Latest Round of Manpower Cuts

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Chrisgb said:

Inherent smoothness (no rocking couple), less block material, easier to produce; one head, one exhaust manifold, one intake manifold, only need two cams instead of four for DOHC. I get that there are parts that are twice as long than those in a V6, but overall simpler to produce.

Sound better than a V6 or especially an inline four!

You missed the question.  Why is it better on emissions?

[slemke]

13 minutes ago, akirby said:

You missed the question.  Why is it better on emissions?

Updated architecture.  The 2.3 is a newer design that was developed for more stringent emissions standards.   Why revamp an existing v6 when an I 4 designed to support multiple cylinder configurations can be used?  By using the i4 and adding cylinders Ford could drop supporting an architecture and streamline any future development along with reduced cost to build.  Hopefully it would allow more flexibility in switching between i3, i4, and i6 if they were all on the same architecture.  At least, that was one of the reasons Mercedes gave for switching to an i6.  It could be manufactured along with their now high volume 4 cyl.  I think the v6 was a 90 degree design based on a v8 for manufacturing reasons.   Then Mercedes switched to a 60 degree design before switching again to a i6.  With more 4 and 6 cylinder engines being sold, it made sense to group them together.

 

Ford will do whatever they think will be the most cost effective.  That might be to keep 2 v6 architectures around as long as the cost to update for changing emissions is low or they’ll switch to an i6 gambling that the cost to update multiple architectures will exceed the cost of new tooling.  We’ll see what happens soon enough.

[silvrsvt]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:05 AM, fuzzymoomoo said:

And? Build to the strictest ones then and used that one across the entire company. I think they made a way bigger deal about it than it was. 

Building the strictest one doesn’t mean it will be blanket compatible with all regulations either. 
 

Just look at this way-collision and emission standards are different in the EU vs the USA. It’s also why Ford EU existed pretty much as an independent unit for so long and part of the reason why there are layoffs with engineering staff. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Building the strictest one doesn’t mean it will be blanket compatible with all regulations either. 
 

Just look at this way-collision and emission standards are different in the EU vs the USA. It’s also why Ford EU existed pretty much as an independent unit for so long and part of the reason why there are layoffs with engineering staff. 

Are the differences really going to be big enough to raise that big of a fuss though?  It’s pretty well known that the CARB standards are among the strictest in the world. If that standard exceeds what exists in, say Saudi Arabia, what would stop them from just using the CARB standard anyway? 

[Chrisgb]

55 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Are the differences really going to be big enough to raise that big of a fuss though?  It’s pretty well known that the CARB standards are among the strictest in the world. If that standard exceeds what exists in, say Saudi Arabia, what would stop them from just using the CARB standard anyway? 

It depends. According to a report by the EU Parliament, the differences seem to be more to do with how vehicles are tested, and the loopholes in current EU regulations, than the hardware itself.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2017/595363/IPOL_ATA(2017)595363_EN.pdf

 

[DeluxeStang]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:57 AM, akirby said:

 

On 7/1/2023 at 1:29 PM, slemke said:

I could see Ford introducing an I-6 based on the new Mustang 2.3 when it comes time to upgrade the 3.3 and 3.5l cyclones for tighter emissions standards.  No sense engineering multiple solutions if it can be avoided.  In the end, I think it will be Coyote, Godzilla, and 2.3L ecoboost derivatives for gas engines.

Wait, Ford still sells the 3.5 duratec in new vehicles? That's a good engine, pretty reliable/powerful.  But it's ancient, I thought they phased it out a long time ago. 

[akirby]

41 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

Wait, Ford still sells the 3.5 duratec in new vehicles? That's a good engine, pretty reliable/powerful.  But it's ancient, I thought they phased it out a long time ago. 

Only the ecoboost version which I assume is considerably different.

[HotRunrGuy]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

Wait, Ford still sells the 3.5 duratec in new vehicles? That's a good engine, pretty reliable/powerful.  But it's ancient, I thought they phased it out a long time ago. 

The 3.5L is done, but they still offer a non-turbo 3.3L in F-150 and a couple others.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cyclone_engine

 

HRG

 

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Wait, Ford still sells the 3.5 duratec in new vehicles? That's a good engine, pretty reliable/powerful.  But it's ancient, I thought they phased it out a long time ago. 

 

3.5L V6 PFDI (non-Ecoboost) is the standard engine for Ford Transit Van in the U.S. You are correct, it's pretty reliable and powerful (275 hp) but ancient and crude. 

[DeluxeStang]

6 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

The 3.5L is done, but they still offer a non-turbo 3.3L in F-150 and a couple others.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cyclone_engine

 

HRG

 

I thought so. Then again, maybe it's still be used in the edge? It used to be, and the edge hasn't been redesigned in ages, so maybe it's still there in that product. I know they phased it out on the explorer, big mistake imo.

[DeluxeStang]

3 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

3.5L V6 PFDI (non-Ecoboost) is the standard engine for Ford Transit Van in the U.S. You are correct, it's pretty reliable and powerful (275 hp) but ancient and crude. 

Yeah, it has 290 hp in our 2017 explorer, which has been an unbelievably reliable car. It's not going to give a mustang a run for it's money, but for a three row NA crossover, the thing is actually fast as heck. It genuinely felt peppier than the 2020 tahoe we rented. You had to stomp on the gas just to make that turd move. The 2011-19 explorer gen deserves more credit for essentially saving the explorer nameplate/reputation. 

