Jump to content

None

edselford

Member
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

733 profile views
  1. Where will the 2022 recently announced 6.8 liter from the ford Windsor engine plant be used? F 150 or F250, F350????? I assume it’s a smaller version of the 7.3V8? edselford
  2. edselford

    New light & medium duty news

    You might be right Mary. If GM is going to have an 8.0 V8 gas?? Then the 115 mm of the 7.3 is too small and I can see something new at ford with a wider bore center! cant find much out there though on 6.X edselford
  3. edselford

    New light & medium duty news

    Does anyone know what a 6.X liter or a 6.8 liter new engine at the ford Windsor engine plant is? I assume it would be a derivative of the 7.3 V8 ? I could see this for an F250? edselford
  4. I would like to know if we have another misprint? Should it of said 4.8 not 6.8????? This would make sense for f150. & Mustang? Or is this a smaller version of the 7.3 V8 and the text should of said f250? looking at the investment for Windsor/Essex engine plant, we are looking at either a smaller bore for the current 5.0 or a 95 mm stroke and 107 mm bore for the current 7.3! I welcome any information. edselford
  5. I stand corrected on the ecoboost Taurus limited. It must of been a 2.0 not a 3.5! I enjoyed the explanation given by bbf2530! yes years ago you could get a Galaxie with either a 240 I 6, 289 V8, 352, 390, 427 and 428. Probably corporate average fuel economy requirements are also forcing companies like ford to limit the options given the difference in fuel economy between the 3.0 ecoboost and the 2.3 ecoboost engines. edsrlfird
  6. It’s called target marketing with parts that are already there. Obviously ford would rather sell Explorer ST and Platnium versions. They could price for it! the real question is would the incremental profit due to higher Explorer volumes be greater than the incremental loss of profit if the people that would now not order the ST and Platnium? MPs I have actually seen a Taurus ecoboost in a limited in the flesh. edselford
  7. I think the 3.5 ecoboost in the Taurus was a stand alone option for a number of years! The key is to price it right. Not everyone wants the Platnium Explorer, just too pricey. The old guys like me are more interested in smooth ride and power, not the ST! Going around the corner at .86 G’s is not a priority for me now that I am 72! edselford
  8. For the 2022 Ford Explorer, why doesn’t ford offer the 385 hp 3.0 ecoboost engine as a stand alone option? Could you imagine Explorer XLT’s with the sports appearance package and 3.0 flying off the dealer lots faster than ford could make them? It would be nice to have an XLT with more go power! edselford
  9. Looking at the new Bronco Sport reminds me of my wife’s 2012 Ford Escape. The dimensions are very close and the look is very similar except for the grille! obviously the 2012 Escape had a 2.5 NA I4 and a 4 speed automatic. The new Bronco Sport has the 8 speed and ecoboost I3 or I4 what do you guys think? edselford
  10. Well, I understand why the 2019 Taurus had to go. The 2020 Explorer architecture changed to CD 6 rear wheel drive based! Like someone has already said if there is the demand, Taurus with CD 6 platform is easily doable. It’s all economics ROI, IROR, payback etc. I also don’t need two SUV’s and would prefer. Driving a sedan! Somewhere, I saw a Taurus rendering made from CD 6 Explorer. It looked pretty good! ford could make a Taurus and a modern Lincoln Town Car out of the CD6 when enough people get tired of SUV/CUV products. edselford
  11. Ford never offered aluminum cylinder heads on a production FE V8. I think it was because of the cooling problem Mary mentioned. I had a 1966 galaxies with a 390 V8 four barrel auto lite 4100 carburetor, C6 auto, 3.0 axle. Very good dependable car but when I turned it off after running it hard the water temp would actually go up for about ten to 15 minutes. I don’t know if the coolant was boiling and later condensing?.... edselford
  12. I should of said rod to stroke ratio of 1.6 for the 7.3 and around 1.83 for a smaller displacement version that maintains the 245.11 mm deck height. sorry edselford
  13. Thank you Mary for info. Your idea of staying with current deck height makes allot of sense given the 7.3 bore to stroke ratio of around 1.6. A smaller bore and stroke to get to say 6.2/6.3 liters would put the bore to stroke ratio around 1.83. The 390 FE V8 had an unusual design cylinder head and intake where the intake seemed to become part of the cylinder head with the valve covers going over both and the push rods going through openings in the intake. I never saw this before but Chevy used this same design concept years later On the original 2.8 liter 60 degree pushrod V6. Thanks Again edselford
  14. Does anyone know the “exact” key dimensions of the new 7.3V8? Specifically 1. Piston Compression height 2. Connecting Rod length 3. Deck Height 4. Bore Centers, 115mm or 4.53”???? Edselford
×