Ram Rev video (Preview)

[Quibbs]

Not sure if this is semi old news but for those curious about Dodge Rev .... Which apparently is what Ford is trying to emulate.



92kwh battery (not sure if that is 100% usable), claimed 145 mile of range on pure battery(wonder what real world avg will be, bet it wont be the claimed 145 miles in real life), a 6 cylinder 130kwh gas "generator". The REV has a 27 gallon fuel tank and has regenerative braking. Rated towing limit is: 14k, 2k payload.

Dodge states a 695 mile total range. That figure includes the 145 battery range. If you subtract the 145mile battery range total ends up at 546 miles. That's 546 miles you would be using your gas "generator". 546 is like 20 mpg

The highlight for me was the company rep talking about how the "generator" is not mechanically tied to the wheels.
He went on to say "all it does is just provides power to the battery or the electric motors !? as opposed to turning a crank shaft that in turn will end up turning the wheels?

Basically if you are towing I bet you'll probably get 20-30 miles of battery range (a guess based on towing test in Lightning and what towing does to the range).

Touted benefits: 1) Won't have to use a route planner. 2) Enough range for around town. 3) No range anxiety (because most of your driving after 149 miles will be from the "generator" while it also works to charge the batteries (at least that's my understanding of things).

I've stated my belief these things are a terrible compromise made because of the devil.

This is a hybrid rebranded. It's a technical got ya. It's more ICE in operation than EV and that's the point.

Sponsored

 

[ctuan13]

Not sure if this is semi old news but for those curious about Dodge Rev .... Which apparently is what Ford is trying to emulate.



92kwh battery (not sure if that is 100% usable), claimed 145 mile of range on pure battery(wonder what real world avg will be, bet it wont be the claimed 145 miles in real life), a 6 cylinder 130kwh gas "generator". The REV has a 27 gallon fuel tank and has regenerative braking. Rated towing limit is: 14k, 2k payload.

Dodge states a 695 mile total range. That figure includes the 145 battery range. If you subtract the 145mile battery range total ends up at 546 miles. That's 546 miles you would be using your gas "generator". 546 is like 20 mpg

The highlight for me was the company rep talking about how the "generator" is not mechanically tied to the wheels.
He went on to say "all it does is just provides power to the battery or the electric motors !? as opposed to turning a crank shaft that in turn will end up turning the wheels?

Basically if you are towing I bet you'll probably get 20-30 miles of battery range (a guess based on towing test in Lightning and what towing does to the range).

Touted benefits: 1) Won't have to use a route planner. 2) Enough range for around town. 3) No range anxiety (because most of your driving after 149 miles will be from the "generator" while it also works to charge the batteries (at least that's my understanding of things).

I've stated my belief these things are a terrible compromise made because of the devil.

This is a hybrid rebranded. It's a technical got ya. It's more ICE in operation than EV and that's the point.

Obviously any sort of hybrid system is increased complexity and increased points of potential failure, but this is still lightyears ahead of either a plug-in hybrid or mild hybrid. The very fact that the engine has zero direct connection to the rest of the drivetrain is it's greatest strength. One of the most complex and failure prone parts of a hybrid drivetrain is the interface between the engine, the electric motor and the rest of the driveline. This is usually some sort of combo gearbox transmission. By eliminating that entire system, you greatly reduce the complexity and the most common point of failure.

Also, by building a vehicle that is essentially a fully functional EV, albeit with a slightly smaller battery, even if there were to be some sort of mechanical failure with the gas engine portion of the drivetrain, the vehicle remains driveable, just with reduced range.

I agree, that if you never tow, never go long distances and only occasionally road trip, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But I make a cross country road trip from PA to WA every summer, while towing my teardrop trailer. This would greatly reduce the amount of stops and excess time I spent charging all throughout my trip and allow me to get there probably 35% faster.

Also for those who like to overland or travel off-grid or are planning for emergencies, it's a lot easier to carry 5-10 gallons of gas, than it is to carry 100kWh of electricity. There are certainly countless scenarios in which this drivetrain is advantageous over a BEV.

I guess the real test will be if it ever makes it to market. Obviously my preference would still be a pure EV that just has a much larger, more energy dense battery, or maybe even a mini fusion reactor one day, but in the words of Howard Stark "I'm limited by the technology of my time" lol

 

[ChippewaBarr]

The very fact that the engine has zero direct connection to the rest of the drivetrain is it's greatest strength.

100% agreed. Until BEV energy density is vastly increased, this is how it'll be.

Even if this is how the Lightning was originally configured then I would have still gotten one too.

I simply do not want an engine and all the mechanicals that come with it.

Ideal scenario if they bring back the Lightning as a EREV:

• Ford puts in a decent battery (92kW is prob fine, though I'm surprised it's that little range in the Ram)
• Generator is added but only powers the battery
• Things like full frunk and flat floor are kept.

If some brand would make an EREV minivan (maybe even luxury) I'd be all over that shit so hard lol my dream vehicle at the moment haha.

 

[TaxmanHog]

Thanks for sharing, I'm glad RAM is getting out of the gate first, while Ford refines its version.

