meyeste
-
Posts
185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by meyeste
-
-
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?
-
If the numbers were right, I think a 5.0EB would take away from the diesel market. Taking the 3.5 numbers and extrapolating to 5.0 liters, that would be 520 HP and 600 ft-lbs for the 5.0. Turn the HP down a bit and keep the torque curve flat, and I would replace my diesel with that instead of with a 6.7 since the 5.0 should be $5-6k LESS than the diesel. Hell, had that been available last year when I bought my truck, that's what I would be driving now!
Big question though...would the AL block handle that? I think it would have to go to iron block to support that and be viable in a SD.
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?
-
The 2013 Fusion is a major step up in styling for the Fusion, my bet is it will reach the 300,000 in sales mark first year (1 will go to me). I wonder how popular would the Fusion have to become (what sales mark) before Ford considers a two-door variant?
-
Bobcat was brilliant, it used PFI but used E85 direct Injection to control detonation.
Sadly, the cost of two fuel systems and a block as strong as a diesel was way more
expensive than doing an emission compliant diesel that Super Duty buyers wanted.
NoX compliant diesels have Urea exhaust after treatment although some diesels under 2.0 liters
can get away with trap and release NOX strategies (VW) it doesn't work with bigger engines.
While Ecoboost 5.0 sounds great, the packaging and plumbing would be a nightmare,
you could get 90% by intercooled Supercharged DI set up, a lot neater package...
I have to ask wouldn't the EB 5.0 packaging pretty much just match the 3.5L EB?
I saw a Crew Cab Raptor the other day and it was simply awesome, I am pretty sure the ground actually shook as it when past. I don't know if perhaps an after market exhaust was on that monster but I'll cease and desist calls for a replacement for the 6.2L. I live on the east coast but am trying to convince my wife we should move to Colorado - where I could see actually buying a Raptor, but out here I don't see a use for one unless I lived closer to the outer banks or the eastern shore.
I am saddened with the higher gas prices because I know this likely means an end to the V-8 in just about everything but the high end sports cars and trucks.
-
I ordered the manual. Don't like the elec. for not working when you really need it.
Each to his own of course, I have a '99 F150 with the electric switch with electric lockers and have never had an issue with them. My father has an F150 that did have a problem, he says it was a vacuum hose that became clogged he was able to get it working again, the electrical components of the system did not have an issue. He did know how to crawl under the truck and use some switch to engage 4x4 and did this for a while until talked him into getting it fixed correctly.
I will say having a switch on my dash board that will switch into 4x4 "on the fly" has been a plus. At least a couple of times I have hit a corner on a dirt road and had the back end begin to swing out, all I had to do was switch it into 4x4 hit the gas and I recovered quickly. Also once on the road in busy traffic I hit a patch of ice on a corner, had I not been able to switch into 4x4 it would have been a multi-car accident for sure as it was I switched into 4x4 and brought it back under control instantly.
So I'd have to say I'm clearly in the camp that is all for the electronic shift on the fly 4x4, also I am happy with my limited slip differential, I've never had an instance when it didn't lock when it was needed.
-
Hello for starters. Sorry that my first post leads straight for help, but im out of options. I have a 2000 expedition 5.4 4x4. I have had it now for about a year and a half. Nothing done to it, just aftermarket wheels and put on an aftermarket remote starter. Before i put the remote starter on. I had an issue one time with the truck not starting. I turned the key got all the bells whistles and lights but the truck didnt even turn over. It left me stranded. Came back to it the next day it started right up. Hmmm. So i jumped on the internet for a fix. Got the starter solenoid may be faulty. Replaced it. Started fine for about a week, then it happened again. Checked the battery next. Since i just got the truck i figured i would replace it myself. So i got a good new battery. Started right up, all was good for about a week. Then i started getting voltage lights and dimming so i knew my altenator was going. I replaced the altenator and all was well for about 2 weeks. But the problem came back. It just wont start on some days. Took it to ford they replaced my cables that went to the battery all the way to the starter under the bottom. They said the starter relay or whatever in the steering column looked fine it wasnt burnt or anything. Worked fine for about a week. Problem came back again. So i jumped under the bottom and saw that the starter really looked like crap since it was original 12 years old. I replaced the starter. It worked fine again, but for only about a week. So now i have a new battery,cables,solenoid,altenator,and starter. Guess what. Yesterday it wouldnt start again. I called ford and told them whatever they did, didnt work. So i had it towed back to my house. Once i got it there guess what. It started right up.
