost for all of the necessary components is likely to be around $5,000+ That is what I am afraid of. > 3. The high pressure tank (2,500 PSI) alone will be VERY expensive and > require a State Certificat, as well as an annual state inspection by an > Autorise Boiler Inspecter, if it is larger than 5CF that I would suspect > would be needed 5000 psia. 22 gallons = 3 ft3. > 4. You likely do not have the technisa knowledge to design the system. Wrong. Licensed mechanical engineer in the great state of Texas. > 6. Your 2005 vehicle likely already has around 50,000 miles on the > clock. 53,000. > 7. This Engineer believes, if one was to make such a conversion, one > would be better adise to make the conversion on a new vehicle that would > allow one to sell of the existing new parts to reduce the costs True unless one is looking for a novelty and proof of concept to prove that the current management of Ford are total idiots. > 8. I would suggest you would be better off to trade you vehicle on an > Escape or a Mariner hybrid or one of the GM SUV hybrids, if you need a > larger vehicle Nope. Thanks, Lynn Lynn, it is a pleasure for a change to speak with another engineer in this NG as we did years ago, rather than guys looking or a cheap or free fix for their worn out vehicle, as is the case today in the NGs Good luck if you try, let us know if it works for you, considering you could probably not patent the idea. My degree is in metallurgy. I worked in the automotive industry for thirty years primarily in structural design. I have an idea as well as plenty of money to try to develop it but at 82 I'm not willing do so, perhaps you might be interested. If I were younger I would like to work on a multiple piston "steam engine," using a refrigerant at the medium, and diesel fuel. We may get away from using gasoline some day but I do not see ANY of the alternate sources replacing diesel or aviation fuel. What do you think? >> 2. With out the advantage of the economies of scale of a manufacturer >> the cost for all of the necessary components is likely to be around [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Thanks, > Lynn > Lynn, it is a pleasure for a change to speak with another engineer in this > NG as we did years ago, rather than guys looking or a cheap or free fix for > their worn out vehicle, as is the case today in the NGs Hey, I've used these groups for my newer vehicles also. > Good luck if you try, let us know if it works for you, considering you could > probably not patent the idea. The EPA owns the patent on the hydraulic assist technology. I am ashamed of Ford for not moving forward with this ground- breaking technology. They could have saved their company with it. Instead they are going to lose the company IMHO. The EPA had a working 2002 Expedition with hydraulic launch assist 2004. Where did it go ? Where did Ford's v6 turbo diesel for the Expeditions and trucks go ? Answer, Ford just wasted the opportunities and time. They deserve to go in the ditch, I am afraid. > My degree is in metallurgy. I worked in the automotive industry for thirty > years primarily in structural design. I write and sell Chemical Engineering software to the oil and natural gas industry. > I have an idea as well as plenty of money to try to develop it but at 82 I'm > not willing do so, perhaps you might be interested. I'm 48 but I dont have the time as I work too much already leading my business and 14 employees. > If I were younger I would like to work on a multiple piston "steam engine," > using a refrigerant at the medium, and diesel fuel. We may get away from > using gasoline some day but I do not see ANY of the alternate sources > replacing diesel or aviation fuel. What do you think? I see electricity as the next motive force for vehicles. I feel that at most you should have 20 to 40 miles of batteries and then there should be some sort of battery recharger on board. Probably a small 2 cylinder diesel that starts up and runs full blast to recharge the battery then shuts down. All automatic. However, a steam engine to run a generator would not be bad, especially a three stage expansion with a condenser. It would difficult to get it as small as the diesel generator set though. Thanks, Lynn My idea to use "steam" from a refrigerant would not be to generate electricity or a "motor," but to power a piston "engine" in a closed loop system. I have the particulars worked our but I have not embarked on building the system. Ford has had a six cylinder diesel on the drawing board for seven or eight years, but has yet to offer the engine. It along with the new V8 diesel were to be built, in the new Navistar Ford engine plant, as the intended engines for a smaller "F100" pickup. Ford simply does not have the money to bring the truck to market, particularly at a time when truck buyers wanted bigger trucks. Toyota brought its new bigger Tundra to market to meet that demand, but the slowing market was not big enough to help Tundra sales which have been dismal. Toyota stopped production of the Tundra, they say for three month but I believe they will drop the bigger truck because they can not penetrate the big truck market dominated by Ford and GM and to some extent Dodge. The market has declined but there still is a demand for HD work pickups, as witnessed by the over half million sales of the 2008 Ford F-Series >> Lynn, it is a pleasure for a change to speak with another engineer in >> this NG as we did years ago, rather than guys looking or a cheap or free [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Thanks, > Lynn actually guys, the 4.5 liter V6 turbo diesel has been in production for a few years now, and is selling very well in the mid size cab over trucks. i believe the truck line is called either the L.C.F., or L.F.C. > Ford has had a six cylinder diesel on the drawing board for seven or eight Where did Ford's v6 turbo >> diesel for the Expeditions and trucks go ? Answer, Ford >> just wasted the opportunities and time. They deserve to >> go in the ditch, I am afraid. > My idea to use "steam" from a refrigerant would not be to generate > electricity or a "motor," but to power a piston "engine" in a closed loop > system. I have the particulars worked our but I have not embarked on > building the system. Here is a PM article on something similar: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4245896.html?series=15 That said, boilers are notoriously slow on response to radical power changes. That is why the Stanley steamer never really made it even though it had way superior power and efficiency. Internal combustion engines just do a way better job of accelerating. Or, electric motors with a battery/generator system behind them (see GE diesel electric locomotives). > Ford has had a six cylinder diesel on the drawing board for seven or eight > years, but has yet to offer the engine. It along with the new V8 diesel > were to be built, in the new Navistar Ford engine plant, as the intended > engines for a smaller "F100" pickup. Ford simply does not have the money > to bring the truck to market, particularly at a time when truck buyers > wanted bigger trucks. Toyota is releasing a v6 turbo diesel in its Tundra pickups next spring. Ford will lose a lot of it's light duty sales to the new engine. You may even see a light duty hybrid from Toyota. > Toyota brought its new bigger Tundra to market to meet that demand, but the > slowing market was not big enough to help Tundra sales which have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The market has declined but there still is a demand for HD work pickups, as > witnessed by the over half million sales of the 2008 Ford F-Series Toyota will definitely have to step it up but they do have the capital resources to make it happen. I would not count them out yet. Lynn Not if one used 1,000 PSI "steam." ;) >> My idea to use "steam" from a refrigerant would not be to generate >> electricity or a "motor," but to power a piston "engine" in a closed loop [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Lynn >> That said, boilers are notoriously slow on response to >> radical power changes. That is why the Stanley steamer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> with a battery/generator system behind them (see GE diesel >> electric locomotives). > Not if one used 1,000 PSI "steam." ;) Steam pressure has nothing to do with it. What matters is the amount of steam in the top drum. Conversion of liquid water to vapor takes time and if your boiler does not have that already going then the sudden power production from 20 hp to 200 hp will cause the steam drum to "starve" in most cases. Then your steam pressure will sag and you will have to pour the heat into the waterwalls of your boiler. You can use a coil to keep your steam vaporized and warm but these have unique issues unto themselves. Lynn My design uses forced circulation design that does not use a drum and the PSI has everything to do with a steam engine. >>> That said, boilers are notoriously slow on response to >>> radical power changes. That is why the Stanley steamer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lynn > My design uses forced circulation design that does not use a drum and the > PSI has everything to do with a steam engine. Good ! All modern supercritical (3675 psia) steam boilers are built this way. They are fast to react to changing conditions (can change steam output at 10%/sec) but they do have two problems: 1. high pressure drop - usually the feed water (fluid) to the boiler must be two times that of the product pressure (the high pressure drop is caused by the small tubes in the waterwalls and control valves) 2. low turndown ratio - it is very difficult to get these boilers down below 25% max design flowrate (due to flow reversing in the water walls along the headers). One method used to reduce the 25% flow requirement is a recirculation pump at the bottom of the water walls but since the fluid is very close to its flash point the recirc pump "can pump" usually have high maintenance rates (constant cavitation problems). There were a couple of subcritical (2520 psia) steam boilers built during the late 1960s using once through boilers but they were a real bear to stabilize (that was before the can pump design though). The steam condenser really takes a hit on starting these beasts up until you hit 25% flow. Of course, my only familiarity with once through (forced circulation) boilers is 600,000 to 1,000,000 hp. Scaled down boilers (100 to 200 hp) might be a lot more flexible. Lynn >> My design uses forced circulation design that does not use a drum and the >> PSI has everything to do with a steam engine. