'09 Escape

[Blueblood]

Well poor Blueblood. Using that definition, he's all pissed off that Ford cancelled an engine that was only vaporware to begin with, as the Boss was still about a year away from production.

 

It's not, I have pictures of it. I wonder if Ford will keep building the Navigator after next year?

[Blueblood]

And of course, they haven't really canceled it either.

 

Auto news reported Ford told all the suppliers to stop work on it, if they are still planning on putting it in something, they can't if they halt work on it. so until we hear otherwise I'm assuming it's dead.

[Blueblood]

Eventually cancelled. That's the entire point of the 5.0.

 

From what I understood it went like this 3.7-5.0-6.2, with the 6.2 being the top engine for the F-150, Expy, and the Navigator which needed it most, and then replacing the 6.8 in the SD's.

 

Without the 6.2 in the F-150 you have the 3.7 as the base engine, then the 4.6 as the mid range? I think due to the all aluminum 3.7 being so much lighter than the iron 4.6 that the 3.7 would not only beat the 4.6 in mileage, but be "more powerful" as well due to it's weight advantage. With DI and other tweaks to the 3.7 it would make the 4.6 obsolete. So the line-up doesn't make sense unless they are planning on just going to two engines 3.7-5.0, while I like the 5.0 a lot, it just doesn't make the kind of low end grunt the 6.2 would, it's fine in 3500 pound Mustang.

[Blueblood]

True, if it is indeed still slated for the Super Duty. If market conditions change, I can't see it being too difficult to shove the Boss back into the F-150 and Expy should they see it fit to do so.

 

The Enron loophole which has allowed speculators to rape us is supposedly the cause for half of current gas prices, so can you imagine if we get it closed and gas goes down to 2 bucks a gallon again? Americans have short memories, and an incredible lust for more stuff, in short time they'd be wanting their big gas guzzling engines again.

[fbmphil]

I'm betting it's in an idle stage for the mainstream F-150 right now, considering the Raptor is still set to get it. It was set to come for the 2010 MY so this engine is all but finished, meaning if gas (by some miracle) drops back down to $2/gallon, it wouldn't be a problem to throw it in the truck.

 

The engine isn't CANCELED afaik, since it's still going in the Super Duty. It was never meant to be a volume item in the F-150 anyhow, because from what I've been told, it sucks gas like water.

[NickF1011]

From what I understood it went like this 3.7-5.0-6.2, with the 6.2 being the top engine for the F-150, Expy, and the Navigator which needed it most, and then replacing the 6.8 in the SD's.

 

Without the 6.2 in the F-150 you have the 3.7 as the base engine, then the 4.6 as the mid range? I think due to the all aluminum 3.7 being so much lighter than the iron 4.6 that the 3.7 would not only beat the 4.6 in mileage, but be "more powerful" as well due to it's weight advantage. With DI and other tweaks to the 3.7 it would make the 4.6 obsolete. So the line-up doesn't make sense unless they are planning on just going to two engines 3.7-5.0, while I like the 5.0 a lot, it just doesn't make the kind of low end grunt the 6.2 would, it's fine in 3500 pound Mustang.

 

I'm sure the 4.6 will end up on the cutting room floor soon enough as well. A DI 3.7 would be able to fill in for the current 4.6 in the lineup. A 5.0 would replace the 5.4. Throw in the 4.4 diesel and there you have it. I really don't see a need for a much more comprehensive engine lineup. If there's a need for an above-NA-5.0 engine, it'll probably be a 5.0 EcoBoost. But...if the 5.0 is putting out around 360 HP and maybe 380 lb-ft of torque in a slightly lighter truck, I really don't see the need for anything above that.

[NickF1011]

The Enron loophole which has allowed speculators to rape us is supposedly the cause for half of current gas prices, so can you imagine if we get it closed and gas goes down to 2 bucks a gallon again? Americans have short memories, and an incredible lust for more stuff, in short time they'd be wanting their big gas guzzling engines again.

 

I'm not so sure that consumers will warm to a gas guzzling pig again anytime soon, even if gas prices rebound. I think that sentiment will hold even more true if there are engines out there that can produce the same power without the drop-off in fuel economy. <cough>EcoBoost<cough>

[Blueblood]

I'm betting it's in an idle stage for the mainstream F-150 right now, considering the Raptor is still set to get it. It was set to come for the 2010 MY so this engine is all but finished, meaning if gas (by some miracle) drops back down to $2/gallon, it wouldn't be a problem to throw it in the truck.

