Can I add hydraulic assist to my 2005 Expedition ? The EPA version
back in 2004 turned an Expedition from 14/19 mpg to 32/22 mpg.
Here are a EPA paper about hydraulic launch assist:
I figure the steps are:
1. remove the drive shaft
2. replace automatic transmission with a hydraulic pump
3. add a hydraulic turbine / pump to the rear axle gear
4. add a hydraulic 20 gallon storage tank
5. add a hydraulic 20 gallon pressurization tank
6. Here is the tough part: add various control valves, hydraulic hoses and
connect to the brake pedal and gas pedal
Where do I get all these parts and what is the cost ?
If Ford would add this to their 2009 trucks and SUVs, their sales would
double or triple. They are crazy not to complete the hydraulic assist
Getting big heavy SUV's and trucks to 32/22 mpg isn't going to turn
heads of most people.
Getting small, light, econoboxes from 32/22 to 50/60 mpg is what is
turning heads these days. And that is what Ford and the other big 2
are going to do, because if they don't, they know they are going to be
out of business. And, it is possible with today's hybrid technology.
As for the people who absolutely cannot drive anything other than
a big heavy truck or SUV, well, you will have a wide selection of very
lightly used and well-maintained USED vehicles to choose from.
But, you won't have any relief from gas prices. Your only going to
be able to keep doing this if your able to just drive less, or if your
driving your big heavy truck for business (like a farm) because you
can then pass along the price increases to your customers.
The days of the 60 mile round-trip city-to-suburban commute by
one person in a giant SUV or big empty truck are gone with the wind.
Sounds like you arent buying $300 a month of gas to feed this
beast. I get 12/17 mpg. 32/22 mpg would make me ecstatic
even if on diesel. In fact, I would prefer diesel and have been
asking Ford for it many years.
I still want my Expy. And 32/22 would be good. The 2009 model
reputedly will have a 4.4L V8 diesel that gets 16/22 mpg. And
adding the hydraulic launch assist for less than $2,000 will allow
these vehicles to get 32/22 mpg.
BTW, I can already get a small econobox (a prius) to do 50 mpg.
Small econoboxes are going electric to the equivalent of 100+
mpg with a generator after 30/40 miles.
Ford, GM, Chrysler and Toyota will still make big trucks. That
is not going away until we get to $20/gal. Too many people
who make $200K/yr want them.
Not yet. We havent even hit $10/gal yet. BTW, my work commute
is 10 miles (round trip). Its my trips to California, Oklahoma, Dallas,
etc that are burning all the gas.
1. Your can obtain all the parts you will need from an industrialo
2. With out the advantage of the economies of scale of a manufacturer
the cost for all of the necessary components is likely to be around $5,000+
3. The high pressure tank (2,500 PSI) alone will be VERY expensive and
require a State Certificat, as well as an annual state inspection by an
Autorise Boiler Inspecter, if it is larger than 5CF that I would suspect
would be needed
4. You likely do not have the technisa knowledge to design the system.
5. An Engineer will likely charge an arm and a lega to design the
system for you.
6. Your 2005 vehicle likely already has around 50,000 miles on the
7. This Engineer believes, if one was to make such a conversion, one
would be better adise to make the conversion on a new vehicle that would
allow one to sell of the existing new parts to reduce the costs
8. I would suggest you would be better off to trade you vehicle on an
Escape or a Mariner hybrid or one of the GM SUV hybrids, if you need a
Lynn, it is a pleasure for a change to speak with another engineer in this
NG as we did years ago, rather than guys looking or a cheap or free fix for
their worn out vehicle, as is the case today in the NGs
Good luck if you try, let us know if it works for you, considering you could
probably not patent the idea.
My degree is in metallurgy. I worked in the automotive industry for thirty
years primarily in structural design.
I have an idea as well as plenty of money to try to develop it but at 82 I'm
not willing do so, perhaps you might be interested.
If I were younger I would like to work on a multiple piston "steam engine,"
using a refrigerant at the medium, and diesel fuel. We may get away from
using gasoline some day but I do not see ANY of the alternate sources
replacing diesel or aviation fuel. What do you think?
Hey, I've used these groups for my newer vehicles also.
The EPA owns the patent on the hydraulic assist technology.
I am ashamed of Ford for not moving forward with this ground-
breaking technology. They could have saved their company
with it. Instead they are going to lose the company IMHO.
The EPA had a working 2002 Expedition with hydraulic launch
assist 2004. Where did it go ? Where did Ford's v6 turbo
diesel for the Expeditions and trucks go ? Answer, Ford
just wasted the opportunities and time. They deserve to
go in the ditch, I am afraid.
