meyeste

So it seems to me Honda just dealt the Fusion a 1-2-3 combo that is fairly serious; their Accord hybrid's mpg numbers appear to be achievable without hyper-miling, a V-6 that bests the 2.0 EB, and their plugin hybrid ups the ante even further.

I've never heard DI was planned for the 3.7, the 3.7 is a design from the partnership with Mazda and is not related to the 5.0L & 6.2L engines. Now I've seen pictures of the underside of the 5.0L heads pointing out a space large enough to accommodate DI, though I've read a quote from Ford engineers saying the benefit of DI to the 5.0L wasn't enough to justify the added expense. Now that GM has a very impressive DI 5.3L, adding DI to the 5.0L may well be justified, I'd prefer the simplicity of a 5.0L DI vs. the EB or the cylinder deactivation of the 5.3L. I have an Odyssey with cylinder deactivation and I hate it. At first I didn't notice the cylinder deactiviation on my Odyssey, but now that I've had it 5 years, it's a very noticable thunkiness accompanied by unwelcome vibration in the drivetrain. I've researched it and basically the natural degradation of the engine mounts is expedited by cylinder deactivation so if you go with it, be ready to put up with it or replace your engine mounts every 5 years.

I would not consider the 6.2 in a 1/2 ton, while it's very good engine, other than for bragging rights it's just not necessary in the F150 excepting perhaps the Raptor. The 3.5L beats the 5.0L on achievable mpgs unloaded, however if you load them both up with say a 7,000 lb load the 3.5 will need to call up a good about of boost and it's mpg's will drop quickly. A turbo is not magic the same rules of physics apply, it's making more power by shoving more air & fuel into the combustion chamber. The fuel savings in the EB come when it's not loaded and it's using little boost if any, during those times it is consuming gas as if it were a 6 cylinder and that is how it achieves fuel savings. If you were to hot-rod a 3.5 EB around town you'll find the 12 mpg ratings some are crying about will show up in a hurry. If you're constantly towing the 5.0L engine is going to turnout about the same mpg as the 3.5L. Sure if you're towing and drag racing the EB is the way to go, but is any sane individual doing that? All I'm saying is I believe it's a mistake to intentionally hobble the 5.0L simply to make the 3.5L engine look better, I don't see how else a engine that by independent dyno tests is making north of 430 HP in the Mustang GT form gets knocked down to 360 - conviently 5 HP below the 3.5 EB, unless a constraint was made that it get less HP than the 3.5, or do you not find that suspicious?

I have to respect that GM has done with their 5.3L, given I am not a fan of cylinder deactivation efforts, and would probably try to get that disabled if I had one. On the other hand, given mounting issues with the EB 3.5 I am thinking I'd prefer the 5.0L vs. the 3.5, I keep my vehicles 15-20 years and have learned the hard way - simpler is usually better. And therefore, if GM's 5.3L - a larger displacement engine can get a 22 mpg rating on a 4WD platform well it seems to me job 1 came up a little short on the 5.0L. If the 5.0L was getting 22 mpg would anyone be buying the 3.5L EB?

The millennial generation is simple to understand - they are stat driven, Mustang is losing sales to the Camaro for one reason and one reason only; no IRS. Sure the first couple of years out the Camaro was going to win, but after that it came down to check boxes, and there is no "IRS" box to check for the current gen Mustang. When the 2015 Mustang comes out with IRS, and a double wish bone front suspension (why not do it?) the stat checkers are going to start focusing on the push-rod V-8 under the hood of the Camaro, and that'll be the end of it...

I am hesitant to believe reported reliability studies, for the simple fact that every person drives differently and each person's knowledge of how to take car of a car is different. For example those of us that do our own brakes recognize that all pads eventually need to be replaced and checking them regularly means the difference between replacing just pads or replacing pads and rotors - generally a difference of about $100-$200 even if you do them yourself. Also I have found that taking your vehicle to some mechanics seems to begat more trips to that mechanic. If you leave the car shop thinking something is amiss, there probably is, get on local emailing lists and use recommended mechanics, here's a hint typically a good mechanic will have a waiting list. Also once your vehicle is off warranty you need to stop taking your vehicle to the dealer and find a reputable mechanic, I stayed on with a Ford dealier with my F150 after it's warranty expired, and suddenly I was spending $1200 a year on it. I started going to a recommended independent mechanic and have spent less than $200 / year over since a made the change, a coincidence perhaps but I doubt it. Now as far as the Explorer/ MyTouch reliability, I fault Ford for developing the relationship with Microsoft to develop MyTouch. Microsoft software is simply the worst and no amount of them promising "they'll make it right" is actually going to make it right. Yes I know Ford will say "we support Microsoft and are standing by them" this is foolish, drop them now switch to a Linux-based system and the issues will melt away. Yes I know the argument "linux was cooked up as a lab experiement", but in truth LINUX is developed by all the top notch developers that companies like Microsoft have laid off because some bean counter says "we can have 10 off-shore developers for 1 of our US based developers". Well developing excellent software isn't improved by having numerous incompentent people, that simply gives you a group of incompenent people that will agree the issues aren't their fault. Sure linux can have issues, however when it does you don't have to deal with a company that instantly goes into CYA mode and will hide those issues unless found and proven. With Linux when there are issues someone finds it and fixes it, no one even has a vested interest in playing CYA games, that's the beauty of open-source.

