60 mpg Ford F-150 Hydraulic Hybrid: Could It Be True?

At the Chicago Auto Show in 2003 or 2004 Ford had their Tonka concept truck using hydraulic system to capture energy when braking. It was then used as a launch assist thus saving fuel and engine wear. Good to see that they are continuing this work as hydraulic hybrids appear to have promise on larger vehicles.

While I like that it saves gasoline, I don't like that it's a big freaking truck that my city-dweller neighbors will justify wasting resources on.

How about a hydraulic-hybrid Focus or a microcar. That would be awesome.

It's a nice thought, having cars with low emissions, but until the CAFE rules are changed, every fuel efficiant vehicle a company sells, means it can sell another gas guzzler.

It's only good for large vehicles and mostly for stop and go driving like UPS or other city trucks and busses. It's no good for long haul trucks or passenger cars.

"It's a nice thought, having cars with low emissions, but until the CAFE rules are changed, every fuel efficiant vehicle a company sells, means it can sell another gas guzzler."

Not exactly, since trucks and cars have different standards - so for example, a Prius has no relation to a Tundra. Also, the price of gasoline, more than anything, is going to dictate how much of which vehicles are going to sell. The company can PRODUCE more "gas guzzlers" to offset more efficient vehicles, but it doesn't guarantee they'll sell them.

I just think that people often turn to CAFE as a cop-out and as a way to delegitimize the purchase of hybrid vehicles (as we've seen in dishonest editorials in the WSJ and elsewhere).

Sigh... well. I know we need trucks in the US. But even a world of efficiant trucks and prius doesn't fix traffic issues. I am curious if this technology is as good in stop and go traffic. When I go to work its 40+ all the way... but doing home it 14mph if i am lucky. So my Prius rarely turns the gas engine on when going home... but charges on teh way to work.

It's only good for large vehicles and mostly for stop and go driving like UPS or other city trucks and busses. It's no good for long haul trucks or passenger cars.

Great for plow trucks.

In terms of purchase decisions 2008 is a long way from 2006. It is like pulling teeth to get Ford and GM to see the light, that is, it is wise to anticipate a market.

This system was also trialed in Australia 2-3 years ago as a retrofit on existing road trains, and even included a retrofitted rig running a round Australia tour to promote the system. the majority of all shipping in Australia is via road train while the vast majority of interstate highways in Australia are 1 to 4 lanes of intermixed traffic, resulting in a large variation in speed over a shipping run, and therefore a large amount of recoverable energy via hydraulic storage. Since the inital interest though, the kit has pretty much fallen off the radar here.

Steve, please spare us the anti-detroit mind set. Ford has been selling flex fuel vehicles for years and was the first american company with a hybrid. What about all the other car makers that have no hybrids. That would be all of the European automakers and most of the Japanese save for Honda and Toyota. Now if we could convice those that don't really need a truck to not drive them...

The reason this system is premiering in a full size truck is because the hydraulic storage cylinders are big and bulky. As the technology matures, compact storage systems will enable the same notion to be put into a Focus or similar sized vehicle (which need less force to provide the same acceleration, so their hydraulic storage needn't be as bulky). I get the feeling that this is a very new proof of concept. Incidentally, the comparison to a battery or fuel cell is fallacious. Hydraulic storage is more like a capacitor.

Tim Russell,

I find that attitude a bit condescending. Like you have nothing in your life that is unnecessary? Like you shouldn't drink that breve latte? Let's talk *you* out of things you don't need first, before you go knocking on anyone elses door.

Put me on the waiting list for one, please!

Both Vincent Carman & students at Minneapolis, Minnesota's Hennepin Vocational Technical Center back in the late 70's HAD SMALL CARS using hydraulic drive technology. Mother Earth News reported it in 1978. Why did it take nearly 30 years for it to emerge? http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1978_March_April/This_Car_Travels_75_Miles_on_a_Single_Gallon_of_Gasoline_

European car makers don't need hybrids because the have diesels that get greater than 40mpg.

The number one way to reduce fuel consumption is to reduce vehicle weight. You want a 50mpg vehicle? They abound in Europe. They use pint sized diesel engines to get Prius type economy without dragging big batteries around. Furthermore, even large European cars use much smaller engines and have far less "reserve power" on tap than typical US cars. It's a truism of combustion engineering that engines are most efficient when running near the peak of their power output - at least in terms of power/gallon -> More at Village Energy -
http://www.pleiades-enterprises.bigstep.com/generic147.html

I think these claims of 60mpg on the hydrolic F-150 are a bit of a stretch but may help some on stop start city driving. Electric motor-generator systems have a much higher efficiency. Time will tell the story.

