edselford

I leased a 2021 Ford Explorer XLT four wheel drive some three months ago. It is a very nice vehicle with plenty of acceleration with the 2.3 ecoboost. No issues at all with this unit. Just a little noisy in accelerations, maybe the noise cancellation system in the limited should be standard on XLT? I do have a question though, when in eco mode, is vehicle still in all wheel drive or is it in rear wheel drive? I usually leave it in normal mode and it defaults to normal after engine is turned off and back on! Dynamically the vehicle is great for a big SUV. It feels almost as big as my 2006 Expedition. edselford

Ya the requirement for including the V8 in transverse FWD compromised the basic design. Back then, GM was going all out to full size Front wheel drive sedans with only Cadillac having a V8 I do remember a lincoln fwd with the 4.6 that did not sell hardly at all! I actually had two Northstar V8 engines. One in a 2000 model year Seville STS and one in a Buick Lucerne some years later. They both were very strong engines. I had tremendous torque steer and always thought both vehicles should of been rear wheel drive. I never understood why the northstar was taken out of production? Also the new Cadillac 4.2 DOC hot valley turbo V8 looks like it is still born at GM. Everyone wants to go to electric vehicles in almost every segment edselford

We just won’t know until it is offered in a vehicle we can buy. I was also surprised Ford did not increase bore centers from the 6.2 115 mm to something around 118 mm on the current 7.3 V8. I just wonder if dynamic fuel management make V8’s more CO2 efficient eliminating the advantage the V6 ecoboost have today? edselford

I was also surprised by the 6.8 V8 announcement given how close it is to the 7.3. Although everyone is talking short stroke version of the 7.3, I think you will see a smaller bore version of the 7.3 say 103.4 X 101 for about 414 cubic inches. It’s just much easier to get to 6.8 than reinventing the wheel. ya except for ford 427, 428 cobra jet, 351 Cleveland and the current 5.0/5.2 DOC V8’s over the last 66 years, ford V8 on the street were not that competitive. I had a 1966 Ford Galaxie with a 352 that was faster than a 1966 XL 390 four barrel. I never had a production 390 that could beat a Chevy 327. the 4.6/5.4 were durable but slow. the 351 W used too much gas and never could compete with the Chevy 350. Ford made the 427, 428 and 429 engines at the same time for a while, also 351W and 351C at the same time. It was confusing! Lets not forget two different 4.6 SOC in Romeo Mi and Windsor engine plants. edselford

6.8 based off of the 7.3 we think. 7.3 same bore centers as current 6.2SOC V8. Ford needs a bridge to 2030 EV or whatever year it happens. As the gvw goes up, the EV powertrain becomes more complicated and costly. Grad ability concerns increase and force multi speed transmission solutions to maintain an acceptable range in cold and very hot weather, Nuclear power plants are too dangerous. Coal plants produce CO2 with natural gas, Less so. hybrids are the best way to go for the next ten years unless someone has invented a new way of charging lithium batteries..???? edselfor

Well maybe Ford needs the 6.8 V8 to compete with the new grand Wagoneer which has a 6.4 liter Hemi. It would not take much for GM to up the anti on a future gmc Delani to offer a light duty version of the 6.6 V8. The Jeep 6.4 is at 471 hp with a cast iron block!

I am sure the 6.8 will be an evolution of the production and experimental V8. ‘S that came before it including the 777 engine. From what I have been able to piece together, the 777 was a 7 liter V8 based off of the 6.2 SOC boss engine except it looked like a pushrod engine with a single spark plug per cylinder and a much narrower cylinder head than the 6.2! This might of been an experiment to see if enough power could be produced with a two valve push rod design? (800 hp) The bore was 107mm and a stroke of 97mm at a deck height of 239mm. I think the 777 was the basis of Godzilla V8 we have today! Although the 7 liter could easily make the hp requirement, it fell short for low end torque. I suspect at this stage ford already was committed on a 101 mm stroke much like the old 428 FE (close) and a bore around 105 mm. As Mary speculated before, it was much easier to get to 7.3 (445cid) by increasing the bore to 107.2 mm from around 105 and avoiding having to increase the deck height above the 9.65” ! So the 6.8 will probably be a combination of pieces that already exist even if in XE experimental level. the real question is will the block be aluminum or possibly CGI? edselford

The 6.2 block machining line could be retooled to make an aluminum block 6.8! It’s easier to machine aluminum, increase machining speeds and less stress on equipment compared to cast iron or CGI. I do remember the block was at a 239mm deck height 9.409”) I estimate a bore of 105.1 mm and a stroke of 98 mm to allow for supercharging on some applications without deflection issues. edselford

If the new 6.8 V8 will stabilize volumes at Windsor Engine Plant, it would have to pick up the volumes lost on the current 5.0 V8 due to the 3.5 Ecoboost! Just special Mustang and special F150 volumes on a 6.8 would be very low not enough to get past the bean counters. Is Ford looking at an alternative to ecoboost engines on F150 and Expedition/Navigator vehicles? I could see the 6.8 replacing the 3.5 ecoboost and a smaller 5.5 version replacing the 5.0 with great cost reduction opportunities! what do you guys and gal think? edselford

