edselford

To jpd80 The cylinder deactivation system ford picked worked but did not pass durability testing. There were two competing systems at the time. Ford chose the less costly system and the rest is history edselford

To 7 Mary 3 mary interesting picture. When it first came out, l thought it was a 7 liter version of the 6.2 SOC ford V8. I think that is actually wrong! It may have been a phase I prototype of the now new 7.3 V8. Narrow valve covers and in some discussion the bore was at 4.220” same as the 7.3 Also, if you take a picture with a wide angle lens, say a 25 or 30 mm, things seem to extend farther than they should. (Valve covers) edselford

I was driving on Michigan roads, mostly paved but pretty bad because of the severe winters. I did learn that on the Taurus, they have two different front struts. One is for normal duty with three attaching points and another for severe duty with four attaching points. I guess the severe duty was used on Taurus/Explorer police and possibly the SHO. Yes, I was shocked at the cost off replacing a strut and if one goes, ford recommends changing both! edselford

Guys Thank you for your inputs on this subject! After reading article pointed out by CoolScoop, I don’t think it’s going to be an Explorer for me. I had two Taurus’s and a 2011 Explorer that needed strut replacements after only 40,000 miles. I also wondered why vehicles ride quality was great at highway speeds but poor at low speeds and now I know why. edselford

Why would ford have a new vehicle platform with two different front suspensions? the new Aviator utilizes SLA design and the New Explorer utilizes s modified strut design. At first I thought the Aviator would require a short, long a arm design for the air suspension but the aviator is offered with a conventional spring as base! Is this cost driven? We made the full circle in the last 30 years. From SLA to simple strut and now back edselford

To Ifeg Your not the only old guy here! I’m 70 years old and worked at Ford Engine division between 1968 and 1975 first as a test car driver and later as a product development engineer in fuel systems. The discussion is interesting about the new 7.3 V8. With enough money, you can do almost anything but you must make a profit when your done or you will be done in by the market! I do remember the 1968 thunderbird 429 as the first application of the 385 series. It was not any faster than the 428 but used more gas! The absolute best street engine in that time was the 428 cobra jet. It could burn rubber from 0 all the way up to 113 mph. The 460 never did anything but move very large cars and motor homes. Volume on F250/350 was very low. From what I remember the Chevy 348 was designed as a truck engine. It became the 409 which always beat our 406 FE V8 on the street. So a truck engine can become a performance engine with the right cam, cylinder heads and fuel system. The 6.2 can be bored and stroked to 7.0 liters. putting displacement on demand on it is more costly to do than on a push rod engine like the 7.3. edselford

If you wanted to take the basic architecture of the 7.3 and build an aluminum block version at 7.0 liters, the bore could stay at 107.2mm and a stroke of 97mm would get you there! However, if your going to do an aluminum block say for Mustang or F150, the next question would be do you adjust the deck height down to say about 237mm from 256mm? Probably! When your done, it would be pretty low volume say 20,000 per year. Very difficult to justify unless someone other than Windsor does it! cylinder head design looks good even for a 605 hp naturally aspirated 7.0 liter version of the 7.3. edselford

HP and torque numbers look real good for expected duty cycle! Reliability and fuel economy is most important for these trucks. Greater horsepower and torque requires more fuel any way you want to get it. edselford

Thanks guys. Interesting crossection. Sure looks like a frame rail to me! Does this mean the Explorer has a separate frame with body mounted on it or does this mean frame integrated with body?????? thanks Edselford

I saw a group of 2020 Explorer vehicle’s on a vehicle delivery truck yesterday and got a very good look at the underside of these vehicles. I noticed that there was a flexible black paper type cover on each side of the vehicles where you would normally find a frame rail! Does anyone know what this is for ? chassis design looks unitized but probably has side frame rails with top open directly welded to floor?? Does anyone know for sure? Thanks edselford

