Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
edselford

2020 Explorer with 3.3 NA V6

Recommended Posts

Dear sirs

why would you not offer the 3.3 liter V6 naturally aspirated engine out of the Ford F-150 as an alternative to the base 2.3 liter eco boost?

I am sure such a drivetrain with the ten speed would be smoother at low engine speeds than the 2.3EB

please advise

edselford

Share this post


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

Dear sirs

why would you not offer the 3.3 liter V6 naturally aspirated engine out of the Ford F-150 as an alternative to the base 2.3 liter eco boost?

I am sure such a drivetrain with the ten speed would be smoother at low engine speeds than the 2.3EB

please advise

edselford

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EF,

   From what I looked at yesterday, you can get the Traverse with a 3.6 NA/9-speed combination.

HRG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, twintornados said:

Why?

 

Fear of turbos?  Doesn't like torque?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good suggestion edselford sir. This should be easy for Ford to do. 2020 Police Interceptor Utility (Explorer) offers 3.3L direct injection V6 non-hybrid with 10-speed automatic. So it shouldn't be a big deal to extend availability to the civilian 2020 Explorer.

The 3.5L V6 6-speed combo in current Explorer is on the rough side, and is also fuel thirsty. New 3.3 DI V6 10-speed should address both of those things.

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason to offer a 3.3L NA is for fleet use or as a stripped down base model neither of which fits with Ford's vision for Explorer (or Aviator).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Most who reviewed the Nautilus' switch to I4 2.0EB as the base engine (replacing the 3.7 naturally aspirated V6) spoke well of the change, as the turbo 2.0 produces better torque lower in the power band with only a tiny hit in hp, all with improved fuel efficiency. While I haven't driven them, it seems that the 2.3EB would be an even better alternative as base engine to a 3.3 naturally V6, though I might be missing something here. Maybe the sound? 

Share this post


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

Huh? Most who reviewed the Nautilus' switch to I4 2.0EB as the base engine (replacing the 3.7 naturally aspirated V6) spoke well of the change, as the turbo 2.0 produces better torque lower in the power band with only a tiny hit in hp, all with improved fuel efficiency. While I haven't driven them, it seems that the 2.3EB would be an even better alternative as base engine to a 3.3 naturally V6, though I might be missing something here. Maybe the sound? 

We've owned 3 ecoboosts (Fusion 2.0L, Escape 2.0L and F150 3.5L) and 2 Duratec V6s (Edge 3.5L and MKX 3.7L).   I much prefer the ecoboost engines for the low end torque.  I'm also getting 22 mpg on my F150 in mixed driving.  That's 1 mpg better than the MKX 3.7L.

I think some folks still think it's the 1980s when it comes to turbocharged engine technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well

interesting discussion.  I did not know police and fleet can order 3.3 NA V6 in 2020 Explorer.

why? A segment of the customers would prefer simplicity and long term durability. I’m sure sound cancellation technology used to cover up some nvh issues due to 4 cylinder.

I have had two ecoboost engines a 1.6 and 1.5 liter in escapes.  They feel great at lower engine speeds but run out of steam above 70MPH.

also my 2013 Ford Taurus fwd with 3.5 liter and 2.77 final drive got better highway mileage than either ecoboost engines.

its interesting for me with all these turbos because in 1983 I participated in a study at Borg Warner to determine if the car companies would need turbo chargers for future downsizing!

we said a definite yes but we did not have the timing quite right. The first Borg Warner turbo designs were based upon IHI designs made in Japan.

edsel ford

Share this post


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

also my 2013 Ford Taurus fwd with 3.5 liter and 2.77 final drive got better highway mileage than either ecoboost engines

The first and even second gen ecoboosts had cooling issues that caused them to run rich.   The newer gens seemed to have solved that problem.  I was absolutely shocked that I was getting 22 mpg in my 3.5L EB F150.   I've even seen 30 on the highway a couple of times in the right conditions.  Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 10 speed tranny should help with the power loss above 70 mph.  My F150 is still around 1600 RPM at that speed in 10th gear IIRC.

 

Besides I can't imagine regularly driving a top heavy SUV faster than 80 on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, akirby said:

The 10 speed tranny should help with the power loss above 70 mph.  My F150 is still around 1600 RPM at that speed in 10th gear IIRC.

 

Besides I can't imagine regularly driving a top heavy SUV faster than 80 on a regular basis.

You've clearly never been to Michigan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 5:41 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:

You've clearly never been to Michigan 

Or anywhere in the Northeast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t say nobody drove them that fast.   I was implying that it was not a good idea.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×