Im going out of my mind, I dont know what else to do, and at 200 dollars a trip im almost ready to blow this damn truck up in place. Does anybody have any advice or help for a working man that dont have the money to keep sinking into his vehicle. i had a similar issue with a Mercury Sable, the issue then was an electronic control module. It was due to a short in the module and would only occur when the car was warm, if I let it cool down it would eventually start, but sometimes it would start right up after a few minutes. It was a pain in the ass to find because I actually took the module off the car and tested it at NAPA, their machine said it was good. Also I replaced it with a NAPA part and that one didn't work at all. I would say that though this may not be your exact problem, if your symptoms are similar (only happens when it's warmed up) there is probably an electrical short in some electrical logic component.
-
Considering how well the 3.5L EB engine is being received in the F150, how about adding the technology to the 5.0L? I would suggest this engine could replace the 6.2L as the high-end engine in the F150 and the Expedition (if Ford ever sees fit to update the Expedition engine line up). Considering Mr. Mulally's proclamation that Ford is a technology company, it makes sense for your top models to have the top technology and the 6.2L while a great engine in it's own right, loses technological bragging rights to a Twin Turbo DI 5.0L.
Now a DI 5.0L is fully expected with the 2015 model of the Mustang and given GM's plans to have DI on all next generation small block V-8's Ford has to be planning to release this DI on the 5.0L. And I have heard that the SVT team has a put together at least one EB 5.0L, so let's have it already.
-
1
-
-
Does Ford have anything like GM's magnetic ride control in the pipeline?. Considering how well the magnetic ride control equipped ZL-1 performs there is definitely something to it. The MT comparison of the ZL-1 and BOSS LS, seemed to indicate the ZL-1 was remarkably better in handling than the BOSS, granted it's 10,000 more expensive. While the magnetic ride control is probably too expensive to put on lower cost, higher-volume vehicles, that may well change someday.
-
I'm just a little skeptical as to how the EB2.0 will fair in the Explorer. That is a lot of truck to be hauling around with that little engine. Its not so much the power being produced, we know that'll be okay its just on the durability side, people may hammer it harder all the time since the weight of that vehicle isn't exactly small.
I have to agree, I personally have no use for the 2.0L Front Drive Explorer, these people should just buy minivans, that's what they really need. As far as an SUV goes I need to be able pull 1-2 horses, so the new Explorer just won't cut it. For me the decision is either the F150 crew or the Expedition, I can't say the Expedition is a consideration with the 5.4L when I know the 5.0L or 3.5L EB versions are soon to be released.
It amazes me that Ford does this (hold back well-known technology from the Expedition or IRS DI from the Mustang), most people that haul know Ford has the new engines in the F150 and it's just a matter of time before the Expedition is updated, so if you already own a Ford getting a few more years out of it is a given, why not wait....
-
Expy slated to recieve the 3.5 Eco-boost......
Why would you say the 5.0L is at death's door? Just me I'd rather see an EB 5.0L than the 6.2L.
-
Any idea when the 5.0L in the F150 will get Direct Injection? Supposedly all versions of GM's 4 gen small block V-8 will have DI, so even if Ford doesn't want to incur the added costs, competitively they will have to ante-up, why not pre-empt? My guess is with DI the 5.0L will see a 1-2 mpg efficiency improvement, not that I have calculations to back that up.
-
I'm pretty sure if the 56 mpg requirements come to pass, all Ford's cars will have some type of electric drive assist, I believe Popular Mechanic's ran an article supposedly with Ford's assistance showing how this would work.
As I recall the Pop Mech article showed electric assist used in-line with the 5.0L drive train, producing a car that when babied could get 40 mpgs and accelerate like a bat out of H!
-
The Mustang exists now without a global platform. Why would it need a 4-door variant to survive in the future? And there's absolutely zero reason to insist that if the Mustang does happen to share a platform with a sedan in the future that the sedan must be called Mustang. I contend that it must not be called that for fear of diluting what the Mustang is.
When I see silly things, I respond with silly answers. Being a moderator has nothing to do with it. And hey, you're the one using toilet language.
