Wow THANK YOU! this is the best short answer i've seen on the inner workings of the eCVT.

Again Thank you!

 

GeoMike,

I don't know enough to help in opening that either. I found it on the web. Don't remember the search terms that got me there... try looking for the hybrid synergy drive... really the name of the other guys unit, but usually will get you to the ford stuff too.

Also try typing in escape hybrid transaxle or some similar terms, they're out there.

way2muchkc4u, thanks for the good words... and that's why I call Ford's implementation of this "elegant."

The simpler a machine is, the less likely it'll fail, my guess is that these FEHs are capable of going several hundred thousand miles.

 

"...FEH are capable of going several hundred thousand miles.."

First, my 1968 Ford Country Squire station wagon went 275,000 and would have likely done more with reasonable care by the second owner.

But I suspect 500,000 miles might be the new "benchmark" for a well designed and produced passenger automobile.

 

Of course, in making the gratuitous comment about other car lifetimes, the point about the elegant design of the transaxle, goes completely unrecognized.

None of the cars mentioned in that comment had anything like the planetary gear set with two synchronous machines in it that the FEH has. So there is just no basis for comparison.

My comment was directed at the specifics of the FEH design.

...And, you know, that is just what those using these in taxi service are seeing.

 

Willard, please explain to me how creating a more efficient ICE (no matter what you call it) is Snake Oil?

We all know that that one of the first items the car reviewers pass on to the buying public is performance numbers, now followed quickly by MPG estimates (usually highway mileage for the non-hybrids and city mileage for the hybrids for greatest spin). EcoBoost allow Ford to meet/exceed the high output numbers the public has become accustomed to while still being able to meet/exceed the MPG figures expected. They did this while, reducing engine size/weight (I4 instead of V6) and emissions (mostly due to DI).

And before you say it, Ford has reported that the EcoBoost will not require premium fuel. Also, a properly configured a turbo engine can take better advantage of E85 than a standard flex-fuel vehicle.

I'll take a EcoBoost hybrid, please. EV for low end torque while the turbo spools and brings on the top end!

 

Apparently you haven't noticed that the Ford Flex with "TwinForce" engine costs an extra $7,000 and for that all your get is an extra 93HP. The hwy & city EPA mpg ratings are the same for both.

What is obvious to me is that had Ford implemented DFI on the standard Flex V6 it's displacement could have been reduced and produce the same 260HP mpg ratings and FE would be substantially better than the "TwinForce" gas guzzler.

 

Yes, I too would like an EcoBoost hybrid.

But mine would have an ICEe that operates in three modes.

Standard "Otto" mode, used only for cruising, light engine loads/loading, with a static/base/native compression ratio of 16:1

Atkinson cycle mode, for moderate engine loading, effective CR of 12:1 using extended VVT-i as is currently used in the new 3rd gen Prius and the RX450h.

Miller cycle mode, WOT operation, effective CR of 10:1 (VVT-i, again) before boost. Boost provided by a positive displacement variable speed SuperCharger(***) and NO throttle plate/butterfly. SuperCharger is driven by a combination of engine belt drive and an AC synchronous motor via an E/cvt. Variable frequency AC motor drive provided by the Prius/RXh A/C compressor inverter.


*** Atkinson cycle engines do not leave enough "waste" energy in the exhaust to spin a turbo...while still leaving enogh energy to maintain the catalyst at operational temperature.

 

We have another Greenhybrid thread hijacked again. This time it is the CVT operation diagram turned into Ford EcoBoost. Want to speculate on the cause for this?

 

I'll take a little of the blame because I took Willard's bait. I felt it was important to point out that the EcoBoost has merit both from a power and green standpoint.

Willard, so what if the EcoBoost Flex cost more, doesn't every new advanced platform? There's a reason that it was first introduced in the Lincoln MKT and MKS. They are the Ford luxury line and thus have room in the pricing structure for the new technology. Ford did the same thing with the 3 valve V-8 and the new T-Bird a while back. The Flex also has a new 6 speed automatic and only comes in all wheel drive form. Think that has something to do with the price?

Yes, I know the public performance expectations are rising. My statement didn't preclude that. Meet/Exceed is not exclusive of risen/rising. By the way, did you notice that the EcoBoost has all 350ft/lbs of torque available at 3500 RPM and has a near flat torque output up to red line? You should compare that to the other V6 and V8s in the same market. Also, my research has the EcoBoost Flex picking up 2 MPG in the city vs. the other available V6. (ref:http://jalopnik.com/5128450/2010-for...-got-the-power)

Also, using knock sensors to reduce premature detonation = retarding the timing (and possibly more fuel) = less power. DI on the other hand allows Ford to mitigate detonation while keeping a more optimal firing timing = more power, a more complete burn, and less component stress due to premature detonation. In my initial statement I expect you would point out that the Mazda Speed engine which will share the same block with the I4 EcoBoost required premium as have MANY other turbo models of the past. Bottom line is DI will have a cooler, more controlled burn = more efficient and (relatively) cleaner.

You may not like the EcoBoost or Ford, but your off topic rant regarding the EcoBoost is without merit.

Also, you're a TROLL!

 

Regarding wwest: in a post long ago he recommended that one put gear oil in the FEH transaxle when changing lubricants. His rationale then was that this was a gear unit, housing "elements" of a differential along with the gears of the planetary gear set, and gears need 75W-90 or some such.

This was just plain wrong for many reasons and I hope no one listened to him. But the real issue is, as you noted: "Don't take the bait."

Things like this are just so far off the ball field as to be incredible. There's a reason this website has an ignore function.