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >circulation) boilers is 600,000 to 1,000,000 hp. Scaled >down boilers (100 to 200 hp) might be a lot more flexible. The "late model" Stanley 735 had from what I hear very little lag - and that's with all mechanical controls on the boiler, and a gasified kerosene fired main burner. And they weren't trying for a subcritical or supercritical design. A simple vertical fire-tube boiler with a simple superheater tube loop in the flue space can dump heat into the water fairly rapidly - and still follow the KISS Principle. With a modern ECU computer running the boiler (and the rest of the car) the computer would sense you mashing the accelerator pedal and wouldn't have to wait for the boiler pressure to start dropping before it turned the burners up to full blast. If you were running "alternative" solid fuels like corncobs or wood pellets - or crushed low-sulfur coal, it would crank the stoker to full and draft blower to maximum. You can get a large heat output change with quite a bit of control just by varying the draft. --<< Bruce >>-- >> 2. With out the advantage of the economies of scale of a manufacturer >> the cost for all of the necessary components is likely to be around $5,000+ > >That is what I am afraid of. I've heard quotes that it is between $10,000 and $12,000 depending on how large a set of fuel tanks - for the minimum price you only get about 10 Gallons Gasoline Equivalent (GGE) for the base model mid-size sedan. Obviously that isn't enough for the average police patrol car. Paying two grand more gets you into the 16 GGE to 25 GGE range. There are Federal and California rebates that get you about $5,000 off on a NEW vehicle conversion, which means if they can get the cost of the system down through serious mass production it could easily be "almost free" after rebate. But betweeen the un-rebated costs of conversion, and another $5,000 or so if you want a home refueling compressor and installation, the payback will take a while. The fuel itself costs a LOT less, so it should be worth the wait for the payback. >> 3. The high pressure tank (2,500 PSI) alone will be VERY expensive and >> require a State Certificat, as well as an annual state inspection by an >> Autorise Boiler Inspecter, if it is larger than 5CF that I would suspect >> would be needed > >5000 psia. 22 gallons = 3 ft3. Either 3,000 PSI or 3,600 PSI. The tanks might be rated for 5,000 PSI test, but they aren't filled that high in service. They require a visual inspection by a certified inspector every three years, and IIRC the tanks have an "expiration date" where they need to be swapped out ever 12 to 20 years, length depending on whether they are the Fiberglass wrapped Aluminum tanks, or the Steel tanks. Considering the failure mode is proven fatal if the tank is damaged, I'd take the slight weight hit for the all steel tanks myself. (SuperShuttle driver killed when glass wrapped aluminum tank exploded - Van was hit hard in rear and repaired, got battery acid on tanks from car that hit it. Tanks not inspected as required after accident, at least one tank burst on first refueling after getting out of body shop - and it only takes one.) >> 6. Your 2005 vehicle likely already has around 50,000 miles on the >> clock. > >53,000. No tax credits available for used vehicle conversions, so unless you have an exceptionally good reason to do it (or very deep pockets) you'll be paying a WHOLE lot of lettuce for the privilege of thumbing your nose at the car company - and they won't even hear about it... It's like peeing your pants in a dark suit - It might make you feel good - but nobody else is going to notice, let alone care. >> 7. This Engineer believes, if one was to make such a conversion, one >> would be better adise to make the conversion on a new vehicle that would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of concept to prove that the current management of >Ford are total idiots. Oh, we don't need to prove that... Just try changing a heater core. The Detroit car makers have to offer the CNG systems as a regular factory production option, so the market can decide whether it works for them. I bet you it will, and in large enough numbers to justify. Make mine a tri-fuel CNG/Gasoline/E85/Ethanol. Whichever way the market goes, I'm covered. >> 8. I would suggest you would be better off to trade you vehicle on an >> Escape or a Mariner hybrid or one of the GM SUV hybrids, if you need a >> larger vehicle > >Nope. Everyone is going to have to downsize if and when they can. Unless you regularly run around with enough passenger and cargo load to fill an Expedition, or tow a large trailer often, you should consider getting something smaller for everyday use. --<< Bruce >>-- >>> 2. With out the advantage of the economies of scale of a manufacturer >>> the cost for all of the necessary components is likely to be around $5,000+ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sedan. Obviously that isn't enough for the average police patrol car. > Paying two grand more gets you into the 16 GGE to 25 GGE range. I think that you are talking about converting a vehicle to natural gas. I am talking about adding hydraulic launch assist http://www.epa.gov/OMS/technology/420f04019.pdf to a vehicle. Lynn > Can I add hydraulic assist to my 2005 Expedition ? The EPA version > back in 2004 turned an Expedition from 14/19 mpg to 32/22 mpg. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/02/epa_eaton_and_p.html > http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/epa-unveils-hydraulic-hybrid-ups-delivery-truck/ Looks like Ford is giving up on Hydraulic Launch Assist and is moving to plug in hybrids: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/23/video-ford-f-150-hybrid-pick-up-truck-ge ts-41-mpg/ Lynn |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.