Hybrid Powertrain Simulation for a Pickup Truck: How FEV Optimized Five Architectures with GT-SUITE

Most hybrid powertrain programmes commit to an architecture too early. A configuration that looks promising on paper can fall apart once you account for towing loads, payload constraints, and real-world drive cycles simultaneously. By that point, hardware has been ordered and timelines are fixed.

FEV North America took a different approach. Working with a 4WD light-duty pickup truck platform, they used GT-SUITE to simulate and optimize five hybrid configurations before a single prototype was built, ultimately identifying one that cuts total cost of ownership by over $7,000 compared to the conventional vehicle over 200,000 miles of operation. This blog covers how they structured that simulation workflow, what the model captured, and what the results mean for engineers facing the same architecture decision.

Why Is Hybridizing a Pickup Truck Harder Than It Looks?

A pickup truck does not forgive compromises the way a passenger car might. It needs to tow at gross combined weights above 16,000 lbs, climb steep grades without losing traction, and carry a rated payload that buyers actually use. For light-duty truck owners, rated payload and towing capacity are practical, everyday requirements, and any hybrid architecture that meaningfully degrades either is difficult to justify regardless of the fuel economy gains on offer.

At the same time, tightening regulations from the EPA and CARB are pushing OEMs and their engineering partners to reduce both greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions across real-world driving conditions, not just on regulatory test cycles. The challenge is not whether to hybridize, but which architecture to choose, and how to size and control it for the best outcome across all of these competing requirements at once.

For FEV’s programme on a 2017 Ford F-150 4X4 platform, the team needed to evaluate five distinct hybrid layouts, each with different motor positions, battery chemistries, transmission configurations, and control strategies. Running this breadth of analysis through physical hardware would be prohibitively expensive and slow. They needed a simulation environment that could handle the full system in one place.

How Did FEV Build and Validate the Simulation in GT-SUITE?

GT-SUITE provided the integrated modelling environment for the entire programme. FEV started by building a baseline conventional vehicle model of the F-150, using benchmarking data to populate every major subsystem. The engine model was updated with measured brake-specific fuel consumption maps, torque curves, and emissions data. Transmission gear ratios, efficiency, and torque limits were sourced from 10R80 benchmarking data. Vehicle aerodynamics, rolling resistance, curb mass, and braking parameters were taken from EPA-published test data. A three-way catalyst model was included to capture tailpipe emissions behaviour accurately.

Before any hybrid work began, the baseline model was validated against physical test data across three standard drive cycles: HWFET, US06, and FTP-75. On the US06 cycle, the simulation tracked test results with a regression R² of 0.9995, with predicted fuel economy of 21.0 MPG against a measured 21.8 MPG (FEV internal programme data, GTTC 2024). The model also correctly reproduced the vehicle’s fuel cut-off behaviour and matched tailpipe NOx and THC measurements within close tolerance.

With the baseline confirmed, FEV built GT-SUITE models for each of the five hybrid configurations. Each model used parameterized and scalable e-motor templates, with torque and efficiency maps sourced from supplier data. The battery was represented using a map-based model populated with supplier-provided open-circuit voltage and internal resistance data, covering both lithium-ion NMC and LTO cell chemistries within a 400V architecture. Simplified thermal models for the motors, battery pack, and air conditioning system were derived from lookup tables calibrated against detailed thermal data from a comparable vehicle programme.

Two energy management strategies were developed and implemented within GT-SUITE. For configurations where the engine and motors drive the wheels in parallel, an Equivalent Consumption Minimization Strategy (ECMS) kept the engine operating within its most efficient load region for as much of the drive cycle as possible. For the series hybrid configuration, a rule-based strategy decoupled the engine from the wheels entirely, running it as a generator along its minimum fuel consumption curve. For the dual-motor configurations capable of switching between both modes, a switching strategy was developed to transition between the two approaches based on vehicle speed and demanded load.

