"shpuker" (shpuker)
08/01/2017 at 08:50 • Filed to: Vehicle, Line-up, Ford, Lincoln, Engine, comedy
3
35|
"shpuker" (shpuker)
08/01/2017 at 08:50 • Filed to: Vehicle, Line-up, Ford, Lincoln, Engine, comedy | 3
| 35 |
Since I went out of my way to talk some pretty mad shit about Ford/Lincoln’s line-up I figure it’s only fair that I provide my thoughts on what the company should actually be rolling out to market before I dive into episode #2 of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
Oh and also, go vote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for what you want the next edition to be on!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
First things first. Quit with the N/A engines. Namely the fucking V6 and I4 ones, you aren’t good at it. I’m telling you, the only engines you need are the; 1.5L EcoBoost, 2.0L EcoBoost, 2.3L EcoBoost, 2.7L EcoBoost, 3.3L EcoBoost, the F-150's new diesel (I forget if you people know which engine it is or not yet and I’m too lazy to Google it right now), and the 6.7L PowerStroke. Notice there’s no gas V8 in there? That’s right bitches, the 5.0/5.2 doesn’t need to exist for Ford to be successful.
Now before all of you scream foul, hear me out. Assuming the 3.3L behaves roughly the same as the 3.5L under boost (except w/ direct injection and some other goodies), it should make a remarkable amount of power, especially in a high-output twin-turbo tune, for the 3.5L that’s about 375HP & 470 Lb*Ft in non-Raptor trim. Compare that to the 5.0L V8's 385 HP and 387 Lb*Ft and you have to ask the question, “Why the fuck would I want the V8?” And before you make the whole, “But under load the fuel economy!” argument, look some of that shit up for the actual truck. Yes on paper that argument works. In the real world? The EcoBoost does very well.
Now you may say, “BUT WAT ABOOT THA ‘STANG BRUH?!” To which I repply, You wouldn’t want a 450 HP (Or more?) 3.3L EcoBoost mustang? Because I fucking would.
So without further ado, here’s my proposed lineup:
Focus: 1.5EB, 1.5EB High-Output, 2.3EB High-Output
Mustang: 2.3EB, 3.3EB, 3.3EB High-Output
GT: 3.3EB High-Output
Fusion: 1.5EB, 2.0EB, 2.3EB
Escape: 1.5EB, 2.0EB, 2.3EB
Explorer: 2.0EB, 2.7EB, 3.3EB
Bronco: 2.7EB, 3.3EB, 3.3EB High-Output
Ranger: 2.7EB, 3.3EB
Expedition: 3.3EB, 3.3EB High-Output
F-150: 2.7EB, 3.3EB, 3.3EB High-Output, Diesel
Super Duty: 3.3EB High-Torque, 6.7L PowerStroke
Oh yea and some hybrid variants thrown in but I for-sure don’t want to get fired so I’m not gonna talk about that)
Now if you’re not good at counting or just too fucking lazy, that’s 9 total variants, and only 6 completely unique engines. (Unless I miscounted, in which case please correct me)
Oh and I almost forgot Lincoln!
P.S. If you want to get really good click numbers, only post at ridiculous times at night on weekdays...
CRider
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 00:22 |
|
2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 00:49 |
|
I don’t see how this works..... Remove some of the better selling variants because you want boost? The 5.0 sells huge in the mustang and f150. And the n/a i4s sell huge in the focus due to fleet sales. Your actually killing high sellers
|
shpuker
> 2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered
08/01/2017 at 00:55 |
|
*See my other post for a more detailed breakdown*
In sorry my view is this: There’s nothing the 2.0NA can do that the 1.5EB can’t, and the same goes for the 5.0L. Fleet sales would switch to the 1.5EB and hardly notice the difference, other than the spike in fuel economy.
Sure killing the 5.0L might not be the best strategy, but the 3.5EB has already turned into the preferred engine in the F150 so why wouldn’t the Mustang be able to make the switch?