I just wonder if the 7.3 gas V8 engine will spawn different displacement variations? Maybe a 6.6V8 and an 8.0 liter V8 for heavy duty truck applications. The 6.6 could completely replace the current 6.2V8 Also, an. Aluminum block 7.0 V8 might be possible for Mustang and Light truck. Applications. (107.2mm X 97mm) Does anyone know the bore center on the new 7.3V8? Some time ago I Suggested 117mm but That was a guess looking at the blocks in the Windsor engine plant annex. Probably very close to the old FE series V8 of 4.63”?????? edselford

It probably makes sense to Waite until T6 is upgraded and market stabilizes before Ford considers an Everest/ Endeavour for this market. By then however, we may be in a sea of SUVs from every OEM given the profit potential versus regular sedans! I just like the toughness and durability of a Body on frame vehicle and the north/ south architecture which make the inclusion of low range possible! (Use of transfer case) edselford

I just wonder if Wayne Assembly will be producing three different BOF vehicles not just two? It seems to me that the T6 platform includes the Ranger pickup, Everest SUV and the new Bronco. There is a real market for the Everest in this country, off road capable, larger than the Edge but smaller than the new 2020 Explorer. The Bronco could fit on a modified frame with a unique body. so is there going to be three distinct vehicles at Wayne assembly? I do remember Wayne building the second generation f150 based Bronco their and the F150 many years ago EDSELFORD

Thanks YT90SC that looks like about $2000! We go thru design cycles every 15 to 20 years where a new group of engineers motivated by magazine car writers think that changing car architectures is the better way to go! went from double wishbone front suspension to. McPherson strut and now back to modern day double wishbone. All wheel drive from transfer case on demand to PTU with in line coupling and now back to transfer case active electronic control! New is not always better! edselford

Well interesting discussion. I did not know police and fleet can order 3.3 NA V6 in 2020 Explorer. why? A segment of the customers would prefer simplicity and long term durability. I’m sure sound cancellation technology used to cover up some nvh issues due to 4 cylinder. I have had two ecoboost engines a 1.6 and 1.5 liter in escapes. They feel great at lower engine speeds but run out of steam above 70MPH. also my 2013 Ford Taurus fwd with 3.5 liter and 2.77 final drive got better highway mileage than either ecoboost engines. its interesting for me with all these turbos because in 1983 I participated in a study at Borg Warner to determine if the car companies would need turbo chargers for future downsizing! we said a definite yes but we did not have the timing quite right. The first Borg Warner turbo designs were based upon IHI designs made in Japan. edsel ford

Dear sirs why would you not offer the 3.3 liter V6 naturally aspirated engine out of the Ford F-150 as an alternative to the base 2.3 liter eco boost? I am sure such a drivetrain with the ten speed would be smoother at low engine speeds than the 2.3EB please advise edselford

I finally got back from Florida (used my wife’s Escape! picked up my 2016 Taurus from the dealer. They replaced the PTU completely! Two teeth were missing from hypoid drive gear. And I’m not really too hard on my car since it’s not an SHO but just looks like one. this must be a common problem with Taurus/ Explorer All Wheel Drive vehicles. thankfully, vehicle’s 60,000 mile drivetrain warranty covered the repair cost. Does anyone know what I would of been charged out of warranty for the repair? thanks edselford

Ford could of easily expand the 6.2 V8 to 7.3 liters. There are many reasons they did not. I think they needed a gas engine for the F450/550/650 that made the most sense ie lowest cost, lowest frictional losses, best low end torque and best fuel economy for intended duty cycle. If someone wants a V8 at about 7.0 liters, for mustang, it would probably be a dual overhead cam version of the 6.2. The question always is can the financial results justify the investment and resources given the SC 5.2 V8 availability. Also, both GM LS gen 1 through 5 and the new ford 7.3. Engineblock archetectures look allot like the old Buick 364/401 V8 engine block! edselford

