Sevensecondsuv

I have to think the business case is there. It's just parts bin engineering using the 6.7/7.3 and a bunch of existing super duty stuff and some expefition body bits and pieces. Then sell them for $75k each. Doesn't take much volume at all to make that work. My guess is it's more an issue of factory capacity and bigger fish to fry. FWIW my 2000 Limited w/ the V10 is a forever vehicle for us. There's just nothing else like it available then or now.

Not if the motor is between the clutch and the trans. That way the clutch doesn't disengage the motor from the input shaft. Of course it would still be disengaged if the driver takes the trans out of gear while braking. It'd certainly be a bit of a learning curve driving one.

I'm actually currently on the hunt for a 96/97 7.5L gasser ZF-5 truck. I love those OBS trucks, but it's getting real hard to find nice clean examples at this point, especially here in the rust belt. Maybe I should wait a year and see what Ford has up their sleeve. Aluminum would be nice.

And hybrid is simple. Just put the electric assist motor between the clutch and trans. Also a fly-by-wire clutch pedal opens up some truly fascinating possibilities for manual transmissions.

The torque rating is enough for any gasoline engine Ford currently produces. The ~9000 lb gvwr / 29,000 lb gcwr is enough for pretty much all gas versions of F150/250/350. The 7.15:1 first gear is ideal for a HD gas pickup as it facilitates getting a big trailer started up a grade without slipping the clutch. For reference, The ZF-5/6, T-18, NP-435, and NV-5600 all have first gear ratios between 5.5 and 7.0. Makes you wonder just how many applications Ford has planned. Obviously more is better to help amortize development costs. If Ford makes an F-250 available with a 7.3L gas V8 and manual trans in 2021 I'll take back anything negative I've ever said about their product decisions lol!

You know, it would be just like Ford to design a new engine or transmission for super duty and then realize it doesn't fit in E series, aka 2V vs 3V 5.4/6.8 and diesels after the 6.0. So I wouldn't be surprised if Ford is still building the 6R140 specifically for E series 10 years from now....

And again, who exactly is going to buy all these EVs? Obviously you can't ignore the segment, but EV sales history to date does not give me confidence that I should bet the company's future on EVs. They've been "the future that's going to take over next year" for the last 10 years. Yes invest in them enough that you're not caught flat footed if they do eventually take off, but by all means keep pumping resources and talent into ICE programs because that's what's going to pay the bills and dividends for the next several CEO cycles.

What I want to know is why the mediums got the 429 and not the 460. They're literally the same engine aside from the rotating assembly. Seems like the 460 delivering the same powerband at a lower RPM would have been more ideal for the big trucks.

What makes a person think a gasser will only last 100k in commercial service? That's nonsense. Even 30-40 years ago that wasn't true. I see tons of old medium Ford with 361FT, 370 and 429 gassers with 200k+ never been rebuilt run just fine. Lots and lots of V10s running around still in active fleet service with 300k+ on them. At the same time, modern pickup truck diesels (Duramax, PSD, etc) aren't built to the same "lbs of cast iron per hp" ratio the old mechanical diesels were. They run a lot more boost and EGTs. Not to mention the extremely complicated fuel systems running at insane pressures. And the emissions systems that create a lot of extra heat. If you ask me, gas longevity has stayed the same vs 30 years ago and diesel longevity has decreased. Today there's only one reason to buy a diesel: you get the rated hp at approximately half the rpm. That makes for much more comfortable towing of big loads long distances. All that said, even 7.3 gas is barely adequate in the heavier end of class 6. And by the time you're in Class 7, something in the range of a gas 9.0L would be most welcome.

No thanks on the center console. Leave that for XLT and above for people that actually want it and will pay the extra for it. Nothing kills interior space for throwing tools, straps, etc like a giant hunk of plastic bolted between the seats. Not to mention eliminating seat belt capacity for one extra passenger.

That iron block is a pretty big deal. The loomnum coyote block is reliable to about 800ish HP whereas the old iron 5.4 blocks (and 4.6 to a lesser extent) were good to 1200+ and is a big reason the very fastest mod motor powered cars and still running 5.4 derivatives. Block availability and hp capacity is currently one parameter the LSx has it all over the coyote so it's good to see Ford addressing the issue. Hopefully Ford can find a use for the iron block in some trucks. If for no other reason than I can find them in a junk yard in ten years ?