I recently leased a 2021 Explorer 4WD XLT. It’s a nice vehicle with plenty of power but just slightly noisy while accelerating! I am very pleased with the handling snd and highway fuel economy too! Looking under the hood, there is plenty of room for an inline six version of the 2.3 liter I4 This approach would eliminate one cylinder head, one turbo, two VCCI mechanisms , one long chain and two camshafts when compared to the 3.0 liter V6 Ecoboost engine. Any thought given to what you will need 5 to ten years out when pure electrics may not catch on? Edselford

Very interesting discussion on going back to steel on the F150. I do remember the 7700 lb package ford offered on the F150 with the seven lug nut rims! And yes, their old generation f150 truck was significantly heavier than Chevy C/K 1500. The new steels available today were not available in 2013-2015 so Ford had to use aluminum to get the weight out! In the future, ford has a choice to either refine the process of making the aluminum cab hoping to take cost out or going back to a steel cab with aluminum enclosures like the current gm pickups. somehow, ford has to make more profit per truck to get the ford common share price up and the dividend yield up for all the institutional investors. It just might be refine ecoboost on V6 2.7 and 3.5 by going to a hot V with one turbo instead of two and doing some steel substitution in the next F150 redesign. edselford

akirby, good idea to try another vehicle. The one I tried had 20” tires. I will try one with 18” tires. Do you know anything about the noise cancelling system on the Explorer? Thanks edselford

You are right. They are much more expensive. An alternative is a Lincoln Aviator but that too is in the $55000 price range! I did like the low end torque of the 2.3 ecoboost. It had plenty of power. Does this engine have a balance shaft or two? I do remember when Daimler took over Chrysler, they told us that two counter rotating balance shafts would be required to smooth out our Chrysler 2.4 liter four cylinder. We never spent the extra money to add the second shaft! edselford

I looked at and drove a 2021 Explorer today. It was an XLT, 202A and Sport Equipment Group all wheel drive. Very nice vehicle, dynamically, highway noise level, power. The only issue I had was NVH between 35 to 55 mph. This must be related to the use of the big 2.3 liter ecoboost 4 cylinder. I was hoping that ford would get its act completely together after one model year behind them but for a $42,000 vehicle, I decided not to purchase the vehicle. I had a 2011 Explorer with the 3.5V6 and it was a smoother vehicle in the 35 to 55 mph speed range. The 2021 Explorer is crying out for a V6 as far as I am concerned edselford

Thanks edselford

Does anyone know why ford uses an aluminum block on the 3.0 V6 ecoboost? I know that this engine is very similar to the 2.7 V6 ecoboost used in the F150. The 2.7 utilizes a CGI block. I thought. CGI, done right was lighter than aluminum with liners???? edselford

When I worked in the manual transmission business, we saw very different duty cycles between US and Europe transmissions. what we called “time in gear “ life calculations for transmission durability were totally different. Probably the points that were already discussed are all valid. Also, Europe tended to use high numerical axle ratios ie lower speeds and more engine braking compared to US with basically all automatic transmissions with faster axle ratios ! edselford

Great article the old wizard on ford 5.0 refinements! I was told that the 5.8 V8 version of the 6.2 failed because the cylinder deactivation system failed durability testing. I think it was a TRW system????? Please do the research on Lotus. They use to make a V8 sports car and the cylinder deactivation came out of their attempt to increase gas mileage on their own V8. I am sure that was in 1980’s.

I wonder if GM dynamic fuel management system would further reduce CO2 when compared to regular cylinder deactivation. edselford

Cylinder deactivation done by engine oil pressure was originally developed by Lotus Cars in England. The company was purchased by GM and later spun off but GM kept the intellectual rights to the cylinder deactivation on a V8! Edselford

Yes fca making what people want to buy! Also, the credits FCA is buying from Tesla is the only reason Tesla made money last quarter! edselford

I’m surprised this engine is not 7 liters? with cylinder deactivation, a larger displacement allows the system to be in cylinder deactivation mode longer So maybe the 6.8 is the size where with cylinder deactivation, the carbon footprint is the same as the 3.5 ecoboost in an F150. edselford

Maybe, if you cost three extra camshafts, two long chains and two short chains, 8 extra injectors, plasma spray bores, 16 extra valves rockers and two turbos. Ford might be leaving More than $1250/ unit on the table on each F150 or about $1 billion in profits each year. Also, F150 more costly than Ram or GM because of aluminium body compounding the profit problem and affecting the ford stock price! edsel ford

Some of this stuff does not make sense. If ford keeps the 3.5 ecoboost in the F150, the volumes would be so low on the 6.8 that ford could not justify the validation of the 6.8 V8 on the f150? It might be that the 6.8 is the new base engine on the F250/F350 with the 7.3 as an option? This would be a “stable volume” cylinder deactivation on a pushrod V8 is less expensive and less complicated than an overhead cam engine (6.2 boss versus 7.3 derivative) edselford

Assume the 7.3 V8 bore centers are the same as the old 6.2? If so, Ford could use its forged crankshaft Of 95 mm and put it with a bore of 107 mm and get 6.833 liter V8 or 417 cubic inch. I don’t know if the would use the arc spray on iron or cylinder liners though edselford