 

The engine isn't CANCELED afaik, since it's still going in the Super Duty. It was never meant to be a volume item in the F-150 anyhow, because from what I've been told, it sucks gas like water.

 

Doesn't the 5.4 drink gas like water? What does the GM 6.2L get? Or the new Hemi?

[NickF1011]

Doesn't the 5.4 drink gas like water? What does the GM 6.2L get? Or the new Hemi?

 

The 4-speed auto doesn't help things...neither does the massive weight of the vehicles it is used in. I would say those both impact the 5.4's fuel economy more than the engine itself. It's certainly not a fuel-sipper though, which I'm sure is one of many reasons it is eventually being phased out.

 

As for the comparison:

 

The 5.4, 6.0 (there is no 6.2 in the 1/2 ton), and 5.7 are all rated 13/17, 14 combined in 4x4 congifuration.

[focus05]

I'm not so sure that consumers will warm to a gas guzzling pig again anytime soon, even if gas prices rebound. I think that sentiment will hold even more true if there are engines out there that can produce the same power without the drop-off in fuel economy. <cough>EcoBoost<cough>

 

Ah, but Ford doesn't actually need people to flock back to SUVs. They need people to be rational. Truck prices are down, but they are down more than what is really justifiable. Frankly, truck sales were still doing well at $3.30-$3.50 gas. We're up less than 20% from those levels and people are panicking (part of that is also the credit markets and overall economic sentiment). This is more a state of paranoia that has created this rush of lemmings to get rid of their SUVs at any cost (and often a completely idiotic cost) instead of being judicious about it.

 

However, stabilization and then falling of gas prices will, in fact, allow people to act rationally again (or irrationally if they go out and buy an Expedition because gas prices just dropped by 50 cents). But in either case, the value of trucks will improve somewhat. That will lower Ford's and specifically Ford Credit's risk and help keep their balance sheet in ok shape. Honestly, that, I think, is the biggest risk to Ford. If they have to write-down, say, $2 billion of assets from Ford Credit, that is huge impact from a credit/debt financing perspective. The real reason it will be tough for Ford to break even is that the value of all of these lease-return assets have been greatly depreciated, which means that Ford Credit's ability to borrow will be hampered, which means it is more expensive to service a loan or lease, which means Ford Credit loses money. Ford Credit's sustained profitability was part of the rock on which FoMoCo's overall profitability was based. The rest of that rock was cost reductions (which should be on track) and product (which Ford counted on having until at least 2010 to update, and can't take advantage of until then).

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The 3V 4.6L from the explorer is not all iron AFAIK. I thought that the heads were aluminum on all the 4.6L 3Vs. The blocks on the explorer are iron and in the mustang, aluminum. I haven't heard if the block on the F-150 is going to be aluminum or iron.

 

I also have problems believing that a DI 3.7L will really be a good replacement for the 4.6L 3V. In truck trim, the 4.6L 3V makes 320 lbs of torque. the DI 3.7 is going to have a rough time making over 300 lbs of torque. Even with the weight savings over the iron block 4.6L 3V engine being perhaps over 100 lbs, when you're talking about pure towing ability (not forgetting that this is a truck after all) that 100 lbs difference isn't going to make the power to weight ratio that much different on a truck that's close to its total weight ratings. 20-30 lbs of torque will make a much bigger difference.

 

The one question that I have for Ford. I know its cheaper to use the old 4 speed tranny at the moment for the base 2V engine, but, if fuel economy is the name of the game, why not spend a little extra on using the 6AT for the base 2V 4.6L? Yes, you'd need to pass on the cost to the customer, but, I believe that they'd be willing to spend a few hundred extra now on a more fuel efficient drivetrain package, especially in the current market.

[NickF1011]

I also have problems believing that a DI 3.7L will really be a good replacement for the 4.6L 3V. In truck trim, the 4.6L 3V makes 320 lbs of torque. the DI 3.7 is going to have a rough time making over 300 lbs of torque. Even with the weight savings over the iron block 4.6L 3V engine being perhaps over 100 lbs, when you're talking about pure towing ability (not forgetting that this is a truck after all) that 100 lbs difference isn't going to make the power to weight ratio that much different on a truck that's close to its total weight ratings. 20-30 lbs of torque will make a much bigger difference.