Why is a 4 door Mustang silly? It's not, it would be Ford's greatest vehicle. Sure the Fusion is a great car, the Taurus eh, but a 4 door RWD sports sedan with over 400 hp? I believe the evolution of the Mustang will take it there. A sedan variant would actually serve as an ambassador to those that have completely given up on American cars and bring them in. I live in European sports car central - DC, but I see more Mustangs all the time. A Mustang GT driving down the GW with HID lights front and back is more of a head turner than an M3 or S4; A four door version would probably cause accidents.
-
I like this idea, while we're at it Ford should build a 4-door Fronco...
I appreciate your support.
-
As FordBuyer pointed out, is there a 4-door 911? No. And there won't be. As for wanting soft touch materials, perhaps you "could give a shit" but the rest of the industry demands it now in every vehicle, even subcompacts these days. Just because it's a Mustang doesn't mean it shouldn't have a nice interior.
And really? Comparing the A4 to a Mustang??
The Panamera is pretty much a stretched 911, albeit a front engined version, I'll accept soft touch, etc, but still I'd like to see a 4 door Mustang. What's more I don't see how a global Mustang platform can exist without 4 door Variant.
As for an A4 and the Mustang GT - well check the price point it's very similar. Keep in mind I am interested in the Mustang now because it now a world class car, the interior is nice, it handles well and has best in class technology, it's interesting you could say the same thing about an A4. In short I won't be drag racing between stoplights, but will be hitting the twisties with spirit.
How did you get a "moderator" label, as you are simply demeaning my post with your comments.
-
This. Stretched 4-door Mustang-based sedan = Falcon or T-bird. Preferably Falcon, as I'd like to see a low volume/high profit 2-seat T-bird compete with the Vette. Hey, Falcon even begins with "F" so it fits with Ford's stupid naming convention.
These names just don't resonate with most folks anyway, especially Falcon. I remember Falcons - barely, it doesn't instill a want to buy. And T-bird is dead plain and simple, if Ford does a high performance door door it'll be the GT. Ford cannot alienate 2 door Mustang loyalists unless they stop building 2-door Mustangs, however there are those of us - a 68 coupe was my first car that would love to have the Mustang nameplate but as mentioned can't quite live with a 2 door with a family of four.
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
4 door Mustang!!!
-
I think I would vomit if I saw a 4 door mustang. This has always been a sports car, and hopfully will alway be.
I like the idea of larger higher performance engines but please lets keep for speed and performance.
I did see a SN 95 with 1 Adult and 5 kid passengers, you would be suprised where a kid can fit.
Well here's the thing Mustang loyalists aren't exactly chomping at the gates for the current Mustang, so you vomit - you probably don't own a Mustang anyway. Plain and simple people with Money - I'll throw myself in that category, want a sports car, however we have families so as much as a 2 door appeals to me, the reality is I don't want to torture my kids so a 4 door sports sedan is what I'll have. I love the Mustang GT but an Audi A4 fit's the need for about the same price, as much as buying an Audi or BMW makes me want to vomit, I'll get one because objectively it's the only choice (buying a Chrysler is even worse). Perhaps Ford doesn't call it a Mustang - call it an 'M4', tone down the front end just a tad, put two more doors on it and sell the thing for crying out loud!!
Still the 4 door porsche has been accepted with open arms, it's time to think out of the box. A 4 door AWD Mustang would be America's darling I am absolutely sure of that.
As for Ford creating a 4 door sports sedan and putting the Lincoln name place on it, I just am not for that I'm a Ford fan, I have no intention of ever buying a Lincoln.
-
A 4 door Mustang, after all truck buyers surprised you by buying more V-6's and v-8's I'll bet you Mustang buyers will surprise the heck out of you and buy more 4 door mustangs than 2 door Mustangs. It seems to me a direct injected 3.7L or 5.0L is going to allow the heavier Mustang 4-door to get nearly the same mileage. I'm one of those that would love a Mustang GT but look at the back seat and just can't put my kids back there, I bet there are a lot of us.
.
-
The Expedition needs ford's new 6.2. If it was offered, I would not be driving my Denali.
I have to admit I have heard rumors that Ford is going to bring out a 5.8L engine based on the 5.0L and this sounds like a MUCH better top of the line engine than the 6.2L. In comparison test the 3.5L TT kicks the 6.2L's butt and the 5.0L is able to match or nearly match it. In the 4x4 the 5.0L is getting much better mileage and its nearly as strong, frankly I believe as do most Ford detuned the truck 5.0L to give the 3.5L room and of course likely so they can easily kick it up a notch when Chevy finally gets off there arse and replaces the 5.3L.