I write and sell Chemical Engineering software to the oil
and natural gas industry.
I'm 48 but I dont have the time as I work too much already
leading my business and 14 employees.
I see electricity as the next motive force for vehicles.
I feel that at most you should have 20 to 40 miles of
batteries and then there should be some sort of battery
recharger on board. Probably a small 2 cylinder diesel
that starts up and runs full blast to recharge the
battery then shuts down. All automatic.
However, a steam engine to run a generator would not be
bad, especially a three stage expansion with a condenser.
It would difficult to get it as small as the diesel
generator set though.
My idea to use "steam" from a refrigerant would not be to generate
electricity or a "motor," but to power a piston "engine" in a closed loop
system. I have the particulars worked our but I have not embarked on
building the system.
Ford has had a six cylinder diesel on the drawing board for seven or eight
years, but has yet to offer the engine. It along with the new V8 diesel
were to be built, in the new Navistar Ford engine plant, as the intended
engines for a smaller "F100" pickup. Ford simply does not have the money
to bring the truck to market, particularly at a time when truck buyers
wanted bigger trucks.
Toyota brought its new bigger Tundra to market to meet that demand, but the
slowing market was not big enough to help Tundra sales which have been
dismal. Toyota stopped production of the Tundra, they say for three month
but I believe they will drop the bigger truck because they can not penetrate
the big truck market dominated by Ford and GM and to some extent Dodge.
The market has declined but there still is a demand for HD work pickups, as
witnessed by the over half million sales of the 2008 Ford F-Series
actually guys, the 4.5 liter V6 turbo diesel has been in production for a
few years now, and is selling very well in the mid size cab over trucks. i
believe the truck line is called either the L.C.F., or L.F.C.
Where did Ford's v6 turbo
Here is a PM article on something similar:
That said, boilers are notoriously slow on response to
radical power changes. That is why the Stanley steamer
never really made it even though it had way superior
power and efficiency. Internal combustion engines just
do a way better job of accelerating. Or, electric motors
with a battery/generator system behind them (see GE diesel
Toyota is releasing a v6 turbo diesel in its Tundra pickups
next spring. Ford will lose a lot of it's light duty sales
to the new engine. You may even see a light duty hybrid from
Toyota will definitely have to step it up but they do have
the capital resources to make it happen. I would not count
them out yet.
Steam pressure has nothing to do with it. What matters
is the amount of steam in the top drum. Conversion of
liquid water to vapor takes time and if your boiler
does not have that already going then the sudden power
production from 20 hp to 200 hp will cause the steam
drum to "starve" in most cases. Then your steam
pressure will sag and you will have to pour the heat
into the waterwalls of your boiler. You can use a coil
to keep your steam vaporized and warm but these have
unique issues unto themselves.
Good ! All modern supercritical (3675 psia) steam boilers
are built this way. They are fast to react to changing
conditions (can change steam output at 10%/sec) but they do
have two problems:
1. high pressure drop - usually the feed water (fluid) to
the boiler must be two times that of the product pressure
(the high pressure drop is caused by the small tubes in
the waterwalls and control valves)
2. low turndown ratio - it is very difficult to get these
boilers down below 25% max design flowrate (due to flow
reversing in the water walls along the headers). One
method used to reduce the 25% flow requirement is a
recirculation pump at the bottom of the water walls but
since the fluid is very close to its flash point the
recirc pump "can pump" usually have high maintenance
rates (constant cavitation problems).
There were a couple of subcritical (2520 psia) steam boilers
built during the late 1960s using once through boilers but
they were a real bear to stabilize (that was before the can
pump design though). The steam condenser really takes a
hit on starting these beasts up until you hit 25% flow.
Of course, my only familiarity with once through (forced
circulation) boilers is 600,000 to 1,000,000 hp. Scaled
down boilers (100 to 200 hp) might be a lot more flexible.
The "late model" Stanley 735 had from what I hear very little lag -
and that's with all mechanical controls on the boiler, and a gasified
kerosene fired main burner. And they weren't trying for a subcritical
or supercritical design. A simple vertical fire-tube boiler with a
simple superheater tube loop in the flue space can dump heat into the
water fairly rapidly - and still follow the KISS Principle.
With a modern ECU computer running the boiler (and the rest of the
car) the computer would sense you mashing the accelerator pedal and
wouldn't have to wait for the boiler pressure to start dropping before
it turned the burners up to full blast.
If you were running "alternative" solid fuels like corncobs or wood
pellets - or crushed low-sulfur coal, it would crank the stoker to
full and draft blower to maximum. You can get a large heat output
change with quite a bit of control just by varying the draft.
--<< Bruce >>--
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.