I test drove a EB yesterday, I have a 5.4 now with cat-back duals and I like the sound of it, so I really like the idea of the 5.0L. However what people are saying about the EB is exactly right, even though we went up a couple of decent hills it never down shifted and i was in a 6.5 ft crew cab, you're always in the power, in that way it's kind of boring to drive, because you don't really need to modulate the accelerator much. My 5.4L on the same hill will down shift, and it will have sound glorious doing that, of course I can also watch my gas gauge needle actively doing down all the while. I would like to see what a 5.0L with DI would do, my guess is that it'd probably still down shift more often though I'd expect the gap to narrow some, and it's not all that big of a gap to begin with, really it seems this world wants to take every delightfull excess known to men, perhaps someone should see fit to preserve the sound of a V-8. Anyway I am looking to replace my F150, today the EB is the objective choice, but I might just hold out another year, perhaps Ford will see fit to add DI to the 5.0L along with an 8 speed tranny and close the gap just enough to let me get another V-8 with a clear conscience.

Hmmm, I'm siding with the deputy on this one, my dad has a 4 cylinder ranger, I borrow it now and then and I really have a hard time getting it up to 75, so I'm siding with the deputy. Unless by chance you happened to have the 4 cylinder variant that had the two extra cylinders.

I appreciate those able to stay on topic, I really wanted to love the Explorer, but I don't. I will wait until after the diesel GC has been out at least six months before making a decision, but I've always been a closet Jeep fan anyway. And of course if they don't want a fortune for the diesel option. Also I want a rear-drive biased SUV preferably with low range. I have a buddy that is on his second GC and says what brought him back was that the Chrysler dealer doesn't nickel and dime him, and clearly goes the extra mile to make things right when issues do occur. I suppose if Ford would release the Expedition with a 3.5 / 5.0L that can break 21 mpg's I'd go for that (why on earth don't they, - I could use the extra room) if not the GC looks pretty good.

I know it'll never happen, but one can dream. I'd actually be happy with a small diesel Expedition capable of a 24 mpg combined rating, if the 2014 GC can get a 28 mpg the Expedition ought to be able to get 24 mpg at minimum.

Any way I can remove this topic? I'm not sure why I posted it to begin with, I knew the answer when I posted it.

I don't know if you've seen the reports, but supposedly the Fiat Boss has green lighted a diesel GC for 2014, European Spec vehicles have been rated a combined 28 mpg rating, with a 5 spd, the US version will likely have at least a 6 spd. The mpg rating seems too good to be true, but if that's for real it's got to be a game changer for the near luxury SUV market. It might even be the vehicle that gets the US market to adopt diesel's en masse. I have been surprised recently by the # of oil burners I see, if those MPG ratings are for real I am going to give the GC a real hard look as my next vehicle.

In all honesty, this was a dumb topic I put out, I don't have an issue with the 5.0L in the F150. And I do know the cam is different, compression is lower, exhaust manifolds are used vs. headers, all of which makes for a better truck tune. I do see at least one other person finds the 360HP number being down 5 HP from the EB engine is convienent, perhaps a coincidence. What I do wonder is, if Ford didn't have a 3.5L EB, how do you think the 5.0L would have been tuned for the F150? Would they have made an effort to get it to at least match the 5.3L in MPG's, or would it have been tuned to complete with the 5.7L engines from RAM and Toyota? Ford typically ups the performance numbers of engines 2-3 three years after their initial release, I'm curious what 2014/2015 will bring for the coyote.

I have to agree with you, unless that truck has a jet engine in the back there is just no way a 4 cylinder Ranger is going to see 139 mph if it's traveling on a public road under it's own power. It will however get 30 mpg's and take a heck of a beating all day long.

Really? So at that point will the Expedition resume sharing the F150's platform? They no longer sell enough of them to justify a dedicated platform, so will they do away with IRS in the Expedition or will IRS become an option for the F150? I heard from a dealer that Ford considered putting IRS on the current generation F150. I suppose they could just have a custom rear section of the frame to provide IRS for the Expedition.

