jpd80 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Brawnier engine makes Ford Explorer the total packageFrom The Detroit News: This engine is what customers were asking for: a twin turbocharged V-6 that delivers horsepower like a V-8. It is the reason most Ford F-150 pickups aren't being built with V-8s anymore. The same engine powers the Taurus SHO sports sedan, yet earns this seven-passenger SUV an EPA rating of 16 mpg city and 22 mpg highway. Driving the new Explorer Sport was comfortable, quiet and fun on the famous engineering check roads that wind through the woods and farm fields between Ann Arbor and Hell — that is, the Michigan town. There are more fuel-efficient three-row SUVs, but none with a gasoline-fueled V-6 this powerful. Only the Dodge Durango and the Jeep Grand Cherokee offer similar size, price and punch, but derive their 360 horsepower from 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 engines that get EPA ratings of 13 city and 20 highway. From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitne...4#ixzz2AMd3UY1G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Although that little blurb didn't mention it, the Durango and GC models that get 13/20 are the 4WD versions. Even still, the 2WD versions only get 1 MPG better in the city. Pretty much obliterates the need to compare the Explorer Sport to an AWD-equipped competitor like we do with the Taurus SHO and MKS EB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Reading this, the mpg seem off to me. I wonder if they are posting the AWD version numbers and not the FWD (or with this V-6 EB sport variant, RWD?) version numbers? Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Reading this, the mpg seem off to me. I wonder if they are posting the AWD version numbers and not the FWD (or with this V-6 EB sport variant, RWD?) version numbers? Chuck The 3.5l EB requires 4WD - it's not optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 What does the bolded mean then? "Starting at $41,545 (delivery included), the Explorer Sport costs $2,600 more than the previous top-level Explorer Limited edition that comes with a 3.5-liter V-6, which generates 290 horsepower and posts EPA fuel efficiency of 17 mpg city and 23 highway. All wheel drive is optional." Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 On the previous top model, AWD was optional because it was powered by the 3.5l NA. With the 3.5EB, AWD isn't optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 What does the bolded mean then? "Starting at $41,545 (delivery included), the Explorer Sport costs $2,600 more than the previous top-level Explorer Limited edition that comes with a 3.5-liter V-6, which generates 290 horsepower and posts EPA fuel efficiency of 17 mpg city and 23 highway. All wheel drive is optional." Chuck It means that the writer of the article failed to fact-check because it looks like he mixed up two spec sheets. The Explorer Sport only comes with the 3.5EB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That's what has me confused. The writer lists mpg numbers that look low, like they're coming from an AWD gas platform, then lists that AWD is optional (I'd think if doing that, the numbers one lists are the standard config numbers, not the optional). Then goes on later in the article to talk about some AWD specific powertrain improvement the Sport will have. So he first starts out putting seemingly non-AWD numbers, then talks about AWD. I think you all must be right, the writer is mixed up when he says AWD is optional. Take that sentence out, and it makes sense. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) That's what has me confused. The writer lists mpg numbers that look low, like they're coming from an AWD gas platform, then lists that AWD is optional (I'd think if doing that, the numbers one lists are the standard config numbers, not the optional). Then goes on later in the article to talk about some AWD specific powertrain improvement the Sport will have. So he first starts out putting seemingly non-AWD numbers, then talks about AWD. I think you all must be right, the writer is mixed up when he says AWD is optional. Take that sentence out, and it makes sense. Chuck Agree Chuck, i think the writer has just skimmed the Explorer specs and done a quick "fill in the blanks" I'd expect that it'ssimilar to Flex Ecoboost... but different for obvious reasons. Ecoboost 3.5 is clearly de-tuned to allow transmissions to survive, that kinda suggests to me that a future smaller capacity Ecoboost V6 (approx. 