Originally Posted by Cameracarl

I just traded in my 2007 Escape Hybrid for a 2012. The dealer doesn't know much about them. I noticed on a warm day (75-85 degrees) some fan noise in the cargo area and I presume that this is the fan for the battery system. The fan tends to run quite a bit and is far more noticeable than the fan on my 2007 which drew in air and vented to the outside of the vehicle. Is this normal? Any ideas why Ford changed what seems to have been a good design (quiet and less likely to cause a problem if you fully load the cargo area)? How careful do I need to be when loading the cargo area to avoid blocking the vents? How far away does everything need to be?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by GaryG

Ford eliminated the HV battery Aux. A/C in the 2010 and newer FEH. I think that was a mistake because the ideal (efficiency) battery temperature is 78F degrees. Ford also went to an electric A/C compressor that year which eats up what little SoC range in that HV Battery.

This leaves very little battery SoC for EV use in city driving.

Are you saying you would like to still make use of the ICE to run the A/C rather than the FREE regen energy whenever it is available. Running the ICE only to drive the A/C is HORRIBLY inefficient.

It has been my opinion that an electric compressor should only be used in a plug-in Lithium battery where charging does not come from the engine.

Not sure what you're saying, intended to say...are you proposing a separate HV battery. If so how would it be charged..?

The '09 and older FEH did not have HV battery cabin venting, so there was less fan noise. In other words, on the newer FEH if it's hot out, you need to run the cabin A/C cold to keep the battery near 78F. This was one reason I did not purchase a FFH or newer FEH.

Is there some sort of CAUTION note in the owners manual. Or does the cabin A/C come on automatically above 78F..? Or did Ford redesign the HV battery pack, packaging such that cooling is really not necessary?

This maybe one reason why Ford is discontinuing the FEH after 2012. Ford can now go to a cheaper gas version and get as good if not better MPG than a FEH. In 2013, the Escape will be a lighter design with an available 2.0L EcoBoost engine, which should have more power and better MPG than an FEH.

"....gas version and get..."

Gas versions have ALWAYS been able to better the FE for highway driving. But PURE gas versions will NEVER be able to match hybrid FE for city stop and go traffic.

My wager is that Ford will soon abandon the EcoBoost/TwinForce engine design, derated/detuned engines insofar as optimal FE is concerned. Most likely in favor of licensing the Mazda SkyActiv design.


The 2013 FFH will be available with a lithium battery and later in the year be available with a plug-in lithium battery. I wouldn't waste my time and money on a non plug-in FFH and a plug-in FFH I expect will cost well over $40K before tax incentives.

I got lucky and purchased new the most efficient FEH which was the '09 model with the aux HV battery A/C and belt driven A/C compressor. I don't have to run the cabin A/C to keep the battery near 78F and can drive EV to the max of 40mph in the city. This allows my '09 FEH a lifetime MPG to be at 53.9mpg for 30,000 miles.

It is important that you locate your '12 FEH HV battery vents and never block them!

GaryG

Originally Posted by GaryG

Willard,

"....gas version and get..."

Gas versions have ALWAYS been able to better the FE for highway driving. But PURE gas versions will NEVER be able to match hybrid FE for city stop and go traffic.

My wager is that Ford will soon abandon the EcoBoost/TwinForce engine design, derated/detuned engines insofar as optimal FE is concerned. Most likely in favor of licensing the Mazda SkyActiv design."

“Are you saying you would like to still make use of the ICE to run the A/C rather than the FREE regen energy whenever it is available. Running the ICE only to drive the A/C is HORRIBLY inefficient.”

No, I’m saying an electrical compressor is less efficient in the FEH than the belt driven compressor for cooling the HV battery. We’re talking about the Ford Escape Hybrid with a 330V HV battery, not a Toyota designed hybrid. Regen energy is great for charging the HV battery, but it’s not enough to run the electrical A/C compressor by itself.

“.are you proposing a separate HV battery. If so how would it be charged..?”

No, I’m saying one plug-in Lithium HV battery would be more efficient with an electrical A/C compressor than a belt driven compressor in the FEH.

""...more efficient..."

No. "plugging in" means using grid power and that comes at cost. Running the A/C compressor on regen energy comes for FREE a goodly portion of the time.

“Is there some sort of CAUTION note in the owners manual. Or does the cabin A/C come on automatically above 78F..? Or did Ford redesign the HV battery pack, packaging such that cooling is really not necessary?”

The cabin A/C is controlled only by the driver. The newer battery cell chemistry in the ‘10 and newer FEH were changed, but are still less efficient as heat rises above 78F. This is how Ford eliminated the HV battery aux A/C.

