Ford to show all-new vehicle tomorrow. New Expedition?

[jasonj80]

Also, can we all admit that if Ford had a 6.x litre aluminum V8 in the corporate parts bin, we'd probably see it in the new expy and it'd probably sell as well as the 3.5 if f150 engine volumes are any indication.

​No, because the statement isn't true.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Well, could you explain the drastic increase in sales with the '15 model that had only a minor facelift and dropped the V8 completely?

 

That's easy! The 5.4 stopped being competitive in about 2004. On top of that, the 3v version was a total fiasco between the two piece spark plugs and cam phasers. I've advised many friends/family to steer clear of that thing. I'd take a 2.7eb over a 3v 5.4 any day, not to even mention the 3.5eb which is a completely different class of power than the 5.4. Edited February 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[fordmantpw]

That's easy! The 5.4 stopped being competitive in about 2004. On top of that, the 3v version was a total fiasco between the two piece spark plugs and cam phasers. I'd take a 2.7eb over a 3v 5.4 any day, not to even mention the 3.5eb.

 

So, if the EB V6 is better than the V8, then it doesn't matter how many cylinders it has? That's basically what we've been trying to tell you, and you just agreed.

 

Most Expedition buyers don't care how many cylinders it has, as long as it performs like they want. Look at F150 sales. It's what, 70% V6 sales? Doesn't that tell you something? If the most historically V8-fan buyers are opting for the V6, I'm pretty sure the Expy buyers aren't going to care. So they lose 10 sales because it doesn't have a V8. Whoop to do! They saved the money putting the V8 in it and they are money ahead.

[chucky2]

What makes you think there aren't two cup holders and a big storage space under those covers?

 

There are two cup holders, in the vertical arrangement which (usually) isn't as effective both in cup holding dimension or usability (in this case the drink for the driver will pass over the super-critical console 'shifters'). By far the better arrangement is like the picture in my post above. As for big storage space, there isn't. It's a covered space (MotorTrend or AutoBlog had a photo of it open) and when the cover is pushed back it really doesn't look that big at all. A far better space provision is, again, like the picture I shared above. That maximizes the cup size holding capacity and access for both the drive and passenger, and, gives both a lot of usable centrally located - and this easily accessible - storage. You know, for people who actually use their vehicle with more than a 20oz water bottle and a single cell phone.

 

 

 

I just realized he doesn't know there are cupholders and a large storage bin under the covers.

I know, the 2018 arrangement is without doubt sub-optimal.

 

The column shifter in the Expedition was removed for all but the 9 passenger models for the 2007 model year.

 

There is *TONS* of storage space in this thing.

We have a 2000, not sure what year in the picture I shared (via Google Images). I really don't care when it was removed, better is better and there really is little doubt for my usage (and thus for anyone who actually uses their large SUV for more than a clean room single person carrying device) that what I've described is the preferred arrangement.

 

Look, if you guys enjoy less functionality, less easily available space, but want it to look more...pretty?...then by all means, moving the column 'shifter' to the console so one can pretend the 5400 lb SUV is a sports car (and one can't even do that now) makes total sense. Me, I'd rather trade the prettiness(?) for actual functionality in a large SUV. I guess I have crazy expectations...

[Sevensecondsuv]

So, if the EB V6 is better than the V8, then it doesn't matter how many cylinders it has? That's basically what we've been trying to tell you, and you just agreed.

 

Most Expedition buyers don't care how many cylinders it has, as long as it performs like they want. Look at F150 sales. It's what, 70% V6 sales? Doesn't that tell you something? If the most historically V8-fan buyers are opting for the V6, I'm pretty sure the Expy buyers aren't going to care. So they lose 10 sales because it doesn't have a V8. Whoop to do! They saved the money putting the V8 in it and they are money ahead.

I never said I wished they still put the 5.4 in it. My point was that I wished it had something like the GM 6.2 as an option on certain trims.

 

Also, 70% of f150 sales are V6, which is split between three different engines. Guessing that the n/a 3.5 is about 10%, that leaves both ecoboosts at 30% each. Which means the 2.7, 3.5, and 5.0 sell in roughly equal volumes. Ford offers the 5.0 because they're not willing to write that 30% off. But you already knew that....

[SoonerLS]

There are two cup holders, in the vertical arrangement which (usually) isn't as effective both in cup holding dimension or usability (in this case the drink for the driver will pass over the super-critical console 'shifters').

Meh. The cup holders in my Lincoln are in the vertical arrangement, and they work fine for me, despite having to pass the drink over the super-critical electronic parking brake.

 

As for the cubby under the cover, what the heck are you storing in there that wouldn't be better stored in the bin under the armrest?

[fordmantpw]

I never said I wished they still put the 5.4 in it. My point was that I wished it had something like the GM 6.2 as an option on certain trims.

