Rick73

What jpd80 stated above. Mostly discussing available Ford 4-cylinder RWD PHEV powertrain that could be used in a future Mustang, not the Ranger itself. Not sure why you think it’s getting sidetracked since hybrids and PHEV were first mentioned back on page one of this thread. 😀 And on that note, don’t forget Farley stated most Fords would have electrified variants within a few years, so would make sense any new vehicle moving forward would have that capability designed in. And for the record, not saying it will be the Ranger’s PHEV powertrain.

$2.429 per gallon for 87 regular at HEB today in Houston. Was $2.329 with membership, or cash, or something.

I’m certain it will be plenty fast for me as an HEV, but not sure about a +/- 4,000-pound vehicle with only 100 HP electric motor. It may be fine to drive a few miles from home to get groceries, etc. Hard to say until tested.

Agree completely, which is why I asked assuming that going from 277 total HP to only 100 electric HP could be a letdown, and if so, providing even more ICE-based power will make difference even more noticeable to driver. The last thing anyone wants is for a PHEV vehicle to feel so sluggish on EV-only power that they don’t end using the plug-in capability and drive mostly as an HEV. There are obviously two sides to this argument, but long-term solution is for PHEVs to have nearly as much power when operating as an EV so performance doesn’t suffer. The Toyota Prius PHEV for example has much more electric-motor power, and is lighter than a Ranger, yet 0-60 times go from 6.5 for hybrid to 11.7 seconds for electric-only operation. That’s adequate but drivers today wouldn’t want to accelerate much slower than that. Don’t know how much slower a heavier vehicle (Ranger or Mustang sedan) would be if powered by only 100 electric HP. Looking forward to seeing Ranger PHEV comprehensive test data.

As a PHEV the truck (or whatever vehicle powertrain is installed in) will be required to operate in EV mode, which is limited to 75 kW or ~ 100 HP. If driver was OK with 75 kW most of the time, wouldn’t 207 kW seem more than adequate? For what it’s worth, at 2,500 RPM it makes 245 HP which is more than my V10 at that same RPM.

jpd80, those numbers are impressive regardless, particularly for a mid-size truck rated to tow 3,500 kg trailers. The higher power from electric motor compared to original 35 kW in PowerBoost pays off big time at lower RPMs where many truck drivers prefer to operate; though not sure how that same powertrain would feel in a sports car. Expect Ford could tune differently. By the way, the numbers above don’t add up because power contribution from electric motor would have to exceed its maximum rating. Ford specs show System Max Torque is at 2500 RPM, which happens to match electric motor rating.

P.S. — Stroke length of 97.2 mm would also round off to a 428 cubic inch 7-liter engine using existing 107.2 mm Godzilla bore diameter. However, if Ford creates an aluminum variant, they may use a slightly different bore diameter for various reasons; or not. For example, they may want slightly thicker cylinder walls. If that happens a different stroke length would be required anyway to match 428 displacement. Honestly, I’m not sure how important matching a legendary engine displacement is to Ford to start with, except they seem to try with 5.0L V8 matching legendary 302, which was later called a 5.0L though exact dimensions were actually 4.9L when rounded. And today’s 5.0 Coyote is not even close to 302 so maybe it doesn’t matter at all, or at least doesn’t have to be exact.

I’m pretty sure the main difference between 7.3 and 6.8 liter Godzilla is stroke length. It requires different crankshaft and probably rod length, unless pistons and or block are different which seems unlikely, so weight difference should be insignificant between 6.8 and 7.3 Godzilla variants On the other hand reports suggest going to aluminum block could save as much as 100 pounds which would make weight in same range as Coyote and close to 3.5L EcoBoost. For F-150 in particular I don’t see a little added engine weight being too critical from a performance or safety standpoint because diesel was heavier IIRC when it was available. Wikipedia states stroke length was reduced from 101 to 93.5 mm. For what it’s worth, a 428 Godzilla would require a 97.1 mm stroke which should be easy to accomplish.

Cruise control on an electric tractor adds very little cost since motor speed has to be controlled anyway, which is probably why they add it. Makes sense from business standpoint. On the other hand it still adds an additional item that can fail, no matter how unlikely. What I find a pain is that when things go wrong, it’s one more thing to troubleshoot. One or two items isn’t a big deal, but 100s can be. I get your point that vehicles have gotten more complicated than some owners need or want. Unfortunately, so much of costs are in research, development, engineering, testing, certification, etc. that by the time a new option is production ready, it costs manufacturers very little more to add to all vehicles. Variable costs are sometimes so low that it soon makes more sense to make it standard rather than an option. Remember the Chrysler minivan when driver-side sliding door became standard because it cost more than leaving it off? Not exactly the same but similar. In a way I miss the ultra simplicity of my first two cars, purchased used while I was in high school, which had no power anything, but there’s no going back. I suppose if a car was made light enough I could get away without power steering and brakes again, but I’d want air conditioning at the very least. And a few others niceties. 😀

Good point if thinking of a living legend versus a historical one which is what I assumed, and may not be the case. Still think Ford should build aluminum variant of Godzilla if at all practical and offer in various vehicles including F-150, Expedition, and Mustang; as options of course and let buyers decide. Efficiency and emissions regulations are the biggest drawbacks I see, so waiting to see what current administration does.

No, of course not. I was referring to an aluminum 7L Godzilla since Coyote can’t go as high as 7L. Just change Godzilla stroke between 7.3 and 6.8 to yield 428 cubic inches (7 liters) and make block aluminum to save about 100 pounds, making it close enough in weight to Coyote. Could also be legendary 427 or 429 displacement. 😀

Perhaps a 7 liter (428) from original?

In different thread I linked a Ford dealership’s comparison listing pros and cons of EB versus NA. Clearly it was not my opinion though I happen to agree with most of it. https://www.chalmersford.com/blog/ecoboost-vs-naturally-aspirated-engines I don’t have a dog in this fight and couldn’t care less what you guys drive. I have repeatedly stated that I “personally” don’t need EB power nor can I justify the higher cost based on fuel savings. To me that falls under preferences, though granted it implies NA is better for my needs, not necessarily others.

Seriously? I’m trying my very best to be an adult here; since when does anyone have to justify their engine preferences to you, or ice-capades, or akirby or anyone whatsoever. Don’t you guys see the irony in thinking that you’re so right that no one else has the right to prefer a different type of engine? So what if I don’t prefer turbo engines for my needs? Why do you even care what I like best? Contrary to your point of view, no one feels the need to justify what they want. If I prefer a Godzilla V8 over any EcoBoost, that’s my choice and mine alone. If you prefer EB, that’s your choice and I haven’t said otherwise. If Ford managers have the same “it’s my way or the highway” attitude, they will no doubt alienate potential buyers.

That’s ridiculous. Is this not a forum so that anyone can express opposing views. How goddamn boring would this place be if everyone had to agree on everything? We should all be thankful for diverse points of view as long as not written rudely. The 4-door Mustang above has limited market potential. It will likely not sell in large numbers, making profitability possible but limiting income. Just because a few car guys want a 4-door Mustang doesn’t necessarily mean Ford should build it from a business perspective. For all we know the required investment could be better used manufacturing a different sedan or different vehicle altogether with greater sales potential. Common sense alone suggests that if it was a clear decision they would have done it a long time ago. I stand by my point that looks alone isn’t enough, and that’s not bitching, it is disagreement.