Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

I'd lay money on the new Explorer hanging close to that Ranger due to the transmission and power curve.  It's not all about peak numbers.

It's certainly possible due to twice as many gears and it shifts faster than I can with the clunker M5OD, but there's still no reason the 2.7 couldn't be offered. The engineering and parts are already there since the 3.0 is identical besides displacement.

I guess I'm just kinda surprised there's no engine option until you get to the highest trims. Seems odd for a high volume model in the upper half of the Ford lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

It's certainly possible due to twice as many gears and it shifts faster than I can with the clunker M5OD, but there's still no reason the 2.7 couldn't be offered. The engineering and parts are already there since the 3.0 is identical besides displacement.

I guess I'm just kinda surprised there's no engine option until you get to the highest trims. Seems odd for a high volume model in the upper half of the Ford lineup.

It probably costs the same to make the 2.7 and 3.0 which is probably why the 2.7 is not offered.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the 3.0EB replace the 3.5EB and the 2.3EB replace the 2.7EB in the F150.  Of course they'll keep the 3.5EB HO for the Raptor, Limited, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NLPRacing said:

It probably costs the same to make the 2.7 and 3.0 which is probably why the 2.7 is not offered.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the 3.0EB replace the 3.5EB and the 2.3EB replace the 2.7EB in the F150.  Of course they'll keep the 3.5EB HO for the Raptor, Limited, etc. 

Why would they drop the 3.5EB to save money and then keep offering it only in low-volume (comparatively speaking) trims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NLPRacing said:

It probably costs the same to make the 2.7 and 3.0 which is probably why the 2.7 is not offered.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the 3.0EB replace the 3.5EB and the 2.3EB replace the 2.7EB in the F150.  Of course they'll keep the 3.5EB HO for the Raptor, Limited, etc. 

I don't see the 3.5 or 2.7 going away in the F150 any time soon.  The 2.7L is the perfect engine for those who don't tow much or often while the 3.5L is built for heavier towing.  They each have their place, and I don't think you can replace both with the 3.0L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

 the 3.5L is built for heavier towing. 

 

Or hoonigans.........  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 2.3 Eco (or maybe a slightly bigger version of it) replace the 3.3 as the base engine in the next generation F150.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 2.3 Eco (or maybe a slightly bigger version of it) replace the 3.3 as the base engine in the next generation F150.

I would say the 2.3EB is highly likely to replace the 3.3 in the next gen F150.  If not, we could see a 3.3 hybrid as the low/mid tier model slotting below the 5.0.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.3 EB replaces base NA V6, the 3.0 EB V6 replaces 3.5 EB, it's probably a bit more fuel efficient and allows Ford to dedicate more 2.7 EB and 3.5 EB production to F150 and Large SUVs. 3.3 Hybrid will be a nice additional touch over a 3.0 V6 Powerstroke.

I don't think we'll see the 2.3 EB in F150, there's no need to change 3.3 V6 bottom feeder option save for a 10-speed auto.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 5:50 PM, rmc523 said:

 

 

That vertical screen looks like a complete afterthought.

They all pretty much look that way, but they've been out long enough that I've gotten used to them. The vertical screen should be easier to follow maps without the need to lean over and squint at the current sized screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 8:06 PM, Assimilator said:

It looks like the 3rd row gained some roominess.

2019 vs 2020

Headroom: 37.8" vs 38.9"

Legroom: 32" vs 32.2"

Shoulder Room: 50.8" vs 54.6"

Hip-Room: 40.7" vs 40.9"

Interestingly, the only exterior dimension that changes significantly is the wheelbase, otherwise the width, height, and length are nearly identical.  

 

I think they took about 3 inches from the rear area  to give more room in the 2nd row. The 2nd row seats are now easier to operate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

2.3 EB replaces base NA V6, the 3.0 EB V6 replaces 3.5 EB, it's probably a bit more fuel efficient and allows Ford to dedicate more 2.7 EB and 3.5 EB production to F150 and Large SUVs. 3.3 Hybrid will be a nice additional touch over a 3.0 V6 Powerstroke.

I don't think we'll see the 2.3 EB in F150, there's no need to change 3.3 V6 bottom feeder option save for a 10-speed auto.

At this point, offering the 2.3EB in the F150 would look like Ford was copying GM, and I think the Silverado actually hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to engine downsizing in a fullsize pickup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, papilgee4evaeva said:

At this point, offering the 2.3EB in the F150 would look like Ford was copying GM, and I think the Silverado actually hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to engine downsizing in a fullsize pickup.

The Silverado 2.7 I-4 has gotten pretty good reviews. The 2.3 Eco would provide better performance and fuel economy than the 3.3 with similar numbers to the Ranger given the F150 isn’t much heavier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 2.3 Eco (or maybe a slightly bigger version of it) replace the 3.3 as the base engine in the next generation F150.

I don't see that at all. The whole point of the 3.3 is to be a cheap, robust (fleet) engine. I don't see any EB filling that particular niche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

I don't see that at all. The whole point of the 3.3 is to be a cheap, robust (fleet) engine. I don't see any EB filling that particular niche.

I think it makes sense to have a "low tech" engine in the line up in particular when you have one available. Not everyone buys into the "more is better" school.

I'm watching Mecom now-and just saw a 327 "Vette go through-amazing they could build an engine at one time with less then 5 miles of plumbing and wiring under the hood😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

The Silverado 2.7 I-4 has gotten pretty good reviews. The 2.3 Eco would provide better performance and fuel economy than the 3.3 with similar numbers to the Ranger given the F150 isn’t much heavier.

It's gotten good reviews in isolation, but I haven't yet seen it compared favorably to the 3.3 in the Ford or the 3.6 in the Ram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing would please me more than to see Ford drop the 3.3 V6 and force Silverado 2.7 I-4T to face the music and man up to Ford's better 2.7 V6 EB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chevys 2.7L I-4 is compared to the 4.3L as a viable alternative, then yes it's amazing considering the age, and rough NVH of the 4.3L, but publications I have read with the usage of the 2.7L I-4 in a Silverado have been lack luster.  I think one of them even said they didn't see any fuel savings that couldn't be already achieved through other current engines.  Not sure if Toyota's 2.7L I-4 was their inspiration, of Fords 2.7L but cut off 2 cylinders to make it rock...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is the projected fuel economy was a lot better but they weren’t able to achieve it in production form for whatever reason.  I don’t think they would have gone down that road for the current fuel economy numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hybrid sounds awesome. 500 miles for a tank of gas and 5000lb towing capacity. 

I suddenly have zero worries about capability for the coming F-150 hybrid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, akirby said:

My guess is the projected fuel economy was a lot better but they weren’t able to achieve it in production form for whatever reason.

It's probably the added weight of all that ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ST and Hybrid info.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/motoring-shows/the-ford-explorer-st-whips-up-400-horsepower-looks-pretty-sweet/ar-BBSet6f?ocid=spartandhp

 

The hybrid in the Explorer is nowhere near what the Aviator is.  It is very disappointing..

 

The ST looks fsntastic though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, blwnsmoke said:

The hybrid in the Explorer is nowhere near what the Aviator is.  It is very disappointing..

 

We've known for some time the Explorer hybrid would be the 3.3L with no plug in option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, blwnsmoke said:

The hybrid in the Explorer is nowhere near what the Aviator is.  It is very disappointing..

It's not supposed to be. Think of the Aviator PHEV as the ST version. The Explorer hybrid is for range extension mostly. It's awesome that towing isn't compromised at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the hybrid powertrain in the Avatior big bucks also vs what the Explorer is getting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×