edselford
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by edselford
-
-
I’m sure 6.2 capital equipment will be utilized as the volumes of the 7.3 increase.
think of how we got the current 5.0 DOC V8?
they maintained the 4.6/5.4 bore centers so that the new 5.0 block could be machined on the existing investment! The same is probably the case with the 7.3V8
If totally new equipment was used at a new center distance, the 7.3 never would of made it past the cost/investment committee!
it will be interesting to see how the 2021 5.0 V8 does in fuel economy with the new ford designed cylinder deactivation system. All f150 engines may be pretty close on fuel economy!
edselford
-
When the 7.3 was being developed, I figured that ford would bite the bullet and make a true midrange truck V8 with cylinders surrounded by coolant. I guessed at bore centers about 118 mm.
I was surprised To learn the 7.3 is a siemezed block where the duty cycle is so much more severe than light truck.
For sure, all designs have some compromises but I did not expect this.
edselford
-
1
-
-
The 6.2 tooling and equipment was not that old so I would think ford refurbished it and I would guess that the bore center Mary referred to of 4.65” is the max they could stretch to without throwing away allot of equipment that was probably not fully depreciated. Their elimination of the 6.2 V8 would also support Mary’s statement.
edselford
-
1
-
-
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
-
Yes retiring early is your only option!
Looks like Brian Wolfe did an outstanding job designing the new 7.3 V8.
I was surprised the cylinders are seimesed but with a 115mm bore centers and a 107.2mm bore I guess that is the only way to do it.
I do see slots milled between the cylinders for water cooling though.
Being at 115 mm I seem to think the 6.2 SOC
V8 equipment in Romeo could be retooled to produce more 7.3 V8’s regardless where the machining is done.
edselford
-
GM at 6.6 liters and Ram at 6.4 liters !
unlikely ford would do a base engine smaller than 6.5 for mid range trucks.
A 5.8 liter would work well for the F150 though!
edselford
-
Well with the Romeo plant closing, I suspect ford would retool the 6.2V8 block machining line to make higher volumes of the 7.3 family!
Ford could easily create a 6.6 V8 utilizing the 7.3 stroke of 101mm and a bore of 102mm.
Another benefit is a savings per unit of about $135 going from SOC to push rod!
edselford
-
rperez817
thanks for your inputs. I had not read the MT article but based my comments on looking at the 2020 Explorers on the dealer lot.
The 2019 Explorer Sport was a bargain but the 2020 ST is not!
Also a 3.5 NA V6 would probably get better fuel economy than the 3.3 V6 if it were direct and port injected with roller followers for valve actuation. Basically the 3.5 ecoboost engine out of the Ford F-150 but without the turbos!
The increased torque would allow using a faster final drive ratio, say a 3.27 versus a 3.73!
edselford
-
To compete head to head with the Kia Telluride and Hyundai Palisade Ford needs to up the game on the Explorer!
The pricing is too high on current Explorer for what you get in the XLT
Four cylinder, non leather seats, strut front suspension.
I had a 2011 Ford Explorer XLT with leather seats, first generation 3.5 V6. It was a great car. Only one problem, overheating because the radiator fan seized and engine went into limp home mode!
maybe Ford management need to think about offering an XLT plus which would include the following:
leather heated seats
3.3 naturally aspirated V6 current generation with dual fuel injection and roller finger followers for hydraulic cam
sport appearance package, 20” wheels
double wishbone front suspension from the Aviator
ford could of hit it out of he ballpark with the 2020 Explorer but probably didn’t.
edselford
-
Everest could slot between the Explorer and the current Edge.
The design has a low range in the 4 wheel drive transfer case!
More of an ideal off road vehicle. This cannot be the Bronco because to out do the wrangler ford will have to basically copy it with the Long front hood and axles as far to the corners as possible.
when ranger gets upgraded ford will look at Everest for North America.
front wheel/transverse engine platforms front wheel based all wheel drive has many inherent disadvantages versus old rear wheel drive all wheel drive platforms.
Everest is a refinement of the 2010 Ford Explorer!
edselford
7.3L V8 Godzilla now available as crate engine.
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
The slot is probably for coolant flow to keep the top piston ring from failing in the 100 hour/ 100% load dyno test.
the design has oil squirters for the underside of the pistons to cool them.
In regard to a smaller unit, I could see a 6.3 liter aluminum block version with a deck of around 9” if ford wants to throw everything at it for F150/ Raptor but I doubt it because ecoboost reduces CO2 on average by 15% for a given level of performance and this by itself is very important to ford.
Im sure an ecoboost 3.5 is more expensive to manufacture than a 6.2 LT V8 from GM!
edselford