Sevensecondsuv

Tell him to hurry up lol

It's been obvious for a while now that the people currently running Ford are in way over their heads. The jury is still [kinda] out on Hackett, but he hasn't managed to fix much of anything as far as the available evidence indicates. I'm convinced the big problem is that Fields put resources into the pie-in-the-sky autonomous and electrification schemes directly at the expense of the bread and butter ICE models. We're now seeing the results. Hackett seems to be full speed ahead on the pie-in-the-sky stuff AND appears to think he can cut his way to greater profitability. I don't see his plan working very well as more development resources for the bread and butter stuff is what Ford needs in the immediate and medium range future.

Wow. An all new engine of rather unprecedented configuration in a full size pickup and it gets all of.......20/23? That's hillariously awful! Especially considering the numbers Ford is getting with their sixes. So let's see... these are going to be coarse and raspy (i.e. a normal 4 cylinder), have significantly less power than the V8 option, and only get 20/23 to boot? Well at least GM will have market evidence to cancel it in a few years and go back to all V8 because "that's what our buyers want"

I can't help but compare this to Hennessey's 800 hp package for the Escalade. Obviously 600 hp is no joking matter, but this is why Ford should offer the 5.0 in anything they put the 3.5eb in. The 3.5eb is obviously a little faster stock vs stock, but it's already using boost to get there. Once you start doing aftermarket boost, the 3.5 is at a big displacement disadvantage compared to the 5.0. The coyote and 6.2 LS motors are a fairly simple 800 hp with a big twin screw, intercooler, and a tune. It takes a lot more work and $$$$ to get a 3.5 up to those numbers.

Fingers crossed it's actually an improvement over the MT-82 and not just an additional gear. Although it seems Ford has fixed a lot of those issues since they first appeared in mustang.

Now let's just hope they don't limit the manual trans to 2-door only. I don't think Wrangler sales mix warrants such a decision, but Ford is famous for this sort of thing...

They did provide some evidence in the jalopnik article. Fingers crossed here - although a manual trans in a vehicle aimed squarely at the Jeep Wrangler shouldn't be too surprising. Of course this would open doors for Ranger too, and assuming this replaces the MT-82, that means all the volume for ROW ranger too. That also means this trans would replace the MT-82 in mustang. That would make sense, and also means mustang would go 7-spd. I wonder what that does for fuel economy and 1/4 mile times.

Get your threads confused there jpd? This isn't the ranger thread....

I'm just guessing, but maybe it has something to do with length? The 4 bangers are longer than the V6s, leaving less room for the trans in those fwd/sideways engine setups.

Where there's a will, there's a way. I've had two carseats in the back of my 2011 Ranger.

Meh. I put twice that in a 1990 rcsb 2.3L Ranger more than once. And lived to tell about it!

This bodes very well for CD6. Now that they got the engine pointed in the right direction I might actually like the explorer again!

It should fare about the same as a 3.5eb does in an f150. The ECU is sophisticated enough to keep the engine from melting itself under sustained boost. But there's still a reason F250 doesn't have an available ecoboost. This is the Ranger though, so my bet is the 2.3 works out great.

270 eh? Apparently they had to derate it pretty significantly for truck duty cycle. I bet this thing has a gigantic intercooler in an effort to keep the aluminum in the combustion chambers in the solid phase while dragging that 7500 lbs up a mountain. Even then, those hp/turque numbers look like they still had to reduce boost a quite a bit relative to mustang and Focus RS. ^nothing above should be taken as intended to be derogatory towards Ford's choice of powertrain for the Ranger. The above is simply an engineering observation by a guy who's built a few turbo cars. I actually think these figures will compete very well against the naturally aspirated 3.5/3.6 in the toy/chevy competition.

This is looking like a real easy decision. The 2.7 engine is the cream of the crop. Plus the V6s get the better trans. AND your dealer somehow still has a leftover 2017 Lincoln (in the color you want), with the the 2.7, even though 2019s are already hitting lots. Just go make a deal on it already! The dealer wants nothing to do with 2017s hanging around at this point and is almost guaranteed to beat whatever incentives exist for the 18s.

I'd go for the 2.7eb (available in both if you go high enough into Edge trim level, I think, right?). A V6 is going to be much smoother than a 4, turbo or not. Plus with the 2.7 you get the power and torque of the boosted motor. My guess (although I have no first hand experience) is real world fuel economy is going to be very similar with all three engines. It takes a certain amount of fuel to move the vehicle and all three engines will deliver that amount of power. The ecoboost engines will probably do a little worse mpg if you accelerate aggressively simply because making that much more power requires that much more fuel and the fact that boost requires a richer fuel mixture. Conversely, the 3.7 will probably do a little worse if you drive gently due to the greater pumping losses with the bigger engine. The 2.7 is a nice mix of V6 smoothness, limited displacement (not really all that much bigger than the 4), and also happens to be the most powerful engine offered in those models.

Around here you can rent a decent 3 bedroom house in a nice neighborhood for close to $1200/month. Heck, a mortgage payment on a nice place on a little acreage isn't much more than that. Meanwhile the percentage of the population with a >$1000/month car payment continues to increase (it's easy to do if you're underwater on your last car combined with a halfway decent new car goes for $35k - $40k nowadays).

I would have seriously considered a Flex if it was on a rwd platform. I just couldn't get past that sideways engine and dinky trans that are the hallmark of the D3/D4 platform. Probably doesn't matter to most, but it cost Ford a buyer in my case. Moving Flex to CD6/rwd/longitudinal drivetrain, going about 4 inches wider to complement the already excellent legroom and move it up to real full size class (i.e. F150/Expy width), and giving it something more exciting than the 3.5L duratec would make for a very compelling family hauler option that really stands out from the crowd.

Rebadging VW cars as Fords for the US market is simply going to result in Ford's perceived quality falling off a cliff while simultaneously gaining none of the appeal that makes VW fans buy VWs. And why would Ford want to help VW in the light truck market? The last thing Ford needs is another serious competitor in the holy grail pickup market. As for rest of world, like I've said before: if an overseas operation isn't consistently profitable while paying for it's own R&D for it's specific market, cut them loose. There's no reason American consumers should be subsidizing a money-losing operation to build unprofitable cars for people in foreign nations. The govt does a good enough job of wasting taxpayer money on those types of endeavors.

No, I was just being an ass

Well apparently you haven't ridden in a Town Car. 2018 Ford Flex 2nd seat legroom: 44.3 inches 2011 Lincoln Town Car rear legroom: 45.4 inches [/mafia]

For the last 15 years I've been driving cars that are about 15 years old, on average. I've never once been dead on the side of the road or had a repair that exceeded about $350 (which was a top end rebuild on the 4.0 in my old explorer). I spend maybe $1000/year to maintain my entire fleet of five vehicles. And that mostly comes down to oil changes, tires, brakes, and suspension parts. Very very little drivetrain work even though I'm pushing relatively high miles on most of them.

Keep in mind that there are a large portion of car buyers that never pay the vehicle off - their loan term just gets 12 months longer with each car they buy every 3-4 years or so. Do that for about 12 years and a moderate fixed monthly "rent" payment probably starts to look attractive.

Again, panthers for the win. Our town car is $220/year to insure !!!

And a much more well appointed Town Car for just a few hundred $ more!