“Gas versions have ALWAYS been able to better the FE for highway driving. But PURE gas versions will NEVER be able to match hybrid FE for city stop and go traffic.

My wager is that Ford will soon abandon the EcoBoost/TwinForce engine design, derated/detuned engines insofar as optimal FE is concerned. Most likely in favor of licensing the Mazda SkyActiv design”

We will see! The EcoBoost 2.0L is to small for the Explorer to get better FE than the current ‘11 V6 Explorer. The Edge 2.0L EcoBoost (600lb lighter) has much better FE and power, but just okay IMO. The new ‘13 Escape 2.0L Ecoboost should be the right package for FE and power for a 4WD. Add the new Stop/Start technology and you get much better city stop and go FE like a hybrid.

GaryG

Originally Posted by wwest

The licensing fees for use of the Toyota patents might have also played a big part. The way I read it the upcoming C-Max hybrid moves away from the Toyota HSD/CVT/PSD concept.

Here we go again with WWEST's mythical license fees. Please provide sources for this Willard. As I can provide sources that say Ford and Toyota made a "technology trade" agreement there is NO mention of Ford ever paying Toyota for their similar but different technology. Also Ford and Toyota are already planning on sharing future Technology.

EcoBoost/TwinForce futures:

Ford engineers should be mightily embarrassed (quite possibly ARE) that almost any mechanic, a shade-tree mechanic even, could take an gas-guzzling (relatively) EcoBoost/TwinForce engine and quickly convert it to the SkyActiv design and thereby end up with substantially improved FE.

For Engineer's have nothing to be embarrassed about, as of last year Ford offered at least 12 vehicles that lead their segment in fuel economy. But, I'm sure they are taking applications.

Originally Posted by wwest

Originally Posted by MyPart

FREE? NO!

Any regen is originally created by the initial power source (electric or ICE) when the vehicle is put into motion.

There is NO way it's more efficient to accelerate a vehicle (ICE or Electric), recapture some of the energy (via Regen), convert it for battery storage and then convert it back for use by the compressor when you compare that to going straight from the power source to the compressor in less conversion steps. This is exactly the case the EV/Electric Compressor scenario, where you cut out multiple conversion paths when you go from outlet to battery to compressor motor.

Now, specifically, Gary is stating that the current FEH battery does not store enough energy to efficiently run the electric AC compressor long enough before the lower SOC limit is reached and the ICE is fired up to provide additional charge.

I tend to agree with him that firing up the ICE to charge the battery only to turn around and send that power to the compressor is less efficient than just firing up the ICE and turning the compressor via belt drive.

You would BOTH be wrong. Think about it, firing up the ~100HP ICE only to power the 5-7HP A/C represents a horrible waste. Compare that to the ICE being able to more efficiently, and with a much shorter period, to fully RECHARGE the HV battery.

In the initial case the ICE must run for the entirety of the compressor cycle(s). In charging the HV battery the ICE can be run at the most optimal overall level, high percentage of that ~100HP capability going directly into the battery.

Using the HV battery to run the A/C might therefore result in a RADICALLY lower ICE duty cycle and higher FE vs runnng the A/C directly.


Now, I would hope there is an ICE load/efficiency point that can be used where excess charge is captured for future propulsion. Since the ICE is already running, you might as well target a efficiency point of the engine and store that excess when possible.

Bottom line for either side is we're improving on the old standard ICE scenario that is highly inefficient. We've got to look for better efficiency. Think about all the years that went by where people were idling engines just to turn a AC compressor belt or pressing the brake pedal and only making heat and noise with NO regen. We've got to do better than that!

Originally Posted by MyPart

Maybe there's more to SKYACTIV than Mazda is currently using in their 2.0L offering but if the information I got off the Mazda website is indicative, I'm not impressed.

I just compared the Mazda 3 SKYACTIV-G 2.0L DOHC VVT engine specs to the 2.0L Ti-VCT GDI engine in the Ford Focus. Here's what I found:

The Ford engine is rated at 5HP more than the Mazda(160HP/Ford vs. 155/SKYACTIV)
The Ford engine is rated with 11 more ft/lbs torques (146/Ford-135/Mazda)
Both are listed with 12.0:1 as the compression ratio
Both have ratings of up to 28/40MPG.
Price is relatively close $19385 - Ford vs. $20,345 - Mazda (this was base models using their on line built-it-yourself tool, I didn't compare specific features other than engine/FE, both are automatics)