C&D had a good comparison at one time, I can't seem to find it though, if you do you, I had a few words there and the author actually emailed me about it.

Not that I am upset about it, I would rather see a 5.0l EB than the 6.2l. Not that the 6.2 l isn't awesome, but I do think cast iron blocks should be saved for the super duty series.

That is almost word for word Ford's official answer, if your worried about the durability of extruded exhaust pipe vs. a cast manifold just put skid plates on the bottom, if it's an FX4 it has them anyway.

Actually the GT engine has more low end torque than the F150 spec, check any published data.

First, yes you make the same mods you'll get the same results. I did more the put on dual exhaust, also ford racing shorty headers. The downside to this setup is that because it'll rev up much quicker, it can get much worse mileage. I am sure cost is part of the answer, it's far cheaper to put on single exhaust and cast exhaust manifold. All the same it took an effort to drop sixty hp from the 5.0, especially considering the true output of the GT spec engine is over 430. All I'm saying is the EB engine should stand on it's own, why hobble your V8 to make it look better?

So the 5.0L is making 444hp / 380 ft-lbs torque in the BOSS, 420 HP, 390 ft-lbs torque in the GT, and a suspicous 360 HP / 380 ft-lbs torque in the F150. Now first of all the F150 spec engines' numbers are nothing to scoff at and I understand current owners are pretty happy with them, however being 5 HP down to the EB six is awfully convienent. Now I will own a 5.4L F150 4x4, I will say that by simply installing shorty headers and a cat back dual exhaust my truck has noticably more HP and will now average 15+ MPG HWY while running ~ 75 mph, prior to the update exceeding 70 while cruising on the highway meant 12 mpg. Therefore it seems to me a more cost efficient fuel saver would be a 5.0L engine with improved exhaust and DI. More or less the GT version of the 5.0L would do it, let the engines stand on their own vs. purposely handicapping the spectacular engineering Marvel that is the 5.0L (taking nothing away from the 3.5L EB).

First of all Ford has had a 30 MPG truck since the early 90's my dad owns a 94 2wd Ranger 4 cyclinder that has been getting 30 mpg since he bought it used 12 years ago. It's not really clear what you are asking, really. Honestly I don't care, I've owned Nissan's before and with a more limited dealer network getting them fixed is very expensive and parts are always hard to find. Sure the Nissan Titan is a capable vehicle, but if you lose a CV joint in one out in the middle of nowhere likely your truck will be sitting for 2-3 weeks while the part is ordered in. If the part of the solution of a 30 mpg truck involves hybrid technology, count me out, now that the hybrid's are reaching 10 years of age owners are learning that replacing the battery costs them anywhere from $5k plus to about $2k, in other words every penny saved is spent on the replacing the battery.

Given GM's success with the Tahoe, why not just shoe-horn the 3.5L EB into the Expedition as is? With the 3.5L EB under the hood the Expedition beats the Tahoe in mpg's, acceleration, etc. Mpg's and a noticeably stronger engine would take a bite out of Tahoe sales that would make it worth while. Why is Ford continuing to make the 5.4L when the 5.0, 3.5, 6.2L are all available? Why not drop the 5.0L into the Expedition vs. the 5.4L? The engines are close enough alike that it can't be that different, perhaps as a selling point release the DI version of the 5.0L in the Expedition first. GM's Tahoe sales easily double the Expedition sales in any given month of the year, that's a lot of money to be leaving on the table. I really, really don't want to buy a GM - and I say that because the last one my wife made me buy just has too many issues to live with, but then I want a body on frame vehicle, and the V8 2010 Explorers are getting harder to find. I like the Expedition I really do, and I have a lot of respect for the 5.4L - I have one in my '99 F150, on the other hand, I'd rather see the 3.5L EB or 5.0L under hood.

I do have to wonder about Ford's decision to go for the 200 mph mark, sure it's a first for a Mustang and a pony car, but isn't "track-car" a part of the new Mustangs DNA? It's curious that the biggest, baddest Mustang is the only one without cooling vents for it's front brakes in the lower front fascia. It would be easy enough for Ford to add a lower front fascia that has front brake cooling vents and duct work as an option. I also wonder if Ford isn't throwing GM a bone on this one, they know that they aren't doing enough to cool the front brakes to keep them consistent for multiple laps on a track, why was that decision made?

I like the way you think, and I agree; a 5.0L EB possibly with an Iron block would serve as an alternate lower cost option to the big diesels. I've read at least one of the German car companies believes a turbo & supercharged gas engine is superior to a diesel in every way. I would think Ford would want to be on the forefront of that market, what would that be called a SEB?