Joe, the conversation is about trucks, not equating a cup of coffee with a 5,000 lb. vehicle. Everyone here has "more than they need," but the most glaring example of that, especially in the U.S., concerns vehicles. Just because someone has a maximum perceived utility of smashing through a snow bank in order to make it up to Tahoe doesn't qualify them for driving a clunky vehicle in a city. Driving on the roads it's pretty clear that many trucks are some of the worst offenders of going too far. The whole angle of the "rugged American" is a powerful selling point.

I'm completely willing to concede that for the most part I don't need the back row of seats in my own car either and in the future I'd like to get something even smaller and more efficient. Until then, I try to ride my bike around as much as possible.

Yes this was a conversation about trucks, the only attude I copped was that I feel that american automakers get a bad rap even when they make attempts yet Toyota and others get a pass or prase for any effort they make. Business is about making money and most automakers save for Toyota and for some part Honda didn't stick their necks out on hybrids. Now that it is clear that there is a market for them and other fuel saving tech. it is good to see other automakers stepping up to the plate. Wouldn't it be great if they got into a fuel economy war instead of a HP war. In Europe MPG or L/100Km sells cars just as much as 0-100 Kph.

I do have to say Joe I've never drank a latte in my life and I'm not really one to buy more crap than I need.

Buying more "crap" than we need seems to be the American pass time however. Even in things we need we tend to buy bigger than what is needed like driving a Big 6000+ Lbs. vehicle when a 3000 Lb. car would do. Some say "But I need to sometimes haul stuff", get a trailer hitch and buy/rent a trailer. Rent a truck when needed. There are so many other solutions.

First I'd love to see it. Yes alot of people don't use their pick-ups or SUV's as intended. But alot of us do,maybe not 100% of the time though. remember these vehicles exist because there was a need. Now what I'd like to see here is more efficient diesels like VW sells in every manufacturers line up. How about a 4 cylinder diesel in a Toyota P/U? A 6 in a Tundra etc.?

I work in the auto industry (save the boo's, because I'm on the side of rationality as much as pure emotion, which is what drives so much in the market).

Rather than rip this as an attempt to keep people in trucks, let's first note that, right now, Ford makes money on only one individual product line and that one is F-series. There are alot of reasons for that (and, yes, I know Ford's success or lack of, is somewhat self-inflicted) but it's something that they need to build on, rather than abandon, otherwise there's a ripple effect that hurts alot of people (from like-minded to "other side of the aisle").

I applaud efforts to increase efficiency, partly because of the immediate effect but also because every step of progress also represents a baby-step towards another even more efficient and "clean" level. I used to work for Honda and, I have to say, one of their secrets is that everything they do is done with the next step in mind. They didn't do an EV with the mindset that "that's it..."; They did so, as much, to learn about electric propulsion, battery technology & controllers, in the real world. They didn't do Hybrids with the mindset that "that's it..."; They did so, as much, to learn about how to combine systems in parallel, controllers, with an eye towards Fuel Cell vehicles (a type of Hybrid system). They didn't do CNG Civics with the mindset that "that's it..."; They did so, as much, to learn about gaseous fuels storage & delivery, with an eye towards Hydrogen.

I don't look at Hydraulic Hybrid as an end, though I find it (if it were to be thought of, exclusively on it's own merits) to be really innovative & attractive, seeing as how it is harnesses & distributes energy in a deceptively simple way.

Trucks aren't going away, despite the fact that I believe that people choose them when they don't really "need" them (but who am I to tell someone that they can't choose an SUV instead of a minivan). I applaud anything that gives them a lower profile, environmentally-speaking. And, I think that, despite what I said about Honda, the Import/Transplants don't always pursue the least impact-ful solutions (see: Nissan Titan/Armada & upcoming Toyota Tundra/Sequoia). The fact that GM, with it's new full-size trucks, and (if this story is true) Ford, are talking Hybrids, is no less significant than what Honda/Toyota are doing with Civic/Prius, given potential impact.

Man you guys are mean to each other.

Kits? Someone mentioned kits, does anyone know where I could get a retrofit kit?

I would love to own a small pickup with a small 4 cylinder engine. That is: one that will tow my 10k pound 5th wheel that we call home. By the way, it uses a lot less energy to build and live in our 5th wheel than people that live in 2500 sq ft homes and drive a Prius. There is a need for large heavy trucks as a lot of us now use them to tow our homes and travel across our great country after retirement.

i like it, i need my truck for towing a boat. what i am wondering is, why not for a motor, control high pressure hydraulic tubes electronically. by putting one force on one side and releasing pressure on the other side. kind of like the motion that a trains arm at the wheels take. seems that a vehicle would be able to move without having to use any fuel at all.