Component sizing was handled through GT’s built-in design optimizer, varying battery cell count, motor peak torque, motor maximum speed, motor gear ratios, transmission gear ratios, and final drive ratio across defined ranges. The optimizer simultaneously targeted maximum fuel economy, minimum added weight, and minimum added cost, subject to constraints on battery state-of-charge delta, startability wheel torque, and drive cycle distance error.

What Did the Hybrid Powertrain Optimization Actually Deliver?

The simulation programme produced clear, quantified separation between the five architectures across fuel economy, emissions, performance, and lifetime cost.

Fuel economy on the combined US06+FTP drive cycle tells a straightforward story. The conventional F-150 baseline returned 22.2 MPGe. Adding a single motor on the transmission input position in a parallel layout (P2) brought that to 26.3 MPGe. The dual-motor parallel configuration with motors on both the crankshaft and the transmission input position (P1/P2) achieved 28.6 MPGe, and the equivalent layout with the second motor positioned at transmission output (P1P3) reached 29.3 MPGe. The reason the dual-motor configurations outperform their single-motor equivalents is not simply more electrification: the mixed-mode switching strategy, which shifts from parallel operation at higher loads to series operation at lower speeds, consistently outperformed either mode run in isolation. The series hybrid configuration, running in charge-sustaining mode, returned 32.4 MPGe, and 101.5 MPGe combined when accounting for its charge-depleting electric range under a utility factor calculation (FEV internal programme data, GTTC 2024).

The efficiency gains are visible at the system loss level too. Total powertrain losses on the US06+FTP cycle dropped from 22.87 kWh for the conventional vehicle to 17.66 kWh for the dual-motor parallel configuration (P1/P2) and 17.24 kWh for its post-transmission equivalent (P1/P3) (FEV internal programme data, GTTC 2024). The primary driver of that reduction was the engine operating in its most efficient load region for a significantly larger proportion of the drive cycle compared to the conventional baseline.

Emissions followed the same downward trend. Tailpipe NOx on the US06+FTP cycle fell from 0.061 g/mi for the conventional vehicle to 0.020 g/mi for the dual-motor parallel configuration (P1/P2) and 0.014 g/mi for its post-transmission equivalent (P1/P3), a reduction of approximately 77% (FEV internal programme data, GTTC 2024). The series hybrid in charge-sustaining mode achieved 0.003 g/mi.

Towing and performance improved alongside efficiency rather than trading against it. At a gross combined weight of 16,800 lbs, the 0-60 mph time dropped from 18.2 seconds for the conventional vehicle to 15.3 seconds for the dual-motor parallel layout  (P1/P2) and 13.7 seconds for the post-transmission variant (P1/P3) (FEV internal programme data, GTTC 2024). Maximum speed on a 6% grade at the same towing weight increased from 82 mph to 85 mph.

Total cost of ownership over 200,000 miles, at a $50,000 baseline price and $3.289 per gallon fuel cost, showed the series hybrid as the lowest-cost option at $92,683 versus $99,862 for the conventional vehicle (FEV internal programme data, GTTC 2024; fuel price: U.S. EIA, 09/02/2024; O&M cost: Burnham et al., 2021, DOE). But TCO alone does not settle the architecture decision for a pickup truck. The series hybrid also added 692 lbs of curb weight, a payload penalty that matters to anyone who actually uses the bed. Arriving at that conclusion required evaluating all five architectures simultaneously under consistent conditions, which is exactly what GT-SUITE’s system-level simulation and integrated energy management optimization made possible.

A sensitivity analysis run as part of the optimization confirmed something that is easy to overlook in hardware-focused programmes: fuel economy responded more strongly to energy management control strategy parameters than to component sizing variables. Getting the EMS right matters more than specifying the last few kilowatts of motor capacity.

