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

[NLPRacing]

I saw elsewhere that the Ford Canada website supposedly shows two different power ratings for the 3.5 in the '18 Expy. They claimed it states 400 HP / 480 LB FT for the Platinum and 365 HP / 450 LB FT for all other trims. I looked but I couldn't find any power ratings for the '18.

 

It sure does: "The 3.5L EcoBoost® engine in the Expedition Platinum is tuned to give you more refined power – upping the output to 400 horsepower and 480 lbs.-ft. of torque. Which means more responsive performance as you pass others on the highway." I wonder if that means it can tow more too.

 

For the same reason most new car buyers buy the vehicles they do--they want them. I'd bet that most Expeditions will never tow a trailer, let alone a heavy trailer.

 

I've been to many campgrounds and there are quite a few Expeditions that tow big travel trailers. It's the only vehicle you can buy that can tow over 8000 pounds AND seat more than 6. I used to tow our travel trailer with my wife's old 07 Expy EL and it did really well (except for that time I warped the exhaust manifold running it too hard )

[blazerdude20]

 

I've been to many campgrounds and there are quite a few Expeditions that tow big travel trailers. It's the only vehicle you can buy that can tow over 8000 pounds AND seat more than 6. I used to tow our travel trailer with my wife's old 07 Expy EL and it did really well (except for that time I warped the exhaust manifold running it too hard )

Do the GM twins not tow 8k? That seems ridiculous that they don't.

[akirby]

I dont think its quite that simple. I'd like to see the torque curves overlayed for the 3.5eb and the GM 6.2. I don't doubt that the eb out torques the 6.2 from about 2000-4000, but the 6.2 is going to have it all over the 3.5 in terms of off-idle (say 900 to 1700 or so) torque. I know the 3.5eb uses pretty small turbos and the wastegates are electronically controlled to ensure boost as low as possible, but until it gets into boost, it's just a 3.5l V6.

 

Now some will argue that it doesn't matter below 1750 rpm, and im sure it probably doesn't show up in the 0-60 times. But it absolutely makes a difference in how the truck feels when you step on the gas from a dead stop.

 

Again, need to see the torque curves on top of each other.

 

This isn't really valid for the V8 torque curve but look at the 3.5 - you get almost 300 lb/ft at 1000 rpm.

 

[akirby]

Do the GM twins not tow 8k? That seems ridiculous that they don't.

 

The Tahoe looks to be limited to 6600 lbs. That seems really low.

 

Edit: Yukon goes to 8400.

Edited February 8, 2017 by akirby

[jasonj80]

I dont think its quite that simple. I'd like to see the torque curves overlayed for the 3.5eb and the GM 6.2. I don't doubt that the eb out torques the 6.2 from about 2000-4000, but the 6.2 is going to have it all over the 3.5 in terms of off-idle (say 900 to 1700 or so) torque. I know the 3.5eb uses pretty small turbos and the wastegates are electronically controlled to ensure boost as low as possible, but until it gets into boost, it's just a 3.5l V6.

 

Now some will argue that it doesn't matter below 1750 rpm, and im sure it probably doesn't show up in the 0-60 times. But it absolutely makes a difference in how the truck feels when you step on the gas from a dead stop.

 

Again, need to see the torque curves on top of each other.

 

Being out in Colorado lately for many and Ski/Work trips, I wont even take a GM SUV anymore. The GM 6.2L in the Denali feels underpowered in Denver let alone when you're taking 70 to the resorts, its painful when the truck is loaded with 4 people and gear and you're coming up to the Eisenhower tunnel, the current Expedition walks all over it and gives much better mileage. NA engines start to suck fuel, and lose noticeable power after 2000ft.

[blksn8k2]

 

Being out in Colorado lately for many and Ski/Work trips, I wont even take a GM SUV anymore. The GM 6.2L in the Denali feels underpowered in Denver let alone when you're taking 70 to the resorts, its painful when the truck is loaded with 4 people and gear and you're coming up to the Eisenhower tunnel, the current Expedition walks all over it and gives much better mileage. NA engines start to suck fuel, and lose noticeable power after 2000ft.

 

Have you ever watched the videos made by TFL Truck? They do all of their extreme towing on that stretch of highway. They call it the Ike Gauntlet. Pretty informative and entertaining. The EcoBoost vehicles outperform most other gas powered rigs there because of the altitude.

 

http://www.tfltruck.com/2017/02/worlds-toughest-towing-test-way-2017-ike-gauntlet-video/

[silvrsvt]

 

Have you ever watched the videos made by TFL Truck? They do all of their extreme towing on that stretch of highway. They call it the Ike Gauntlet. Pretty informative and entertaining. The EcoBoost vehicles outperform most other gas powered rigs there because of the altitude.