Ok enough about all this more than what they need. If you live in a city you don't need a vehicle at all, even a prius. Just because your prius get 40 mph doesn't mean you need it. If you live in Boston or NY get a bicycle or use mass transit. West Coaster move closer to work and walk or ride a bike. When you stop being pretentious holier than thous I will sell my truck and buy a prius.

One of the basic problems here is, in my opinion, producing solutions with the greatest impact.
Politicians do a fantastic job of keeping our eyes off the ball by talking about investment in Hydrogen, etc., while that technology is semi-viable at best (no infrastructure, no way to produce hydrogen without burning fossil fuels, etc.)
If a company produced a vehicle that could run only on batteries for 50miles, do 50mph, and recharge via plugin, that would meet the needs of a fairly significant portion of the driving population. Toss in a motor/generator (plans were available through Mother Earth News in 1977) for emergency recharding/supplemental power, and you extend the range beyond 50miles.
Chevrolet introduced the Volt at autoshows this year as a concept vehicle.

The point is, we have the technology to solve this problem now, period. We don't need to invest 12BILLION in hydrogen research...that whole concept is nothing but a vote-getter for politicians. Sounds really good on the surface in a 30sec sound bite, which is where most of the voting public live, and there's NO risk to a politician in supporting it.

We just need more people to wake up. Banning trucks isn't the answer, getting special interests out of the way and forcing our politicians to make the changes necessary to support this type of innovation is.

One of the basic problems here is, in my opinion, producing solutions with the greatest impact.
Politicians do a fantastic job of keeping our eyes off the ball by talking about investment in Hydrogen, etc., while that technology is semi-viable at best (no infrastructure, no way to produce hydrogen without burning fossil fuels, etc.)
If a company produced a vehicle that could run only on batteries for 50miles, do 50mph, and recharge via plugin, that would meet the needs of a fairly significant portion of the driving population. Toss in a motor/generator (plans were available through Mother Earth News in 1977) for emergency recharding/supplemental power, and you extend the range beyond 50miles.
Chevrolet introduced the Volt at autoshows this year as a concept vehicle.

The point is, we have the technology to solve this problem now, period. We don't need to invest 12BILLION in hydrogen research...that whole concept is nothing but a vote-getter for politicians. Sounds really good on the surface in a 30sec sound bite, which is where most of the voting public live, and there's NO risk to a politician in supporting it.

We just need more people to wake up. Banning trucks isn't the answer, getting special interests out of the way and forcing our politicians to make the changes necessary to support this type of innovation is.

Well the way i see it, America likes its trucks. THey sell alot and it shows promise for sales in the future. Who says the US needs little bubble cars everywhere, thats not how this country is. The earth is the most important area of concern here and the auto companies will begin to make better earth cars/trucks once they see the market in it. Sadly the Companies are only driven by money but thats the way it is. And they are spending alot to pursue the technologies. America likes big cars and trucks and sooner or later the fuel situtation will be solved and they will start building low emission, fuel friendly monsters just like we have always had and these little jap beetles that i see everywhere will be wiped out! Which leads me to my next point, buy america autos cause it profits america! I see all this stuff on the ads about the toyota's claims to be american. But the truth is the cars and trucks they sell here are only assembled here. They are still engineered in japan buy japanesse people and the money goes where? Ya back to Japan. Ford and Gm do have assembly plants in MExico and Canada, but the cars are still designed in the US by US citizens. Do u think in places like Italy or France they simply drive the cheapest most reliable car found on sale. No! They drive the brand of car or truck made in their country cause they feel proud of their own break throughs in technology andthe products the represent their culture! It doesn't matter if the Fiats and Renaults don't run as long as Corollas! People need to realize that this country would rather buy the cheaper, more reliable import than their countries own product. I wish the Big Three would have built better cars in the 80's and 90's but they instead built crappy cars. There trucks were good, but the car market was not. BUt give the cars they have built now a chance. They are great cars! And beleave it or not folks, if you follow your auto guide on basic car check ups, and don't drive your car like Porches everyday, then ya, your car will last longer!

America Wants 60mpg pzev F-Series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait a minute. Didn't I actually read a comment on Hydrogen earlier in this thread that claimed that there is no way to produce Hydrogen without burning Fossil Fuels??

I thought this was a web site with informed readers. What happened to the knowledge of solar and wind produced electricity and a basic, grade school level understanding of Science?

Water + Electricity = Hydrolysis (or, for the mentally challenged, the separation of Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules). Pretty simple. So simple, my child was playing with it in Kindergarten just to "watch the bubbles". Now, I don't know how to separate or store the two different gasses, but this is not my field of expertise and I will leave that up to the people who want to do it.

The point is, there is no reason to sink Billions of dollars into researching something that has already been accomplished. Of course, if we leave it up to the government we have little to no control over the money spent.