By the time I'm ready to replace my 2022 Lightning, who knows what the technology landscape will look like!!

 

[hturnerfamily]

as an EV purist, and having not used a gas station for many years, I actually don't 'not like' the RAM REV, but, I'd still need to see all the specs, and, most importantly, know two things: the price, of course(trim levels as well), and the 'EV ONLY' Drive Modes and how they work to keep the truck ALWAYS in pure EV mode, no matter whether it 'thinks' it needs to start the generator, or not.

- a 92kwh battery pack is not terrible: 145 epa 'range' should be compliant with a large swath of daily truck owners, easily.
- access to NACS Superchargers will be paramount
- I am surprised that a 27 gallon fuel tank can be 'stuffed' under the back seats, or the bed... good for them.
- Hopefully the muffler and sound deadening frunk materials will keep the generator QUIET, at speed... and without any 'connection' to the powertrain, will not be too noticeable when cranking.
- if the truck automatically demands starting of the generator, even when the driver wishes not, this would be a non-starter. Our previous PHEV, the KIA Sorento, was actually an amazing machine, although the detractor was it's 'deciding' when it wanted to start the engine, even if in pure EV drive mode. While my wife liked the engine for it's 'range anxiety' killer feature, she started to loath the engine's cranking up when only a mile from home. Oh well.
- Hopefully, also, the maintenance on the generator will be 'owner friendly', with easy access to the oil filter and other requirements: oil filler, air filter, fuel filter, radiator fluid, etc. I don't want to have to take this truck into a dealer, or '5 minute Oil Change' franchise, and the cost and time associated with it.

 

[The Weatherman]

Yeah, NO!

 

[hturnerfamily]

also, yes, the EPA 'total' range of 690 miles, if that's what it eventually comes out as, will be CONSERVATIVE driving, and certainly NOT While Towing, and even overblown slightly, as you won't be driving the truck until the gas tank goes 'dry', either... you'll be stopping WELL before it's fuel gauge falls below 1/8 tank, for sure, which is OVER 3 GALLONS of fuel, at the estimated ~20mpg range. That, itself, is 60 miles less than 690, already.

 

[hturnerfamily]

and, in reality, few, very very FEW, drivers and/or families will be traveling anywhere CLOSE to 600+ miles in a single drive WITHOUT Stopping for a bathroom or snack or meal, or, well, just to 'stretch your legs'.... yes, it gives you options, and likely you'll be then using the 'gas' for the majority of your trip... which puts us back to driving a 'gas' truck.

 

[mr.Magoo]

I don't see how this can be cheaper than just batteries so those hoping for an erev with these specs for 50-60K will probably be very disappointed once we start to see pricing.

I also don't quite understand the need for a 130kW generator and a fuel-inefficient V6, but hey, maybe someone can do a hellcat swap so we'd get an EV with supercharger whine...

 

[reddog21]

It's an intriguing concept, and if it gets more people into the EV circle who wouldn’t otherwise consider it, isn’t that a win for everyone?

Interesting to see what the maintenance schedule for the engine is? Is it closer to a generator or a typical truck engine

I also don't quite understand the need for a 130kW generator and a fuel-inefficient V6, but hey, maybe someone can do a hellcat swap so we'd get an EV with supercharger whine...

The 3.6 Pentastar is one of the most widely produced engines in history. If you want to keep costs down, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Switching to a 4-cylinder to maintain towing specs would require adding a turbo, which would only increase complexity without offering any real benefit.

 

[TaxmanHog]

Even with 300 miles of range (Towing) I'd be very happy with that in my particular use case, no need to stop for fuel and once the day is over plug in to top up the HVB, then in a couple weeks on the cusp of the next trip to the track, top off enough gas ++ to complete subsequent daily and periodic tow cycles, the figuring is no worse than plotting & finding DCFC that have drive through accommodations for my trailer which are nil & none here.

Remember, they're addressing MY concerns and the bulk of folks averse to PURE BEV's with this concept.

 

[Grumpy2]

It is great it will come to market. Ford will also gain by not being the first, they can provide the "improved" version.

 

[Mpi]

Isn't 145 miles a bit low for 92kwh? I suppose that might be the physical battery capacity and there are large buffers reducing useable capacity.

 

[mr.Magoo]

The 3.6 Pentastar is one of the most widely produced engines in history. If you want to keep costs down, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Switching to a 4-cylinder to maintain towing specs would require adding a turbo, which would only increase complexity without offering any real benefit.

Except that the engine has nothing to do with towing !? It's not even connected to the wheels, remember. All it needs to do is produce enough power to drive the generator.

FCA has a lot of (European) companies in their portfolio with long history of producing small, fuel efficient, engines. While the V6 is reliable it's not exactly modern.

The real benefit of a smaller engine would be weight (less), space (less) and fuel consumption (less).
The downside I can see is that it would probably have to operate at a higher rpm, potentially making it noisier.

I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the decision to go with a V6 simply has to do with optics and the American truck driver in general... you know, all the same BS that the Lightning have faced... "a RAM is not a real truck unless it has at least a V6 in it" (even if it's just a generator)

 

[El Duderino]

Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RamchargerBEV/s/LmAmflzAQI

Sponsored