[akirby]

35 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I thought so. Then again, maybe it's still be used in the edge? It used to be, and the edge hasn't been redesigned in ages, so maybe it's still there in that product. I know they phased it out on the explorer, big mistake imo.

Edge and Explorer dropped it in 2020.  Edge is 2.0L and 2.7L ecoboost only.

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Yeah, it has 290 hp in our 2017 explorer, which has been an unbelievably reliable car. It's not going to give a mustang a run for it's money, but for a three row NA crossover, the thing is actually fast as heck. It genuinely felt peppier than the 2020 tahoe we rented. You had to stomp on the gas just to make that turd move. The 2011-19 explorer gen deserves more credit for essentially saving the explorer nameplate/reputation. 

Agreed on all counts. I have that engine in my Flex. Stupid reliable. 

[Rick73]

We can add Mazda to list of manufacturers now offering inline sixes.  Mazda’s CX-90 base I-6 at 3.3 liters and only 280 HP and 332 lb-ft seems optimized more for efficiency than power and torque.  It includes 16.6 HP and 113 lb-ft mild hybrid along with 8-speed auto.

[silvrsvt]

I know the FWD Ecoboost 3.5L can have water pump issues...not sure if that is the same on the regular 3.5L

[akirby]

4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Agreed on all counts. I have that engine in my Flex. Stupid reliable. 

Except for those water pumps….

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

I know the FWD Ecoboost 3.5L can have water pump issues...not sure if that is the same on the regular 3.5L

I’ve heard of it on the NA 3.5 too. Regular coolant changes/flushes at the recommended intervals are key with those engines but I got an extended warranty with mine just in case. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

I know the FWD Ecoboost 3.5L can have water pump issues...not sure if that is the same on the regular 3.5L

Only transverse versions.  

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Only transverse versions.  

I’ve seen quite a few videos on YouTube documenting the same issue on the F-150 version 

[akirby]

11 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I’ve seen quite a few videos on YouTube documenting the same issue on the F-150 version 

Forgot about that but it was only the first couple of years then they changed it.

[DeluxeStang]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

Edge and Explorer dropped it in 2020.  Edge is 2.0L and 2.7L ecoboost only.

That's a shame. The 2.7 hauls, but I feel like a 2.0 would really struggle to pull something as big and heavy as an edge around. 

 

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I’ve heard of it on the NA 3.5 too. Regular coolant changes/flushes at the recommended intervals are key with those engines but I got an extended warranty with mine just in case. 

Ours only has 28k on it, so we haven't flushed the coolant yet. Inquired about it at the dealership, but they were just like, it's fine for now. It's not the mileage, but age I'm worried about. Seems like worse case scenario, the water pump let's go around 60k miles, but the overwhelming majority of these engines are making it to 150, 200, 250k with little to no issues. I've heard the failure rate on post 2011 diuretics is quite low. They apparently redesigned the timing chain around this time and that somehow improved the reliability of the timing chain driven water pump on 2012 and newer engines. Not sure how true that is. Just something I've heard on the forums. 

[HotRunrGuy]

6 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's a shame. The 2.7 hauls, but I feel like a 2.0 would really struggle to pull something as big and heavy as an edge around.

 

My Wife's 2019 Edge, with moonroof, came in at a shipping weight of 4014#, so not terribly heavy. The 2.0EB, while less horsepower, has more torque at 1000 less rpm (2017 Edge powertrain chart below).  It certainly does not struggle in normal driving, and did fine towing my 2500# boat last year on a 750 mile trip.

 

HRG

[akirby]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's a shame. The 2.7 hauls, but I feel like a 2.0 would really struggle to pull something as big and heavy as an edge around. 

Not at all.  HRG nailed it.  Our 2008 Edge had the 3.5L and our 2016 MKX had the 3.7L.  My 2013 Fusion, 2014 Escape and now our 22 Nautilus has the 2.0L.  I hated the 3.5/3.7 in comparison.  You had to really stomp on it and wind it out to get going whereas the 2.0L only needs part throttle.  
 

Same for my 3.5eb F150.  That low rpm peak power on the ecoboosts is great. My truck will lope along at 1300 rpm in 10th gear at 45 mph even climbing  moderate hills no problem.  In that scenario I get about 26 mpg too.

[fuzzymoomoo]

I just realized something, I have the 3.7, not the 3.5…

[Rick73]

Years ago I rented a Mustang with 3.7L V6 in the DC area for a few days.  I recall it had plenty of power (twice as much as early Mustang V8s) but it was not a great driving experience because it was tuned to upshift as early as possible in order to maximize fuel economy.  In heavy highway traffic in 30~50 MPH range the engine was often running so slowly that there was no power to accelerate, and when pushed harder would downshift a couple of gears and take off like a rocket.  There just didn’t seem to be a middle ground other than shifting manually, which is what I ended up doing since saving less than a gallon of gas wasn’t worth it to me.

 

In normal traffic, I’ve driven cars, SUVs, and pickups with around 100 HP or less that were more enjoyable.  The compromise of power and fuel economy sometimes comes at too high a cost, at least for me.

 

Regarding 2.0L turbo having enough or adequate power, Mercedes has large Sprinter vans with 2.0L gasoline turbo engines, so it’s fair to say power and torque needs is highly subjective.  For my personal use, I prefer simplicity, reliability, and lower costs.  I have driven many turbo cars (mostly rentals which make great test drives), and seriously doubt I will ever own one.  I don’t need that much power, and EcoBoost doesn’t save enough gas to be worth it for my use.