NaviCat

Not. Explorer is supposed to get a 2.0L EcoBoost option

Its a ZF transmission that Chrysler will license build in Kokomo. This box is already in production with several BMW models as well as the new Range Rover with the 4.4L Ford V8 diesel. Chrysler is not capable of engineering anything this advnaced themselves. There's plenty out there publicly re: this new box, its an innovative design with a new gear arrangement that has less parasitic loss than a 6 speed and is lighter than the 6HP series that it replaces. Driver is fuel economy...some pretty tough standards face the industry by model year 2016......

uh, yes it is....go try and price one out in an MKS, MKT, Flex......

I'm sure it would be 4x2, for advertising purposes. F-150 SC at least 6500 GVW, a Flex is under 5000 lb. How much lower than a 3.31 rear axle will you be able to go with the same 6 sp auto they're currently offering and still have reasonable launch performance? I guess I'll wait to see before I believe...

So I'm trying to understand the supposed advantage of a 3.5L EB V6 in a half ton pickup.... From the article the supposed rating will be 400 hp / 400 lb-ft for the F-150 and will get better than 23 mpg hwy. Current rating in the Flex and other vehicles its in is 355 hp / 350 lb-ft, and it gets 16 city / 21 hwy in the AWD Flex model. Someone please explain how to take the same engine, bump it up 50 lb-ft in torque, put it in a heavier and less aerodynamic vehicle, and expect to get more the 2 mpg better on hwy???? This is basic vehicle dynamics (and physics).....NOT POSSIBLE. And its a $5000 premium over the base engine in the Flex (more in the Lincolns). As a potential F-150 buyer, where's the why buy over a 5.4L? Should get roughly the same fuel economy with roughly the same performance, and the 5.4L should be more reliable in a pickup duty cycle and cost less up front. I can see the EB in a lux car like the MKS, but in a pick-up? For the same price premium as the EB why not offer the 4.4L diesel in a work truck application?

Thank you Richard, president of the "I hate everything about diesels" club. Did you get run over by a Peterbilt when you were a kid or something???? Your impartiallity kills me....

In case you haven't been paying attention, since 2007 both light duty and heavy duty diesels have been mandated to have particulate filters installed in the exhaust....effectively tailpipe soot is reduced to zero. Diesels have to meet the same emissions standards as gas engines, both under and over 8500 lbs

QUOTE (Deanh @ May 20 2009, 01:55 PM) doesn't Ford own part of Cummins? {No, but they do own part of Cummings! } NO, Ford used to own 10% but sold their stake in CUMMINS in the mid-90's when they got out of the heavy truck business. And YES, the G in Cummins is silent. {It is looking like the new CAFE/CO2 emissions regulations will effectively prohibit diesels in any U.S. vehicle under 8,600# GVW.. I have not seen this in writing yet, but that is what I am hearing at this point.} Acutally you have it backwards: diesels should be part of the solution in meeting the new regs as they HELP fuel economy and hence reduce CO2 output. That is if the new regs don't continue to ratchet NOx limits down to the point where even Bluetec technology can't make diesels viable...

Time for a reality check on particulates. Gasoline engines emit particulates also albeit on a smaller scale. However their size is much smaller than diesel particulate and the smaller ones are the ones more likely to be trapped and retained in the lungs. The comparatively larger diesel particulate gets mostly filtered out before it gets to the lungs. Gasoline particulate emissions will be amplified when more GDI engines get out there since their combustion process is more similar to diesel and the particulate output is higher. For the US this is almost a non issue since their is such a small percentage of light duty diesels out there, and any new diesel vehicle after 2007 is required to have a DPF which is basically 100% efficient. IF LD diesel ever takes off in the US particulates won't be a factor. NOx is only an issue in urban areas and thanks to CARB we're over regulating that in the rest of the US >>> driving up cost of and making diesel less attractive as a fuel saver. If CO2 is a pollutant than we all just need to stop breathing....

...oldwiz, I'm with you, I decided to stop "debating" battyr the other day. When the term "flexible fuels" is used anyone who has worked with diesels knows that they are far more flexible as far as the fuel types that can be utilized. That was the only point I was trying to make originally. As far as the 4.4 status, its on indefinite hold which in Ford terminology means dead. If its been killed for the F-150 then its dead for all the other vehicle platforms as the remaining volumes would not justify the investment. With the human and financial resource situation currently in North America the focus is a flawless launch of the Scorpion for SuperDuty and therefore I'm sure the 4.4 was viewed as a distraction. Too bad since a diesel F-150 would definitely be a more useful option than an "ecoboost" F-150....

You're missing the point. All the fuels you mention require refining (distillation in the case of the alcohol family). This processing all takes extra energy. Petro-based diesel fuels require less refining and in the case of bio-diesel no refining is required. Natural gas can also be burned in a diesel engine.

I think you have things a little backwards. SI (gasoline) engines can't use "many types of flexible fuels", they have to have a minimum octane rating to be able to ignite. The only commercial fuels I'm aware of are gasoline, ethanol and methanol, are there any others I'm missing here? CI engines (diesels) are capable of operating on a wider range of fuels, some of which require little or no refining. Besides conventional petroleum based diesel fuel, they can operate on kersosene, vegetable-based oils, seed-based oils, algae-derived lipids etc. Gasoline is not a waste product of diesel fuel production, they are each fractions obtained from the same refining process. Part of the cost equation with diesel fuel in North America is that we are exporting a portion to Europe to satisfy their demand. While the cost of a basic SI engine is definitely less than a comparable CI engine, that cost delta begins to shrink when you turn your SI engine into an "EB". You're adding the cost of two turbos, a more expensive direct injection fuel system, and additional aftertreatment similar to what's now required on a diesel (NOx traps and possibly particulate filters...).

The 4.4 program is dead or on indefinite hold. GM's 4.5 is dead or on indefinite hold. Dodge w/ the Cummins V6 probably won't happen because Chrysler is going away soon. Ford especially does not have the stomach to launch a smaller V8 diesel now given the financial situation and their investment in ecoboost.

My 05 Explorer leaked at the rear diff seal to the RH axle shaft right after purchase, was fixed under warranty and leaked again shortly after that. Seems there is at least one TSB out covering this seal issue. It started leaking again recently at around 53K miles.

SuperDuty is P473