 

Well, there's always the 3.5 EcoBoost to fill in the gap if the 3.7 can't make up for the 4.6 3-valve on its own.

 

The one question that I have for Ford. I know its cheaper to use the old 4 speed tranny at the moment for the base 2V engine, but, if fuel economy is the name of the game, why not spend a little extra on using the 6AT for the base 2V 4.6L? Yes, you'd need to pass on the cost to the customer, but, I believe that they'd be willing to spend a few hundred extra now on a more fuel efficient drivetrain package, especially in the current market.

 

There would really be no point to throwing the 6 speed on the 4.6 2-valve. The difference in fuel economy between the 4.6 2-valve with a 6-speed and the 3-valve with a 6-speed would probably be negligible. Probably the main reason they are still offering the 4-speed at all is to get rid of excess inventory. The 4.6 2-valve/4-speed combo will likely be gone within a year of launch.

[rmc523]

As of now, the 5.0 is on, my best guess is we'll see it in the F-150 next summer for calendar year 2010. Could be later, I wish ford would keep people informed rather than be so secretive.

 

Well, aren't they supposed to be secretive so their competitors don't know what they're doing?

[rmc523]

I wonder if Ford will keep building the Navigator after next year?

 

Why do you ask that question, just because it's not getting some giant engine?

[rmc523]

From what I understood it went like this 3.7-5.0-6.2, with the 6.2 being the top engine for the F-150, Expy, and the Navigator which needed it most, and then replacing the 6.8 in the SD's.

 

Without the 6.2 in the F-150 you have the 3.7 as the base engine, then the 4.6 as the mid range? I think due to the all aluminum 3.7 being so much lighter than the iron 4.6 that the 3.7 would not only beat the 4.6 in mileage, but be "more powerful" as well due to it's weight advantage. With DI and other tweaks to the 3.7 it would make the 4.6 obsolete. So the line-up doesn't make sense unless they are planning on just going to two engines 3.7-5.0, while I like the 5.0 a lot, it just doesn't make the kind of low end grunt the 6.2 would, it's fine in 3500 pound Mustang.

 

Maybe Ford will use the 3.7 as the base engine with an upgraded (EB, etc.?) 3.7 as the mid-range engine (or maybe the EB 3.5 as somebody mentioned above), while the 5.0 would be the top? I'm just thinking out loud.

Edited June 25, 2008 by rmc523

[Blueblood]

Well, aren't they supposed to be secretive so their competitors don't know what they're doing?

 

What does it matter if nobody cares about fuel thirsty trucks anymore?

 

I know car companies have their own spies, I bet they know far more than we'll ever know.

 

Part of the problem is the CIA-like secrecy leads to rumors, wild speculation, and most of the time big let-downs, and then pissed off people. They could solve this through decent communication with the community, it doesn't mean they need to give away hard numbers or dates, but they could at least keep us informed, and shoot down the rumors out there. As it stands now there are all sorts of ridiculous rumors which many pass around as fact, or inside info, and all sorts of bad information, and when asked, Ford usually throws more confusion into the mix. It really makes me wonder what goes through their heads sometimes, they build cars, not secret airplanes at area 51. Just look how long it took power numbers for the F-150 to leak out, Dodge released their numbers at the Detroit show, I can't think of anyway that will hurt them.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Blueblood

[Blueblood]

Why do you ask that question, just because it's not getting some giant engine?

 

No, because it's become a turd compared to the Escalade, for all the money you spend on a Navigator over a Expy, you get nothing but a slight (and hideous) re-skin, and a different interior that looks like it was lifted out of a 76 Lincoln, and the same exact powertrain as the Expy.

[NickF1011]

No, because it's become a turd compared to the Escalade, for all the money you spend on a Navigator over a Expy, you get nothing but a slight (and hideous) re-skin, and a different interior that looks like it was lifted out of a 76 Lincoln, and the same exact powertrain as the Expy.

 

I do agree that the Navigator has become lacking. But that is certainly no reason to discontinue it. It is reason to improve it though.

 

I don't really think it needs the 6.2. Would have been nice, but my preference would be a supercharged 5.4 DOHC. It seems like it would be easier to do and it's already ready to go in NOW.