3.0) would give same power but better economy. Edited October 26, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 A 2.5 or 3.0 EB, something in that displacement range, would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) A 2.5 or 3.0 EB, something in that displacement range, would be great. Exactly, an engine with just the right balance between plenty of punch and good fuel economy, If Explorer eventually moves to a lighter platform, the current engines will perform much better. Edited October 27, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Ford's bet on the new powertrain has paid off, no doubt. Now if only they could offer the 3.5L twin turbo in an XLT model. $29000 base + 2000 AWD + 2000 Ecoboost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Kolman Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 A 2.5 or 3.0 EB, something in that displacement range, would be great. There is talk of Ford working on a 2.3L 4-cyl EB and a 2.5L & 2.7L 6-cyl EB to close the gap you identified. In doing so Ford to move to a fully EB lineup: 1.0EB up thru 3.5EB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Ford's bet on the new powertrain has paid off, no doubt. Now if only they could offer the 3.5L twin turbo in an XLT model. $29000 base + 2000 AWD + 2000 Ecoboost. Like hoping that Dodge would offer the SRT8's engine in the base Charger. Not happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) Like hoping that Dodge would offer the SRT8's engine in the base Charger. Not happening. Ultimately, 3.7 across the board in Explorer would probably please the majority of buyerswhilst opening up space below for a 2.7-3.0 Ecoboost...to add more power and economy. Edited October 27, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Ultimately, 3.7 across the board in Explorer would probably please the majority of buyers whilst opening up space below for a 2.7-3.0 Ecoboost...to add more power and economy. Possibly, but that would run counter to the semi-exclusive nature of the 3.7, its place as the F150 base engine notwithstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Kolman Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 F-150 large engine is available in lower trim levels to support commercial buyers (work truck), and as such isn't applicable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 Possibly, but that would run counter to the semi-exclusive nature of the 3.7, its place as the F150 base engine notwithstanding. But that broader hypothetical use of the 3.7 would be conditional on something else then being the "exclusive engine" for Lincoln. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Ultimately, 3.7 across the board in Explorer would probably please the majority of buyers whilst opening up space below for a 2.7-3.0 Ecoboost...to add more power and economy. A 2.7- to 3.0-Liter Ecoboost wouldn't slot below the 3.7L. I see the 2.3L replacing the 2L and a micro-Ecboost replacing the 3.5L N/A as the volume seller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 But that broader hypothetical use of the 3.7 would be conditional on something else then being the "exclusive engine" for Lincoln. The 3.7 is in the Mustang, Edge Sport, F-150 and PI Taurus/Explorer. I hardly think of it as a exclusive Lincoln Engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The 3.7 is in the Mustang, Edge Sport, F-150 and PI Taurus/Explorer. I hardly think of it as a exclusive Lincoln Engine. It used to be. I started calling it "semi-exclusive" when it showed up in the highest-trim Edge and the decidedly niche Mustang. But with the truck and the PIs, it's hard to say the same anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) This will probably be my Lincoln MKX replacement, and as early as next month. I just need to test it out to make sure I'm happy with it. I have an order out on a 2013 Ford Escape Titanium to replace the Edge. Hope to take delivery on both cars the same week in November. Edited October 28, 2012 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 The 3.7 is in the Mustang, Edge Sport, F-150 and PI Taurus/Explorer. I hardly think of it as a exclusive Lincoln Engine. And if you read further above, that assertion of 3.7 Lincoln exclusivity was originally made by another poster. The post you quoted was a qualifier to an imaginary situation where Ford could change their Explorer engines. My proposal was to replace 3.5 with 3.7 for added power & torque across the range, enabling Ford to offer a new small EB V6 as the gun engine with plenty of power and excellent fuel economy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 There is talk of Ford working on a 2.3L 4-cyl EB and a 2.5L & 2.7L 6-cyl EB to close the gap you identified. In doing so Ford to move to a fully EB lineup: 1.0EB up thru 3.5EB. My prediction is 1.0-1.3L I3, 1.6-2.3L I4, 2.5-3.2L V6, 3.6-5.0L V8s by 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.