All very interesting info and discussion on the new 7.3 V8 and the GM 6.6 V8. The design looks like a bulked up 351 W with added technology of variable valve timing at much wider bore centers with GM LS heart shaped combustion chamber. Mary you are right about machined slots between cylinders! We did that on current Chrysler FCA 3.6 liter V6. Great way to have stronger block and H2O where you really need it! Ford FE and original Chevy 2.8 V6 had narrow cylinder heads that had cooling issues because of lack of water passages in critical places. I’m sure ford would not make that mistake again in new engine. Actually ford went backwards when the Lincoln Y block was discontinued. 4.63” bore centers, and they tooled the FE andMEL! also, expect a smaller version of the new ford 7.3 to eventually replace the 6.2 doc V8 some time in the future. edselford

Well, a 4” bore and 4” stroke gets you to 402 cid or 6.6 liters. based on experience with first generation small block in cast iron, no need for wider bore centers. Expect higher deck to around 9.8” to have acceptable r/s ratio. edselford

Thanks sorry I was off a little but I would suspect the 75W140 is used because the PTU is not large enough to hold a quart of fluid and torque is continuously transferred to rear thru coupling causing very high PTU temptures. To avoid failing the hypoid and other gears they have to use a 140. edselford

Guys thank you for suggestions. Car is an all wheel drive. 15W-150 gear lube used in PTU and rear differential. because smell surrounds the vehicle when engine off for extended periods of time, probably not leak but I will check! I realized what smell was like yesterday. 30 years ago When I worked for Borg Warner selling the T5 manual 5 speed to Ford for the Mustang GT. mustang at the time had a tremec 4 speed manual overdrive transmission. we built a Mustang 302 V8 a hi rise intake, marine cylinder heads Holley 4 barrel carb demo vehicle. It took one ride by Bill Ford himself to approve the program. I built many T5’s in that time and lube used was first gear lube that smelled like the Taurus problem I have now. Thirty years is a long time ago! It’s at the ford dealer waiting to be worked on since it’s not drivable with the smell. so probably PTU related. Dealer just called. The entire PTU needs replacement. Wow now I know one reason ford is switching to rear wheel drive based Explorer. This must be a common failure with current Explorer/ Taurus AWD not enough real estate to do a PTU correctly! Guys thank you for your help. edselford

I have a 2016 Taurus SEL with all wheel drive and 20” tires. Vehicle purchased in June 2016. I have driven the vehicle 49,000 trouble free mile with only oil and filter changes. Todayvehicle started making very bad smell coming thru the heating system . Something like a natural gas type smell not a gasoline smell. Checked for antifreezes leak and nothing is leaking or missing. No gasoline leaks. Had to drive home today 15 degrees from river view to Brighton mi with heat turned off and windows down. Also smell just as bad standing next to car. Does anyone have any ideas what could be causing this thanks edselford

If you work thru the annual volumes for chassis cab, F150 thru F 550 and assume slightly lower diesel penetration than today, working the numbers results in approximately 140,000 annual volume for the 7X V8 engine program. This would.include a 7.3, a 7.0 and a smaller 6.3 liter version of the same basic design. Think Chrysler B and RB series V8 and you won’t be too far off! edselford

Excellent question! If 7.3 liter V8 has same architecture as the 6.2 V8, bore centers would be 115mm. It would need to have a taller deck height at around 10. However, if the 7.3 is a completely new architecture, I suspect the bore centers will be increase to around 117mm, close to the old FE series of the 1960s. With 117mm bore centers, we would have enough room for water between each bore with ample wall thinness for a couple of overbites in the reman business. Deck height would be around 256mm to allow for a heavy duty piston compression height and say a 1.63 rod to stroke ratio. If we take this same block and utilize a shorter stroke to get to 7.0 liters, the con rod would get longer and the piston compression height would get shorter giving us something around a 1.76 rod to stroke ratio. This is how you can have a 7.3 HD and a 7.0 HP from the same block! Unfortunately, no one is taking yet so its all speculation on my part! Edselford