[Blueblood]

Maybe Ford will use the 3.7 as the base engine with an upgraded (EB, etc.?) 3.7 as the mid-range engine (or maybe the EB 3.5 as somebody mentioned above), while the 5.0 would be the top? I'm just thinking out loud.

 

Again, overlap, a boosted 3.7 would make similar numbers to the 5.0, and a TT DI V6 can't be cheaper than a basic NA V8. This is where the 6.2 would have come in to make a nice clean spread between engines. Think of it as a good wide ration 6-speed tranny, it's got the steep gears to get the vehicle off the line, the middle range gears to keep it moving in the middle, and the tall overdrive gears to keep it going effortlessly at highway speeds.

 

A 3.7-5.0-6.2 line-up would fit the bill perfectly, notice the size gap between engine options is nearly identical. a 3.7-4.6-5.0 non-DI, DI, and ecoboost variants gives us all sorts of pointless overlap. And no matter what people say, to make power you need fuel, I'm not convinced smaller blown engine's can get the great Fuel economy some are touting here, and this tech is expensive and Ford seems to be having trouble getting it all to work. We know simpler things like DI and dual VVT do add decent power gains all throughout the rev band, including nice improvements in fuel mileage. So instead of adding these things rather soon, on engines that are close to being ready for production, we have to wait years for ecoboost engines all while using old thirsty engines, makes no sense.

 

A 3.7-5.0-6.2 with dual VVT and DI would be a great and class leading line-up, and I'd bet a million dollars would be the top Fuel sippers in the class, especially if Ford got serious about shedding some weight from the truck, aluminum blocks alone would save a large chunk of weight from the V8's. Toss in some FE happy tall rear end gearing and they could have one hell of a truck, especially if they did some aero work to it and added some of the new fuel saving technologies. Then people that don't care about FE, that can afford the gas, that need to tow half of Massachusetts could throw some 4:10 gears in the rear end. Everybody is happy.

 

This continual cycle of plan, develop, talk, and then cancel, is not only a massive waste of money and engineering, it prevents them from ever making necessary changes to the entire product line. See the always delayed Ranger replacement for a great example of this, with fuel prices, a nice, modern new Ranger sure would be great right now, but due to their wishy washy way of never being able to make a plan and stick to it, we have a horribly dated old Ranger, which should have never happened. Just look at how many years, and how many billions were wasted on the never-ending changing plans for Lincoln and Jaguar. Just imagine if all that talent and cash was actually put into vehicles that were offered for sale!!! You can't run a successful business if you can never come up with a plan, and follow through with it, if you're always stuck in the doldrums, you'll never pull yourself out of it by going in circles, you need to chart a path and stick with it. Sometimes you may fail, but if you never try in the first place, failure is your only future.

 

I wonder if even all or most of the ecoboost engines will be canceled at the last minute, after all, who really needs twin turbo power in their MKS or Flex right? Maybe Ford will cancel them right before production starts to work on something entirely different, and maybe that will be canceled as well. Ford can be known as the company that's always developing stuff that they will never sell, a hobby, where on the side, they sell cars..

Edited June 25, 2008 by Blueblood

[suv_guy_19]

I do agree that the Navigator has become lacking.

 

 

I've seen reviews that still consider it to be a powerful V8 truck. It doesn't do too bad in 0 - 60 either. It may get a more powerful engine, but even in this application, it isn't really needed.

[NickF1011]

I've seen reviews that still consider it to be a powerful V8 truck. It doesn't do too bad in 0 - 60 either. It may get a more powerful engine, but even in this application, it isn't really needed.

 

Some powertrain help would be nice. My major complaint still though is that gawd ugly snout. The gauges look silly too.

[suv_guy_19]

Some powertrain help would be nice. My major complaint still though is that gawd ugly snout. The gauges look silly too.

 

Yeah, I would say that the interior was a step backwards from last generation, from a visual standpoint and the front does take some getting used too, but its not bad without the chrome strip on the top.

[rmc523]

Yeah, I would say that the interior was a step backwards from last generation, from a visual standpoint and the front does take some getting used too, but its not bad without the chrome strip on the top.

 

I would agree with your statement of the interior being a step backwards. I don't mind (and even like) the front end of the Navigator (without the upper chrome strip though)