FEV: Results in Numbers (FEV internal programme data, GTTC 2024)

• Baseline model US06 regression accuracy: R² = 0.9995
• Conventional F-150 fuel economy: 22.2 MPGe on US06+FTP
• Dual-motor parallel, pre-transmission motor + post-gearbox motor: 28.6 MPGe, +29% vs. conventional
• Dual-motor parallel, pre-transmission motor + post-transmission motor: 29.3 MPGe, +32% vs. conventional
• Series hybrid combined MPGe: 101.5 MPGe charge-depleting + charge-sustaining
• Tailpipe NOx reduction, post-transmission dual-motor parallel: 0.014 g/mi vs. 0.061 g/mi conventional, -77%
• Towing acceleration improvement, post-transmission dual-motor parallel at 16,800 lbs GCWR: 13.7 s vs. 18.2 s conventional
• Vehicle range, post-transmission dual-motor parallel: 673 miles vs. 510 miles conventional
• Series hybrid TCO over 200,000 miles: $92,683 vs. $99,862 conventional
• Hybridization cost, post-transmission dual-motor parallel: $6,637 added over baseline
• Added curb weight, post-transmission dual-motor parallel: 190 lbs
• Total system losses reduced from 22.87 kWh (conventional) to 17.24 kWh for the best parallel configuration

Key Takeaways

• Mixed-mode operation, switching between parallel and series hybrid modes based on vehicle speed and demanded load, consistently outperformed either mode run in isolation on combined real-world drive cycles. It is not an advanced feature to configure later; it is where the fuel economy gains actually come from.
• Energy management control strategy parameters have a greater influence on fuel economy than component sizing. Teams that finalize hardware before developing the EMS are optimizing the wrong variable first.
• For a towing-capable pickup truck, a dual-motor parallel layout with the second motor positioned after the transmission offers the best near-term balance of fuel economy, emissions reduction, towing performance, and payload impact, at a hybridization cost of $6,637 over the baseline vehicle.
• The series hybrid configuration achieved the lowest total cost of ownership over 200,000 miles at $92,683.
• A GT-SUITE baseline model validated to R² = 0.9995 provides the fidelity required to trust multi-architecture trade-off decisions without physical prototypes at every programme gate.

Simulation-Led Hybrid Development Is Now a Competitive Requirement, Not a Programme Accelerator

With EPA and CARB tightening emissions limits, the question for most OEM programmes is no longer whether to hybridize, but which architecture to commit to, and how quickly that decision can be validated. FEV’s programme on the F-150 platform demonstrates that GT-SUITE enables a full trade-off study across five hybrid configurations, with simultaneous optimization of battery sizing, motor placement, transmission ratios, and energy management strategy, within a single validated model environment. The outcome is a defensible, data-backed architecture decision made before hardware is committed.

Contact GT’s simulation specialists to discuss how GT-SUITE can support your hybrid powertrain development programme. Join our LinkedIn community to stay updated on simulation-driven workflows and upcoming technical content.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAQ

Can GT-SUITE simulate multiple hybrid powertrain architectures within the same vehicle model?

Yes. GT-SUITE supports series, parallel, and combined series-parallel hybrid architectures within a common modelling environment, enabling direct comparison under identical drive cycles, vehicle parameters, and optimization constraints. FEV used this to evaluate five hybrid layouts and a full battery-electric reference case of the same F-150 platform without rebuilding the base model for each configuration.

What is the total cost of ownership difference between a hybrid and a conventional pickup truck?

Based on FEV’s analysis at $3.289 per gallon and a $50,000 baseline vehicle price, the series hybrid returned a TCO of $92,683 over 200,000 miles versus $99,862 for the conventional vehicle, a saving of approximately $7,200. The post-transmission dual-motor parallel configuration returned $97,913, broadly cost-neutral over the ownership period, with fuel savings largely offsetting the $6,637 hybridization premium.

How do you select the right battery chemistry and size for a hybrid pickup truck?

The choice between NMC and LTO chemistries involves a direct trade-off between energy density, charge and discharge rate, and weight. LTO cells support charge and discharge rates up to 10C, compared to 1C charge and 3C discharge for NMC, making LTO better suited to high-power parallel hybrid operation with frequent regenerative braking events. FEV’s optimization identified an 8 kWh LTO pack at 400V as optimal for the parallel configurations, while a 61 kWh NMC pack was selected for the series hybrid based on range and total cost of ownership requirements.