Sevensecondsuv

Yes, just like Ford truck buyers since 1997.

Demand they hand over the keys. If they won't give them to you, threaten to call the police. Leave with the truck, stop at the nearest gas station to fill the radiator, and then hobble it to the nearest parts store. A radiator should be less than $200 and be in stock. Eat the cost and install it in their parking lot. It's an easy job. Save all your receipts and document as much of this as possible and then when you get home have your lawyer send them a bill for the parts and your time with the threat of a lawsuit if they don't pay up.

The 2.3L in my 2011 Ranger (same basic architecture as the current 2.0, 2.3 / ecoboost and previous 2.5L engines) has that distictive 4 cyl buzz which is due to the unavoidable secondary imbalance you get with an inline 4. It's especially noticeable at idle. The Rangers I've had with the cologn (4.0L) V6 were definitely smoother. I've been in a few a Cyclone V6 products (but never owned one) which seemed very ordinary in terms of engine smoothness. The old 4.2 V6 F-150s (had two of them myself) did get really coarse above 3000 rpm, which I blame on the 90 degree block. None of the 4s or V6s is anywhere near as smooth as the 4.6 modulars (or pretty much any other V8 I've tried) though. Also the 300 six in my old F250 is quite smooth despite the howling ps pump and lifter tick. Smoothness is definitely the best attribute of the straight six design.

No argument with any of that. My point was that Ford also needs to have a solid entry in the meat and potatoes range of the segment. That's where I see a problem. The current explorer starts at $30ish and can be nicely optioned by $40k. The new one starts at $36500 with no options, goes over $40k as soon as you select awd, hits $45k by adding a few things, and doesn't have an optional powertrain available until $53k. Sure they'll move some of the higher end models on lease deals but I don't see the XLT as being priced right to be the volume trim it needs to be.

The difference is the base trim is gone. XLT is now the base trim. 2019 and prior had an "explorer" trim under XLT.

That's a problem. $50k+ is well beyond the the range of the average family cruiser. Ford's not going to sell a whole bunch of hybrids at that price. Heck, even the base xlt with no options starts at $36k and close to $40k if you want AWD. That's a huge jump from 2019 base model pricing and quite high relative to the competition. I hope Ford is prepared to sacrifice some market share in the interest of delivering a premium (i.e. rwd) product. This thing is priced on the high side of it's segment. Also, fuel economy numbers are generally tied or 1 mpg better than the V6 Traverse, which is its primary competition. That's a good sign I guess, although a 2-3 mpg advantage would make the ecoboost sales pitch a little easier to make. Also the Traverse is a little bigger I think.

That would make a great base engine for F250/350 and E Series as well. It could/would/should replace the orphaned 6.2. My only wish is that it's an inline six instead of a V, keeping the same bore/stroke, bore spacing, deck height, etc. An inline really isn't any more work since the block, heads and crank have to be re-engineered going from a V8 to V6 anyways. It's mostly a legacy of the old 300 and the Cummins BT6, but truck people have a lot more respect for straight sixes than vee sixes.

Get the $5 O2 sensor "extensions" off eBay. Problem solved.

I'm interested to see how they plan to offer IFS and SFA on the same platform. Those two suspension designs require very different hard points on the chassis. It'll be interesting to see how they accommodate both designs without totally compromising the engine bay and front of the passenger cabin. Even the front driveshaft will be different and may even require a different transfer case arrangement.

I wonder how well that electronic sway bar disconnect will work after a few winters worth of road salt.......

Smart choice getting the e locker. Few other options make that much difference for $500 or whatever it costs. Up here in the rust belt it's impossible to find a 2wd f150 with the e-locker. I've helped two guys look for trucks in the last year that ended up having to special order over just the silly e locker. I guess it's something that most buyers don't understand so dealers don't want the extra sticker for dealer stock inventory.

Unless you're driving aggressively enough to break the rear tire(s) loose, it doesn't make a difference. I'm not sure what part of the country you're in, but you'd notice it most in snow. A limited slip differential provides noticeably more traction in snow. It also makes it easier to kick rear end out (fishtail) since both tires will spin instead of just one. Retail crown vics / mercs / lincolns typically came with the open (non limited slip) differential. Cop cars got the L/S for the added traction.

As stated above, you have a 3.27 ratio trac-lok (i.e. limited slip) differential. The fact that you can turn it by hand is indicative that the friction plates are worn smooth, basically turning it into a conventional (non limited slip) differential, which is pretty normal and expected for that much mileage. You could replace the friction plates to restore the limited slip function while you have it opened up. Plenty of youtube videos on how to do it. Either 75-140 or 80-90 oil will work, just make sure it's specified as being for hypoid gears. 80-90 is the normal spec for retail cars, 75-140 is specified for heavy duty applications, including police service. Basically 75-140 maintains the desired viscosity to a higher temperature, at the expense of possibly hurting fuel economy because it's thicker when cool if you're not driving hard.

2.7/3.0 might start stepping on the coyotes toes, especially after the tuners crank up the boost. When I hear "entry level performance model", I think of an extra stripped down (no electronic gizmos/nav/etc, steel wheels, cheap cloth seats, no tinted glass, etc) mustang that comes with a coyote under the hood, all for less than $30k.. Obviously others are interpreting this differently.

I'm interested to ride in one of these. Four bangers always have single plane crankshafts which give them a characteristic vibration that's not present in multi-plane crank engines. A three cylinder ain't no straight straight six, but I wonder if it's not at least smoother than a 4 cylinder since the crank throws are 120 deg apart. It's apples to oranges, but I've got two old Ford three cylinder tractors (one gas and one diesel) that are quite smooth.