 

http://www.tfltruck.com/2017/02/worlds-toughest-towing-test-way-2017-ike-gauntlet-video/

 

In a more extreme example, aircraft without Turbo/supercharging would die out performance wise over 15-20K feet vs ones with forced induction...it would be the same for cars also....though not many people drive at 20K feet

[blksn8k2]

 

It sure does: "The 3.5L EcoBoost® engine in the Expedition Platinum is tuned to give you more refined power – upping the output to 400 horsepower and 480 lbs.-ft. of torque. Which means more responsive performance as you pass others on the highway." I wonder if that means it can tow more too.

 

 

I've been to many campgrounds and there are quite a few Expeditions that tow big travel trailers. It's the only vehicle you can buy that can tow over 8000 pounds AND seat more than 6. I used to tow our travel trailer with my wife's old 07 Expy EL and it did really well (except for that time I warped the exhaust manifold running it too hard )

 

Ah, now I see where they hid it. You have to click through all the photos to see the captions and there are separate sets of photos for the different trim levels.

[NLPRacing]

Do the GM twins not tow 8k? That seems ridiculous that they don't.

 

 

 

The Tahoe looks to be limited to 6600 lbs. That seems really low.

 

Edit: Yukon goes to 8400.

 

You can only tow over 8000 lbs with a GM SUV if it has the 6.2L V8. Since at least 2007, the Expedition could be equipped to tow over 9000 lbs pretty easily. 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.

Edited February 8, 2017 by NLPRacing

[chucky2]

Why in gods name did they get rid of the column shifter <insertVomitEmoji>?!?! Look at all that usable space wasted for something that's used once/twice when first getting in the vehicle and once prior to getting out. Fffff*ccckkk that is a bad actual consumer use design decision...

[akirby]

Because it's not 1987?

[SoonerLS]

Why in gods name did they get rid of the column shifter <insertVomitEmoji>?!?! Look at all that usable space wasted for something that's used once/twice when first getting in the vehicle and once prior to getting out. Fffff*ccckkk that is a bad actual consumer use design decision...

What "usable space?" You mean the empty space between the console and the dash in the older Expeditions? The storage in the new console actually looks like a better utilization of what was wasted space...

Edited February 8, 2017 by SoonerLS

[chucky2]

What "usable space?" You mean the empty space between the console and the dash in the older Expeditions? The storage in the new console actually looks like a better utilization of what was wasted space...

 

I mean the two cup holders (one on the drivers side, one on the passengers side) and the storage area forward of them. An example (Google Images with 'Expedition Interior' has more):

 

[chucky2]

Because it's not 1987?

LOL, I had no idea people actually using their large SUV more than the one Ford engineer at a time was so 1987...who knew?!

[Sevensecondsuv]

This isn't really valid for the V8 torque curve but look at the 3.5 - you get almost 300 lb/ft at 1000 rpm.

 

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.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The one reason I'll give for column shift is families with enough kids to need the middle seat up front. I'm not there yet myself but do have a couple friends facing this issue. These vehicles are popular with large families so it'd be nice to see at least a lower trim package offered with column shift and a 40/20/40 front bench like the lower trim f150s have.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[SoonerLS]

I mean the two cup holders (one on the drivers side, one on the passengers side) and the storage area forward of them. An example (Google Images with 'Expedition Interior' has more):

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

[SoonerLS]

The one reason I'll give for column shift is families with enough kids to need the middle seat up front. I'm not there yet myself but do have a couple friends facing this issue. These vehicles are popular with large families so it'd be nice to see at least a lower trim package offered with column shift and a 40/20/40 front bench like the lower trim f150s have.

Did the Expedition ever have a third seat up front? I know my brother's old Expedition (IIRC, it was a '99) had a center console.

[akirby]

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

 

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

[PREMiERdrum]

Why in gods name did they get rid of the column shifter <insertVomitEmoji>?!?! Look at all that usable space wasted for something that's used once/twice when first getting in the vehicle and once prior to getting out. Fffff*ccckkk that is a bad actual consumer use design decision...

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.

[spotdog14]

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.

 

Have you ever driven one? I believe it! Currently owning a 2015 F-150 3.5 eco and as having currently a 2017 F-150 3.5 eco loaner its fast.

[akirby]

And there we have it - the birth of the V8 mafia......

[Sevensecondsuv]

And there we have it - the birth of the V8 mafia......

No no no, i'm not an ecoboost hater. I like turbo engines. However it's not the end-all for every application and I think Ford is going to miss out on good chunk of buyers by not offering a capable V8 in this expy.

 

As for the curve, I'm just questioning a graph that looks rather contrived if you consider the physics of what it appears to claim. It wouldn't be the first time a dealer spread false information....

Edited February 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[fordmantpw]

No no no, i'm not an ecoboost hater. I like turbo engines. However it's not the end-all for every application and I think Ford is going to miss out on good chunk of buyers by not offering a capable V8 in this expy.

 

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

[Sevensecondsuv]

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.

 

Ford obviously decided that it wasn't worth developing a new V8 for this application so it's ecoboost or nothing. The only question is how many buyers will they alienate by not offering a V8? I'm sure some smart bean counters spent many hours making that decision.