I don't see Ford making the 7.3 the base offering any time soon. The smaller gas engine has always outsold the big one in 250/350 for every year Ford offered both for the last several decades. 5.8 always outsold the 7.5 and the 5.4 always outsold the 6.8. I see two reasons for this: 1) a significant portion of retail 250 buyers still tend to be concerned with fuel economy and, right or wrong, believe the smaller engine will be more efficient, and 2) there's an awful lot of fleet 250/350 sold for nothing more than moving a bed full of shovels from jobsite to jobsite, plowing snow at a fixed location like a factory or power plant, or just transportation for a supervisor, none of which require really anything more than an atmo V6. So I think the 7.3 will remain optional on 250/350 for the foreseeable future. Whether the 6.2 stays as the base engine or gets replaced by a de-bored / de-stroked / de-cylinder'd godzilla, the coyote, or even a hybrid 3.3 v6 remains to be seen. Also there's E Series that need engines. I don't see Ford just giving away 7.3s to van buyers that tend to really not care what's under the hood - hence the huge popularity of 4.9 and 4.2 in E-250/350s for all those decades

I'd be willing to call it a variant..... Same pistons, rods, valves, etc. Crank, heads, camshaft would be different from the V8 in the same way V6 versions would be: length and firing angle. One could make the argument that an inline block is more of a departure from a V8 than a V6 block, however my understanding of block machining lines are that bore spacing and deck height are the two major attributes, and those would be the same for V8, V6, or I6 versions. Basically an inline could be machined on one of the two planes the V8 Iine is already set up for. It would require 1.5x times the operations at each station vs a V6 running both planes at 0.75x the operations at each station. The operation for machining the cam bores would also be a different location than a V8/V6. So I guess the V6 would have an advantage in block machining efficiency. Honestly the biggest impediment to a straight-six I can see is fitting it in the engine bay. However I gotta think the super duty bay could accommodate one if Ford wanted it to. It's not a small engine bay.

Just put those six cylinders in a row. Problem solved!

Meh. Ford managed to fit the old 300/4.9 with it's 4.48" bore spacing in E Series. Where there's a will, there's a way. Plus I doubt any clean sheet straight six of 3.0L displacement has anywhere near 4" bores.

Yes, just like Ford truck buyers since 1997.

Demand they hand over the keys. If they won't give them to you, threaten to call the police. Leave with the truck, stop at the nearest gas station to fill the radiator, and then hobble it to the nearest parts store. A radiator should be less than $200 and be in stock. Eat the cost and install it in their parking lot. It's an easy job. Save all your receipts and document as much of this as possible and then when you get home have your lawyer send them a bill for the parts and your time with the threat of a lawsuit if they don't pay up.

The 2.3L in my 2011 Ranger (same basic architecture as the current 2.0, 2.3 / ecoboost and previous 2.5L engines) has that distictive 4 cyl buzz which is due to the unavoidable secondary imbalance you get with an inline 4. It's especially noticeable at idle. The Rangers I've had with the cologn (4.0L) V6 were definitely smoother. I've been in a few a Cyclone V6 products (but never owned one) which seemed very ordinary in terms of engine smoothness. The old 4.2 V6 F-150s (had two of them myself) did get really coarse above 3000 rpm, which I blame on the 90 degree block. None of the 4s or V6s is anywhere near as smooth as the 4.6 modulars (or pretty much any other V8 I've tried) though. Also the 300 six in my old F250 is quite smooth despite the howling ps pump and lifter tick. Smoothness is definitely the best attribute of the straight six design.

No argument with any of that. My point was that Ford also needs to have a solid entry in the meat and potatoes range of the segment. That's where I see a problem. The current explorer starts at $30ish and can be nicely optioned by $40k. The new one starts at $36500 with no options, goes over $40k as soon as you select awd, hits $45k by adding a few things, and doesn't have an optional powertrain available until $53k. Sure they'll move some of the higher end models on lease deals but I don't see the XLT as being priced right to be the volume trim it needs to be.

The difference is the base trim is gone. XLT is now the base trim. 2019 and prior had an "explorer" trim under XLT.

That's a problem. $50k+ is well beyond the the range of the average family cruiser. Ford's not going to sell a whole bunch of hybrids at that price. Heck, even the base xlt with no options starts at $36k and close to $40k if you want AWD. That's a huge jump from 2019 base model pricing and quite high relative to the competition. I hope Ford is prepared to sacrifice some market share in the interest of delivering a premium (i.e. rwd) product. This thing is priced on the high side of it's segment. Also, fuel economy numbers are generally tied or 1 mpg better than the V6 Traverse, which is its primary competition. That's a good sign I guess, although a 2-3 mpg advantage would make the ecoboost sales pitch a little easier to make. Also the Traverse is a little bigger I think.

That would make a great base engine for F250/350 and E Series as well. It could/would/should replace the orphaned 6.2. My only wish is that it's an inline six instead of a V, keeping the same bore/stroke, bore spacing, deck height, etc. An inline really isn't any more work since the block, heads and crank have to be re-engineered going from a V8 to V6 anyways. It's mostly a legacy of the old 300 and the Cummins BT6, but truck people have a lot more respect for straight sixes than vee sixes.

Get the $5 O2 sensor "extensions" off eBay. Problem solved.

I'm interested to see how they plan to offer IFS and SFA on the same platform. Those two suspension designs require very different hard points on the chassis. It'll be interesting to see how they accommodate both designs without totally compromising the engine bay and front of the passenger cabin. Even the front driveshaft will be different and may even require a different transfer case arrangement.

I wonder how well that electronic sway bar disconnect will work after a few winters worth of road salt.......