-
Heck, you can't rock climb in a Durango.
And in any event, I question the methodology here---If it were a true test of off-roading chops no way the Pilot should've completed the course if 5 other vehicles failed.
Not that there was a course. This was just idiots in a sandbox.
Actually 3 cross-overs had the AWD fail and three didn't; the Honda, Toyota and Dodge didn't have issues.
-
You are no doubt aware that the Explorer has had a clutch based system for almost 20 years.
Yes, however not all clutch based center differentials are built the same, I've never read a report of an Explorer or Expedition's center clutch pack over heating. As a matter of fact has I understand it the Explorer was the first application of a clutch based center differential by borg-warner. In initial testing they identified issues with the clutch pack over heating and changed the design so this didn't happen. So apparently the system in the new Explorer didn't get a similar design.
-
Why even consider an '11/'12 Explorer for off-roading/mudding? Because some trucks in the past that were called Explorers were good at it? Serious question.
Ford claimed the new Explorer would be "as capable" as the old one, well I've never heard of the Control-trac system overheating in the Expedition or the Explorer. In fact I've heard people say the Control-Trac system was very, very good - unstoppable, bullet proof, this is what we expect from Ford, let's insist we get it and not make excuses or accept them.
-
Who knows? It's not like they performed a replicable failure analysis test, or even ran the vehicle through the same route, with the same climbs, descents, etc.
There's so little meaningful info in that summary that you can't draw any independent conclusion.
And what do you know about the value of locking vs. open differentials as opposed to independent brake operation overheating a clutchpack AWD system when you don't even know what Ford vehicles are equipped with clutchpack AWD (hint: dang near all of them)?
Sorry, but don't expect me to jump on your bandwagon when all you've got is a crappy comparison test and woefully inadequate awareness of Ford's AWD systems (like "Oh it's so awful that Ford went with a clutchpack AWD system in the new Explorer!!!" which displays an incredible ignorance about the mechanisms used in Intelligent AWD & ControlTrac)
I'm a Ford fan and a proud Ford owner, I didn't get that way making excuses, the Ford's I have owned and those I have rented I have always been ecstatic with my '99 F150 has been so dependable that it's not a question that I'll replace it with another. However when my 89 Sable need to be replaced I looked at the 99 Fords and couldn't find anything I liked I bought and Oldsmobile intrigue and were Oldsmobile still around I'd buy other I love that car. Now that car is ready for replacement, we have 2 kids now so I'm thinking maybe a SUV. However I will make an objective decision when buying it's replacement and objectively I could not buy the new Explorer; what I end up with I'll get because objectively it's the best choice, being a Ford is not requisite. I am posting here because I'd like to see Ford make an Explorer that is the best objective buy. It isn't like I am the only person giving it bad reviews consider MT which make no bones about stating the Mustang is head and shoulders better than anything in it's class, couldn't possibly give the F-150 truck more accolades doesn't have anything good to say about the new Explorer.
-
1
-
-
Furthermore, sand is sand. It's not mud, it's not snow, it's not ice. It's sand. Judging an AWD system based on its inability to barrel through a dune at top speed is similar to condemning a lawn mower because it's incapable of winning an drag race against a Corvette.
Sometimes you need to ask yourself "why am I making excuses?". Sand is a special case sure, but the Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai were driven the same exact way and didn't over-heat. I know I was promised the new Explorer would be as capable as the old. well it seems this vehicle is not even close.
Sadly borg-warner pioneered the infinitely variable center differential using the 1995 Explorer as a test mule. They identified why it was the system overheated and designed them not to have that issue ever, in any situation (which is why some did and some didn't fail). The fact that it over heats is a design characteristic, it wasn't made to handle the heat generated in poor traction situations. For me this design characteristic is a problem I own land in hill country and if I were to be in the new Explorer and get caught in a sudden down pour likely I'd be stranded, well I am not going to knowingly put myself or my family in that situation; verdict I won't even consider buying this new Explorer. Perhaps if the Expedition gets the new engines however that new Wrangler unlimited looks workable though, and it is going to get around 23 mpgs, it seems a fair compromise.
-
1
-
Stop holding your breath
in Expedition Forum
Posted · Edited by meyeste
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.