jcartwright99 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 From Jalopnik Is this correct? I always thought it would be the 3.3 V6 for the Hybrid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said: From Jalopnik Is this correct? I always thought it would be the 3.3 V6 for the Hybrid. If it is indeed using the 3.5 EB, look for torque numbers around 700lb-ft (based on the power numbers for the Aviator GT with the 3.0 EB). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 Well that’s interesting. They’re assuming it’s the 3.5 ecoboost but I think it’s more likely that it’s an enlarged 3.3L NA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 25 minutes ago, akirby said: Well that’s interesting. They’re assuming it’s the 3.5 ecoboost but I think it’s more likely that it’s an enlarged 3.3L NA. Why? 3.5 “duratec” was phased for truck duty years ago. Producing a “different” version of the 3.3L NA for a unique application is both inefficient and a waste of money (which Ford is probably more concerned with at this point). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 Or they're just using the existing 3.5 in a non-boosted configuration. Keeps the same engine line for the most part, and parts of course. Plus the dual port injection that I don't think the 3.3 has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnm Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 It’s being built at the Cleveland plant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, mnm said: It’s being built at the Cleveland plant. So if true, total waste of money if this is the only application for the 3.5 NA. Do you have any other details to share about this engine and why the 3.3L is not sufficient for the upcoming F150 hybrid? Edited April 1, 2020 by 02MustangGT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcartwright99 Posted April 1, 2020 Author Share Posted April 1, 2020 1 hour ago, 02MustangGT said: So if true, total waste of money if this is the only application for the 3.5 NA. Do you have any other details to share about this engine and why the 3.3L is not sufficient for the upcoming F150 hybrid? Let's be honest, what would really be that different? I would imagine there would be a lot that would be the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 1 hour ago, 02MustangGT said: So if true, total waste of money if this is the only application for the 3.5 NA. Do you have any other details to share about this engine and why the 3.3L is not sufficient for the upcoming F150 hybrid? The 3.5 NA is the standard engine for the Transit Van. I hope the hybrid F150 is more efficient relative the other engines in the line-up than the Explorer 3.3 hybrid is, otherwise why go to the trouble of engineering it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 I believe the 3.5 in the Transit is both Port and Direct injected...AND less complex than the 3.7 it replaced... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 31 minutes ago, Deanh said: I believe the 3.5 in the Transit is both Port and Direct injected...AND less complex than the 3.7 it replaced... Thanks Dean, I don’t keep up with Transit powertrain options. One has to wonder, why build 2 different displacements of the NA V6 if the power numbers are the same/similar unless one is more efficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 I didn’t realize the transit was using a new 3.5L. Why would they use both the 3.3L and the 3.5L in F150 and Transit? Unless the weight of the transit and f150 hybrid were just too much for the 3.3L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 17 minutes ago, akirby said: I didn’t realize the transit was using a new 3.5L. Why would they use both the 3.3L and the 3.5L in F150 and Transit? Unless the weight of the transit and f150 hybrid were just too much for the 3.3L. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 2 hours ago, akirby said: I didn’t realize the transit was using a new 3.5L. Why would they use both the 3.3L and the 3.5L in F150 and Transit? Unless the weight of the transit and f150 hybrid were just too much for the 3.3L. Im sure cost probably played into that too. If the 3.3 is cheaper to build than the old 3.5 it replaced it's a no brainer for a base model truck where margins are already slim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 I also don't think it is 3.5 EB but the 3.5 from Transit. As to why there is a 3.3 and a 3.5 V6, I think it's probably done so to make sure F-150 with base V6 engine come in at a pre-determined desired MPG number for CAFE purpose. Remember, most Transit are over 8,500 lbs GVWR so they are not considered light duty vehicle. Whereas all F-150 are under 8,500 lbs GVWR and have a huge impact on Ford's CAFE. The F-150 hybrid will probably have very good (relative to other F-150) MPG so it's fine using 3.5 instead of 3.3. The bigger question is why Explorer got stuck with 3.3 hybrid instead of 3.5... perhaps there will be a change there in a year or two. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twin Turbo Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 Hmmm, what does this mean for the hybrid Mustang? Rumors were that it would be a Coyote + electric assist..........I had assumed this would be shared with F150 to reduce costs. Given the "all new" S650 is due for the '23MY, perhaps we won't see a hybrid until then. I did think there was a possibility the '21MY Mach 1 could be a hybrid, but the VIN doc revealed yesterday would indicate its "just" a V8. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Twin Turbo said: Hmmm, what does this mean for the hybrid Mustang? Rumors were that it would be a Coyote + electric assist..........I had assumed this would be shared with F150 to reduce costs. Given the "all new" S650 is due for the '23MY, perhaps we won't see a hybrid until then. I did think there was a possibility the '21MY Mach 1 could be a hybrid, but the VIN doc revealed yesterday would indicate its "just" a V8. In the past, Ford has mixed new models with old powertrains, but I don't see why it couldn't work in reverse if the current platform can already fit the new engine. I could see some benefit to real-world testing of your new engine before debuting it in the updated, newer vehicle. Of course, that reasoning works in reverse for the rest of the car... so really it can either way. Personally I say if it's ready, throw it out there and start selling it. You gotta have a good reason to purposefully hold something back IMO. Edited April 2, 2020 by probowler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 10 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said: Im sure cost probably played into that too. If the 3.3 is cheaper to build than the old 3.5 it replaced it's a no brainer for a base model truck where margins are already slim. But then that would also apply to all other applications. The only logical reason I can think of is that the 3.3L just didn't have enough power for the heavier hybrid F150 (batteries) and heavier Transit. Even then why not just use the 3.5L as the base in the F150 too - seems it would be cheaper and easier overall than having two similar displacements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 6 hours ago, Twin Turbo said: Hmmm, what does this mean for the hybrid Mustang? Rumors were that it would be a Coyote + electric assist..........I had assumed this would be shared with F150 to reduce costs. Given the "all new" S650 is due for the '23MY, perhaps we won't see a hybrid until then. I did think there was a possibility the '21MY Mach 1 could be a hybrid, but the VIN doc revealed yesterday would indicate its "just" a V8. I'm thinking hybrid mustang may not use the integrated motor 10 speed but instead have separate motors on the front wheels for better performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 27 minutes ago, akirby said: But then that would also apply to all other applications. The only logical reason I can think of is that the 3.3L just didn't have enough power for the heavier hybrid F150 (batteries) and heavier Transit. Even then why not just use the 3.5L as the base in the F150 too - seems it would be cheaper and easier overall than having two similar displacements. According to Ford’s website the 3.3 in the F150 has 290 hp with 265 torque. The 3.5 in the Transit has 275 hp and 262 torque. Both engines are PFDI. I don’t know why the bigger engine has less power and torque (maybe rated at lower RPM’S) or why Ford would spend the money to develop and certify two engines of the same family with such similar displacements and output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 1 hour ago, akirby said: But then that would also apply to all other applications. The only logical reason I can think of is that the 3.3L just didn't have enough power for the heavier hybrid F150 (batteries) and heavier Transit. Even then why not just use the 3.5L as the base in the F150 too - seems it would be cheaper and easier overall than having two similar displacements. You may be right. I'm curious if this was the plan all along or if it was changed at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, akirby said: But then that would also apply to all other applications. The only logical reason I can think of is that the 3.3L just didn't have enough power for the heavier hybrid F150 (batteries) and heavier Transit. Even then why not just use the 3.5L as the base in the F150 too - seems it would be cheaper and easier overall than having two similar displacements. I mentioned it a few post above. I don't think cost or power is the reason. There can't be any meaningful difference in material or labor cost of 3.3 vs. 3.5 since they are nearly identical other than a tiny difference is bore size. There can't be any meaningful difference in power output since 3.5 is not tuned for more output than 3.3. The only difference between the two application is that Transit is mostly over 8,500 lbs GVWR. Relatively few Transit 150 are sold with GVWR under 8,500. All Transits are rated GVWR 8,550 lbs or more whereas F-150 is all under 8,500 lbs GVWR. So that must play a significant part in why Ford choose 3.3 for F-150. It must be somehow optimized to ace EPA light duty (i.e. under 8,500 lbs GVWR) vehicle test cycle in F-150 to lower Ford's CAFE (even marginal difference adds up due to volume of F-150 sales). Edited April 2, 2020 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 15 minutes ago, bzcat said: It must be somehow optimized to ace EPA light duty (i.e. under 8,500 lbs GVWR) vehicle test cycle in F-150 to lower Ford's CAFE (even marginal difference adds up due to volume of F-150 sales). Agreed - but then why not use the 3.3L everywhere if it has the same power and better fuel economy? I still think the 3.3 just can't handle the extra weight of the F150 batteries or Transit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 11 hours ago, Trader 10 said: According to Ford’s website the 3.3 in the F150 has 290 hp with 265 torque. The 3.5 in the Transit has 275 hp and 262 torque. Both engines are PFDI. I don’t know why the bigger engine has less power and torque (maybe rated at lower RPM’S) or why Ford would spend the money to develop and certify two engines of the same family with such similar displacements and output. If you look at the EB35 in Transit and F-150, you'll see that it's seriously down-rated in the Transit. I'm thinking it's because of packaging issues--the Transit's engine bay is tiny compared to the F-150's, which can't help with heat extraction, so you'd most likely wind up losing performance from the 3.3, too. FWIW, we have mostly EB35s in our fleet of Transits, but we have a few of the NA 3.5s. Those NA 3.5s are not particularly popular with our drive teams. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 6 hours ago, akirby said: Agreed - but then why not use the 3.3L everywhere if it has the same power and better fuel economy? Because it probably wouldn't. The EB35 loses 65hp and 70ft-lbs in the Transit. 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.