 

If the 3.5L outperforms the 6.2L in all areas, what is the point of the 6.2L? Just to say you have 2 more cylinders? To say you have more HP even though you get your tail handed to you in any type of 'race'? That's my point...why put in an engine that under performs just to say you have 2 more cylinders. It makes no sense.

 

Also, 70% of f150 sales are V6, which is split between three different engines. Guessing that the n/a 3.5 is about 10%, that leaves both ecoboosts at 30% each. Which means the 2.7, 3.5, and 5.0 sell in roughly equal volumes. Ford offers the 5.0 because they're not willing to write that 30% off. But you already knew that....

 

There are some who prefer a V8, but my money is on the majority of those whose preference for Ford over any other brand is stronger than their preference for a V8 over a V6. In other words, they'd switch to a V6 over a V8 before they would switch to any other automaker. They care about performance over the number of cylinders in an engine. The numbers that MUST have a V8 in the F150 are much higher than those that MUST have a V8 in an Expedition, which is why I don't think you will see a V8 in the Expy. There just is no point, unless they throw a 4.0L V8 EB in it.

[chucky2]

Meh. The cup holders in my Lincoln are in the vertical arrangement, and they work fine for me, despite having to pass the drink over the super-critical electronic parking brake.

 

As for the cubby under the cover, what the heck are you storing in there that wouldn't be better stored in the bin under the armrest?

The cup holders in our '14 Flex are vertical as well, without an obtrusive cover, and they too "work fine". It's not like the passenger and I can't use two drinks at once, except when we're both reaching for our drinks, then someone has to wait else we'll be holding hands. Then there's the potential for mix up. It's not about something that merely works, it's about what works best. Vertical arrangement isn't best, it's a compromise necessary when moving the shifter from the column to the console so people can pretend to be Speed Racer.

 

As for the cubby, under the arm rest works fine for seldom accessed stuff that won't needed while driving. Anything else that comes in and out of the vehicle between stops, or needs to be accessed while driving, is best in the console. Multiply that by 2 if you have a front passenger. Multiply that potentially by x for for any rear passengers you might need to support.

 

When you fill up that little console space and you have to use the center arm rest storage, each and every time you now need to access it, both front passengers arms have to come off, then you have to lift it up while driving, rummage around while driving, look in there while driving, get whatever is in there out (this entire time the other front persons arm is over in their lap instead of comfortably on the arm rest), finally get whatever you needed, close the lid, and now arms back on the center arm rest.

 

Or you can reach forward and get your shit from the console storage because the shifter is on the column (which has a nice unused dead spot on it now where a column shifter could go, but isn't, because Speed Racer).

Edited February 8, 2017 by chucky2

[351cid]

I've seen similar graphs but never quite believed a 3.5 v6 was actually making 300 ft lbs at 1000 rpm, especially since the higher compression n/a version of the 3.5 only peaks at 265 ft lbs or so. Heck, if one were to try to design a gas engine to produce low rpm torque above all other considerations, you'd basically have the 4.9 straight six. Even that doesn't hit its peak of about 300 until 1600 rpm or so.

The only way it'd be possible is significant boost just off idle. Turbo technology has certainly come a long way, but simple physics of the exhaust turbine dictates that anything small enough to build boost at idle exhaust flow rates just won't flow enough to make power anywhere near as far out as the 3.5eb does.

Again, all reports are that the 3.5 is a strong performer in real life, but I'd really like to see the SAE certified power curve rather than these advertising slides that appear just too good to be true.

Keep in mind that the torque converter stalls. Most stock converters stall at 1400-1600 rpm on a healthy V8 (higher on smaller engines). If the converter stalls at 1800 rpm, then you will not experience any throttle lag due to the turbo.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Keep in mind that the torque converter stalls. Most stock converters stall at 1400-1600 rpm on a healthy V8 (higher on smaller engines). If the converter stalls at 1800 rpm, then you will not experience any throttle lag due to the turbo.

True but that was supposed be a graph of torque at the crankshaft, not trans output shaft. All I was saying is that the graph looked contrived.

[Sevensecondsuv]

If the 3.5L outperforms the 6.2L in all areas, what is the point of the 6.2L? Just to say you have 2 more cylinders? To say you have more HP even though you get your tail handed to you in any type of 'race'? That's my point...why put in an engine that under performs just to say you have 2 more cylinders. It makes no sense.

Except the 6.2 is a good 40-50 HP more than the 3.5eb, unless you're talking about the ho raptor version.

[sullynd]

What I should have said was, it's the only vehicle you can buy that can tow over 9000 pounds AND seat more than 6.

Huh. Friend tows his travel trailer with a Cheby Express. Can tow 9,600 and seat 12.

[akirby]

Some people just go out of their way to find something to gripe about.

[akirby]

Except the 6.2 is a good 40-50 HP more than the 3.5eb, unless you're talking about the ho raptor version.