I have read that there is a bit of a whining contest going on about the cost to put Hydrogen refueling stations across the USA. What's the deal? How much do you think it took to put the existing Dino-Fuel filling stations in place? This is no different.

The bottom line is pretty much how badly it is wanted and how fast someone is willing to make it real.

Since Hydrogen pretty much has the potential to send the combustion engine of today the way of the horse and buggy of yesterday, there will be a few people that will whine and cry. There were many horse ranchers and buggy makers that whined when the internal combustion engine replaced them, but we all moved on and survived.

So this new F150 isn't Hydrogen. Big deal. It IS a positive step forward. I will take 60 MPG on a pickup truck with room and power over a 40 MPG Tonka toy any day.

Only one thing I don't see mentioned. What is the towing capacity, and will it be available in an off-road package as well?

Only one thing I don't see mentioned. What is the towing capacity, and will it be available in an off-road package as well?

That is the same question that I am wondering, what would the towing capacity be. As I am a new home contractor and a 4WD truck is a MUST for me, towing equipment and materials, hauling tools, plowing snow in the winter, ect. I would love to buy a truck that got more than the 15 mpg that I get now. Since in the summer (may-sept) when gas is $3.00/gallon, I put an average of 10,000 miles on most of which is towing so I only get about 10mpg.

I personally wouldn't care if the "new" F150 would only get 20 mpg towing and had a price of $50,000, I would buy one. Every little bit helps!

As a small business owner of a repair / service company I am very intrigued by this hydraulic storage system, as my service vans see alot of stop and go traffic. Imagine my 14 MPG diesel van getting even 45 MPG. How could that not help? That would reduce my travel costs by not just better fuel economy but also reduced engine ware, resulting in a longer life cycle of the vehical, more time inbetween break jobs and less CO emissions. All of which result in a lower PRICE to my customers, higher saleries to my employees and less waste at the junk yard. I can't down size my van, nor can any other service company as we need to carry sufficient stock to eliminate excessive trips to the the parts warehouses which not only waste fuel but also man hours. I would gladly pay the estimated $3000 extra for this technology to be installed on my vans.
My only addition to this would be that the engine be a STIRLING drive system. I expect that I could achive up to100MPG in my 5000LB van with a combination like that! How cool would that be!

Scotty, beam me up. There is no sign of intelligent life down here! Does it seem strange to anyone else that the newest press release on this is 2 years old and there hasn't been any indications from Ford that they even remember this promise? This 60 MPG F-150 is going to be parked right between my Transporter Room and my solar powered private jet...

The F-150 with 60mpg would be a truck revolution, so much so that Ford could not produce enough to supply the demand. All businesses would be flocking to get them, this technology is availible yes, but why not bring it to the market? because if an F1-50 can have its fuel economy increased to 60mpg then what would it do to every other car? it would be a fuel efficiency revolution. Good, yes, for the every day person and for Ford. But not for big oil, and they do not care about the american citizen let me tell you that, they want the most money and they'll do anything to get it. If they wanted to make a truck cheaper for americans they could, but they want you to spend thousands and thousands at the pump every year, making the big oil companies richer, its true, democracy was supposed to put the power from teh wallet to the ballet, its time americans started voting out of power those who are not doing what is best for the every day American

You know the train that stops trafic everyday, they have been hybrids for 70 years, they get the equiv. of 450 miles per gallon.

We don't have high fuel miliage cars/truck because they do not want us to have them!!!!!

Wake up sheep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF INVESTOR RELATIONS. EVERYONE BLAMES BIG OIL BUT THE PHYSICS DONT ADD UP. US IS A FREE COUNTRY AND SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE BIG THREE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A WORKING EXAMPLE.

WHY ARE DETAILS SKETCHY?? BECAUSE IT NEVER MADE IT PASS A PRESS/ INVESTOR REPORT. FORD NEVER DID ANY SERIOUS DEVELOPEMENT.... IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD HAVE REALISED IT DOESNT WORK..

CHECK OUT THE PETERBILT / EATON SYSTEM FROOM 2004. PETERBUILT TRASHED THAT PROJECT AND WENT ELECTRIC HYBRID.

well lets see the price of gas will be 7dollars a gallon by the end of 2008 $10 bye 2009 .if that don't make you want an electric or hybreed then yo must have money to burn! It comming so i would start thinking small and efficent.

Why don't we have real vehicles that get awesome gas mileage? We do. You just have to know where to look.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

I think the problem with this technology is that it requires a much smaller engine to get the economy they are talking about. But then, you can only have limited peak power for a relatively short period of time until the stored power is used up. This means long highway towing requiring sustained high power levels would not be possible. This system conserves energy but does not create sustainable top end power. Think about it.