Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RPF

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The 2010 used a separate TCM, that functionality was integrated into the PCM in 2011. It's strange that the recall is just for a reflash. Didn't the TSB/SSM dealing with this have replacement of the molded leadframe as the repair method?
  2. Only the FWD 6-speeds are a joint design, and GM led that effort. The Colorado's RWD transmissions, both 6 and 8 speed are pure GM. Only the RWD 10-speed that GM uses in things like Silvererra and Camaro is a shared design, and Ford led that effort. Ford's 6-speed RWD transmissions are either their own design (6R140) or a variant of the ZF 6HP (6R80).
  3. An aftermarket kit wouldn't be too shocking. Same way you'd get a SFA under the front of a '80-'96 Bronco or a SRA on a 2015+ Mustang.
  4. The BOSS engine family was originally supposed to have 3 displacements 5.8/6.2/7.0. Both 2 and 4 valve cylinder heads. The 2V head was provisioned for DI and I'd assume if the 4V head ever made it past the 777 design study it would have had this provision as well. The 5.8L variant didn't meet its FE goals for the Mustang application it was meant for. But this variant would probably be the one to get the EB treatment if they were ever going to do a GTDI version of any current V8 engine family. I don't think that will happen though, if an EB V8 engine ever makes it out of Ford it will probably be an all new engine of smaller (4.xL ish) displacement with inside-out flow like the 6.7L Powerstroke
  5. I believe the SFA rumor started when Dana won the contract for the F/R axle assemblies on the Ranger/Bronco. People automatically assume Dana=Live Axle. Dana makes differential assemblies for driven independent suspensions for most of the industry, including Ford. For instance look at the rear axle on the back on something like the Edge, Escape or Explorer. Dana rear differential with independent suspension. Or look at what is on the front of the new Ranger. I'd be shocked if this ends up with a SFA.
  6. Yeah, basically the point I was trying to make, the swing gate itself is more complicated and expensive, but easier to make compliant and build than the tailgate plus a swing out tire carrier. It's a bummer for my nostalgia and the way I'd like to use the new one, but I can see why the decision was made. I think there will be a few more decisions like this that will piss off the "purists". My predictions as to the big ones: IFS: Some purists will be pissed off about this, but the Bronco was IFS longer than it was SFA and it will be necessary to beat the Wrangler in ride and NVH, not to mention the Raptor version will require it. Off road, IFS is superior to SFA in all but rock crawling type usage. My take: Let Jeep take that market, be better at everything else. No V8: As long as we get a V6, preferably Nano-family EB (and just the 2.3L EB like the initial Ranger), it should do just fine. 4-door: No way this doesn't get built as a 4-door, Wrangler Unlimited sales vs the 2-door model show where the market is now. The JK Wrangler Unlimited pissed off the Jeep guys, for all of about a day and then they got over it. Same thing will happen with the Bronco. A 2-door would be nice, and hopefully its still makes it but I'd rather have the 2-door cost-cut from the program than overall quality elsewhere, power under the hood, and a Raptor version. Removable roof: This will probably be the big one. I expect some form of power BAMR or manual removable panels like Jeep Renegade "to let the air in", not a removable rear roof section. Cue the bitching-and-moaning! Overall, unless they totally F it up with too much Steelcase cost cutting or 4-cylinder only power under the hood, I'll be buying one of these. If they have a Raptor version, make that two. This product and F-Series is where my memories have always been with Ford, not cars or their other SUV's even though I've owned some of those as well. Needless to say I just knocked on wood and have my fingers crossed that this one meets all of our heady expectations.
  7. Well, from the pictures we knew it had an exterior spare. Going with Wrangler heritage instead of Bronco heritage is the strange part. All Broncos had a tailgate. But I'm guessing that the larger rear opening and parts were cheaper than the swing away carrier combined with a tailgate. Edit: It's not a decision I'm happy about. Loved sitting on the tailgate of the SJ Cherokee and 4th Gen Bronco my dad had while I was growing up prepping for fishing trips and the like. Sitting on the inside of a Wrangler cargo area just isn't the same.
  8. Now that's a strange design decision...
  9. Maybe not in the Hellcat but there definitely is in the RAM. It's going to be painfully obvious when the journalists get a hold of a 6.4L RAM and run it against the 6.6L GM and 7.3L Ford. They need to get their 7.2L variant out ASAP and not give it the same issues they stuck into the 6.4L.
  10. It will be very interesting to see what heritage features make it into the final product. The first generation Bronco went out of production before GenX was driving, and the big Bronco went out of production before the Millenials started. The big Bronco was made in far greater numbers and was experienced by far more of these target demographics before the Early version became the go-to ride of wannabe outdoorsy Hollywood douchebags. So they will probably try to get at least a few big Bronco cues into the design, perhaps the roll-down rear window and the angle of the glass at the front of the rear side windows.
  11. FCA is going to need to do something ASAP with their 6.4L HEMI problem. The current 6.2L Ford outperforms it both loaded and empty and while loaded even the ancient GM 6.0L Vortec sometimes outperforms it. The new high GCWR Ram gassers are still going be stuck with a 6-speed transmission while the equivalent Fords are moving to 10 speeds.
  12. Uggh, not this again. The issue was the need for MD-spec exhaust valves and manifolds (a common issue with all engines Ford used in the MD applications, including the 7.3L, the mod, 385-series and even the "big six"). It had absolutely nothing to do with the cooling system. The chief engineer of that engine program explained the issue exactly over at FTE before TOW reported something to do with temperature here at BOF. What TOW didn't hear/understand was the origin of the issue and it grew a life of it's own over here. The relevant link to the engineer's discussion over at FTE is several dozen pages ahead in this thread. The reasons they went with this new engine were explained in the interview with the Godzilla family engineering manager on TFLTruck. They needed more displacement than was available with the BOSS (7.3L vs 7.0L with room for future expansion). They wanted to operate it at a lower RPM than what the 7.0L would have likely run at to get the desired power. Finally, they decided not to design a new cab structure for the E-Series so a taller deck 7.0L BOSS likely wouldn't have fit (they barely crammed the 6.2L in there). The E-Series application is crying out for more power than could be had, especially with the athematic 2V 6.8L (305hp) given that the Express/Savanna cutaway is likely getting the GM 6.6L with 100HP more power. In designing this narrower OHV engine they enabled the E-Series app (F-Series could swallow almost anything given how massive the PowerStroke is) but likely sacrificed the performance car/truck application (i.e Mustang/Raptor) that the 7.0L BOSS would have been absolutely perfect for.
  13. Oh come on, you can't drop that bomb and not give us the story...🤣
  14. It had one of the best commercials to go with it. Even spawned a similar one for the Mustang.
  15. If other reviews had the same conclusions I'd say that Ford has a problem on their hands. But given that at worst, the only common issues seem to be some slight interior material choice and mirror control location nitpicking. Most other reviews have come to a very different conclusion on the suspension tuning. I'd say that MT's "stance" has more to do with "business issues" on their end than actual vehicle performance..