It's not the hp it's the torque.

[sullynd]

Hey akirby - how do you find the gear selector on the MKX to be when backing out of a driveway, etc? Have you developed a "muscle memory" as to where to hit? When I had the 2017 Fusion loaner the rotory gear selector (as they'll have in the Expedition) drove me nuts because I had to look at it, I only had it a week, but I'm not sure I would ever switch "gears" reliably without looking as I can a traditional gearshift (or, I think, buttons as the Lincolns have.

 

Anyone have a rotary gearshift?

[Sevensecondsuv]

It's not the hp it's the torque.

Please don't make me post the engineering definition of each one. HP is the torque integrated over time. Bottom line is they both matter but hp alone determines how fast you can move x load up y incline.

 

If it was all just about torque, engine developent would have ended with the 300 six.

[fordmantpw]

Please don't make me post the engineering definition of each one. HP is the torque integrated over time. Bottom line is they both matter but hp alone determines how fast you can move x load up y incline.

 

If it was all just about torque, engine developent would have ended with the 300 six.

 

Then how come the 'short on HP' 3.5L EB meets or exceeds the performance of the more powerful and larger 6.2L in nearly every test?

 

It's not just the peak numbers...it's the value under the curves.

[akirby]

Hey akirby - how do you find the gear selector on the MKX to be when backing out of a driveway, etc? Have you developed a "muscle memory" as to where to hit? When I had the 2017 Fusion loaner the rotory gear selector (as they'll have in the Expedition) drove me nuts because I had to look at it, I only had it a week, but I'm not sure I would ever switch "gears" reliably without looking as I can a traditional gearshift (or, I think, buttons as the Lincolns have.

 

Anyone have a rotary gearshift?

 

We have the push buttons. The only difference is you do have to glance at the buttons before changing from R to D but since they're pretty much at eye level just to the right of the steering wheel it's no issue at all. Having to glance down at the rotary dial would seem to be just a bit more work but not much.

[akirby]

Please don't make me post the engineering definition of each one. HP is the torque integrated over time. Bottom line is they both matter but hp alone determines how fast you can move x load up y incline.

 

If it was all just about torque, engine developent would have ended with the 300 six.

 

It's not torque integrated over time - it's torque x rpm/5200. You raise either one you raise HP. And torque is the actual engine output. HP is just a formula.

 

1000 lb/ft at 1 rpm is useless for a vehicle. So is 10 lb/ft at 50,000 rpm.

 

Let's take 2 extremes - a Honda S2000 vs. a Ford 3.0L diesel.

 

The Honda 2.2L makes 239 hp but only 163 lb/ft of torque. It makes that much hp because it revs really high but has virtually no torque at low rpm.

 

The 3.0L diesel only makes 154 hp but has 280 lb/ft. The HP is low because it makes high torque at lower rpm and doesn't rev very high.

 

The diesel will blow away the Honda off the line and when towing a load even though it has almost 100 less hp.

 

That's why the torque curve is important - it's WHERE and WHEN you get the torque in the RPM band and the ecoboosts have gob of torque off the line. That's why my 2.0LEB Fusion can chirp the tires from a standstill.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Boy it's funny reading the misconceptions people have regarding HP and torque. I'm not trying to be insulting, this is just part of life as an engineer.

 

Hint: "integrated over time" is the technical way of saying "area under the curve".

 

Also, the 5252 formula works because it introduces the time unit. The 5252 is just a unit conversion factor needed for the common english units used for both numbers. A conversion factor wouldn't be necessary if metric units were used.

 

Gotta love calculus!!!

Edited February 9, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[Sevensecondsuv]

Oh, and my 2.3l naturally aspirated 115 HP ranger will chirp the tires too.

[sullynd]

 

We have the push buttons. The only difference is you do have to glance at the buttons before changing from R to D but since they're pretty much at eye level just to the right of the steering wheel it's no issue at all. Having to glance down at the rotary dial would seem to be just a bit more work but not much.

Sorry I wasn't clear - knew you had buttons.

 

I'd think rotary would be especially annoying with 3-point turns, etc.

[Sevensecondsuv]

But anyways, back to reality. In real life either the 3.5eb or GM 6.2 will provide spirited acceleration, even in a 5500 lb SUV. For most users, the only time the engine will hit its power peak (or even torque peak for that matter) is most likely going to be merging into a freeway. My point is that I'd rather listen to the V8 sing in this case.

[fordmantpw]

My point is that I'd rather listen to the V8 sing in this case.

That's something we can agree on! However, I'll take the feel of the turbo and the extra couple MPG over the sound. Heck they can just pipe that sound in now!

[Sevensecondsuv]

Hey, and you know what's better than listening to a V8 sing? Listening to a V10 sing! Oddly enough that only works inside the vehicle though. They just sound weird outside.