edselford

Thank you Deanh for the link on Volvo ozone reduction radiator! Interesting edselford

I don’t know. They did invent the start/stop system that is now on every vehicle about 30 years ago! I don’t think SAAB cars exists anymore. If you have anything on the filter please share! thanks edselford

The above is why electric vehicles can only be a part of a larger solution to the CO2 problem. What we need to do is invent a CO2 filter we can put in front of every ICE vehicle that cleans the air while people drive with a goal of getting to a negative CO2 from each ICE vehicle to clean the air at ground level. edselford

The NP 435 has a 1:1 top gear (4 th). . The vehicle speed is limited by the axle ratio and engine rpm. I don’t see why you can’t go as fast as you want obviously limited by the condition of the truck and the local speed limit. If the transmission has an aluminum top cover, its a NP435. If it has a cast iron cover, it would be a Borg Warner T18. Both transmissions have a sliding spur 1 st gear which is a creeper ratio! edselford

I have a 2016 Ford Taurus SEL with all wheel drive that failed at 42,000 miles. Failure mode was terrible smell inside and outside of vehicle and after a 40 mile interstate run at 70mph, vehicle would crab on first right turn off of the freeway. ptu had broken pinion gear and lube turned into grease and came out of the vent! ptu was covered under the 60,000 mile powertrain warranty. engine 3.5 naturally asperated V6 and vehicle has 20” wheels 245R 45 Michelin tires! Its not even an sho but the ptu failed anyways. tires had very even wear and rotated at every oil change. I never got a good answer from ford why my ptu had failed????? Vehicle has 70,000 miles 13 months later with no issues but I realize that if it fails again, it’s going to be my nickel! Ptu packaging in a front wheel drive base vehicle is always an issue. Maybe that’s one reason the new Explorer is rear wheel drive with a conventional transfer case for all wheel drive??? edselford

Thanks HotRunrGuy very good article! If ford wanted an OHC design, they could of easily taken the 6.2 V8 and made it bigger edselford

Bob I think the final drive axle ratio on the Explorer is around 3.67, probably to improve acceleration on the 3.0 ecoboost. On an f150, I suspect the final drive is more like 3.31. So assuming that the tire rolling radius is not too different between the two, the f150 would be at a lower rpm than the Explorer at the same road speed. With the great torque from the 3.5 ecoboost, at road load, the 3.5 ecoboost throttle opening is probably opened more then the 3.0. Greater throttle opening. At 1200rpm this would significantly reduce engine pumping losses, helping get 23 to 28 mpg on a pickup truck! edselford

Now that the 7.3 gas is in production, why doesn’t someone ask Mr. Wolfe the reason the engine is a pushrod engine and not OHC? It is ok to disagree with me on low end torque but for a given piece price level on the engine components, it going to be very difficult to get an OHC engine to the same low rpm torque levels when compared to a pushrod, two valve per cylinder design! Also does any one remember the experimental 777 engine in Hot Rod magazine? I think the bore was 4.22” . I would like to know if this engine was an OHC or a pushrod? Thanks edselford

Looks like a three row Edge to me! No way this is a body on frame Everest design edselford

Maybe ford needs to make the 3.0 V6 ecoboost engine optional on the XLT sport package? use the 385 hp motor not the ST motor. give people a choice, edselford

You can’t compare a 2019 Explorer 3.5 NA to a 2020 2.3 EB because the 2019 has a six speed with about a 6 to one ratio spread where the 2020 has a ten speed with a 7.14 to 1 ratio spread! Obviously the 2020 chassis is going to feel better regardless of engine! Explorer sales are down by quite a bit. The XLTSport package will help some but price versus content needs to be addressed. edselford

Well why has Porsche just released a 718 GTS with a naturally asperated 4 liter six cylinder???? Maybe a modern revised 3.5 naturally asperated V6 is not a bad idea! I could see about 345. HP and about 275 Lbs ft torque. (Port and direct injected) With displacement on demand, we would run on 3 cylinders under light loads match or beat fuel economy of the 2.3 ecoboost. edselford

I think we are saying the same thing. Not everyone wants ecoboost! Why haven’t the other OEM’s gone that way? GM, Toyota Kia Hyundai on similar sized vehicles? Your idea of a V8 is a great idea. Maybe it could be the new 4.8 liter V8 we read about on the new 2021 F150? We could call the V8 the Explorer SST edselford

Ford needs to do one more thing by giving the customer a no cost option to equip the XLT Sports package with a dual injection 3.3 liter or 3.5 liter naturally asperated V6. the explorers would then start flying off the dealer lots! edselford

The old wizard, you are probably right but there are usually many reasons for major design decisions when related to engines and transmissions. pushrod engines provide better low rpm torque than ohc engines. The parasitic losses are lower. If ford ever does an aluminum block version, Cylinder deactivation is easier and cheaper to do on an ohv design. The other thing is Long range plans always get revised. I would not be surprised if E series was all going away at one time and someone figured out that a transit cut van would not cover everything they had with E ! edselford