View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 08:16 PM
Tim K's Avatar
Tim K Tim K is offline
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Hybrids: 2006 Mercury Mariner
Posts: 797
Default Re: Toyota vs. Ford Hybrid SUV - mileage vs. reliability

The 4wd systems on the two vehicles are totally different. The Ford 4wd system is, as mentioned, mechanical. That means that there is a transfercase that takes power from the engine and electric motor and turns the front AND rear wheels. The Toyota system has NO transfercase. The Highlander Hybrid has no mechanical connection to the rear wheels. Instead, it has an additional electric motor for the rear wheels. That means that the rear wheels are limited in the amount of power they can get. Only the front wheels get power from the engine. The problem with this system is that if your front wheels are without power, your rear wheels may not have the power to free your vehicle. The advantage of Toyota's system is that ONROAD they do have stability control whereas Ford still does not offer VSC on their hybrid.

There is also a "flaw" in the FEH system, which may also impact the HiHy. That is power in reverse. The CVT transmission in the Ford has no reverse gear. 100% of the power for reverse comes from the electric motors. If you put an FEH in reverse and place the back wheels against a curb, you will not be able to back over the curb. The motors don't have the power to move the vehicle, and the system has been programmed to shut down to protect itself if the wheels do not move.

All that said, there is no hybrid with a real low range. I think the FEH is closer to being off-road capable and the company even states it is as capable as the standard escape. Toyota explicitly states that the Highlander is not to be taken offroad.

.

-Tim

2006 Mercury Mariner Hybrid AWD
Black with Pebble interior
Premium Package with Nav & Moonroof



Current ODO: 22,909
Typical Drive: 20 min crosstown in heavy traffic (3.5mi there and back twice a day)


457 Gallons of gas saved
That's 9,150 lbs less CO
2
Reply With Quote