The main benefit to all this though is a drastic simplification to their manufacturing process as well as dealer stocks for both vehicles and parts.
|
2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 01:01 |
|
You and I both know a v8 option is nessasary to the f150 and the mustang or else they will not sell. My only gripe with the focus switching to the eb is that the cost to fleets will rise, causing certian fleets to change manufacturer thus loss in sales. I see where this is going but people still buy Ford nas and nobody looks the other direction. Keep the nas because while they are not optimal setups, they allow for sales of vehicles and cheaper trims. The thing about the ebs is that they are usually in a higher trim that the nas, meaning that you could remove a whole trim when removing a single engine option.
FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 02:07 |
|
“There’s nothing the 2.0 NA can do that the 1.5EB can’t”
Sure there is. Come close to EPA numbers in the real world. Sound better. Be somewhat reliable.
Svend
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 03:33 |
|
No hatchbacks with added headroom, MPVs or people movers?
|
shpuker
> Svend
08/01/2017 at 03:44 |
|
I should clarify that this is US market. I did completely forget to include the transit though
|
shpuker
> FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com
08/01/2017 at 03:49 |
|
You realize the 2.0NA is famous for under shooting it’s EPA figures right?... Sound us subjective too but I’d take the 1.5's whizzing turbo over the 2.0's gasping any day
|
Svend
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 03:59 |
|
Oh okay, no worries.
The Transit and the Transit Connect the U.S. gets currently or plus the Transit Custom?
|
shpuker
> 2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered
08/01/2017 at 04:01 |
|
Is it though? The EB F150 Is selling insanely well and is building a reputation for eating V8s alive, especially at altitude. Why would that be any different in the Mustang? Hell the 5.0L probably won’t be emissions compliant in 5 years anyways, just kill it if then so people don’t have as bad a stroke.
Why would Ford not be able to make the switch and bring the EB costs down? Mazda did it and they’re using it much the same platforms. Hell all the non US brands did it already... If they simplified they’re lineup and ran a base EB the per-unit cost on that would drop and the price should stay level, if not drop.
|
shpuker
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 04:11 |
|
I’m also unaware of any reliability concerns with the 1.5L EB so feel free to forward me some links if you know otherwise
merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 07:26 |
|
To the lack of V8 proposal, all I can say is, no thank you. And more to my point, I just got done with the new Top Gear USA (which wasn’t awful) and more specifically, the raptor segment. All I can say after hearing that truck run at full throttle for the couple minutes it was on the screen is, it sounds absolutely awful. Where there should’ve been a screaming V8, all I heard was a buzzy mess that sounded like a damn civic. No beuno. But that’s the direction they are going with them, and because it says Raptor on the side in big vinyl letters, they will sell them, but it still doesn’t make it right.
|
shpuker
> merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc
08/01/2017 at 08:40 |
|
See I get that feeling, but it’s important to remember that turbocharged engines can sound amazing if a company actually puts the effort in.
|
shpuker
> merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc
08/01/2017 at 08:48 |
|
Also this: (Call me crazy but I don’t think the stock exhaust sounds bad and with the downpipe I actually quite like it. The full exhaust sounds just straight up mean)
|
shpuker
> Svend
08/01/2017 at 08:49 |
|
Honestly forgot the Transit Custom exists. What the point of it?
Needmoargarage
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 09:24 |
|
I still think the NA V8 is important, though I wouldn’t be surprised if it got axed in the next decade. I’m in the market for a new(er) F-150, and am pretty set on a 5.0L. Not for the noises it makes or cause ‘Merica, but because I don’t see myself enjoying replacing turbochargers, tracking down boost leaks, draining/replacing the CAC, etc. 10 years from now. I do enough of that on my other vehicles.
If I were like the majority of the population and dumped my new car every few years, I might agree with your powertrain lineup.
bhtooefr
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 09:43 |
|
Basically, it’s, as far as I’m aware, the size of the previous generation Transit, because the current one got significantly bigger, so as to accept Econoline upfits.
|
Svend
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 10:09 |
|
The Transit Custom is a replacement for the previous generation Transit while the big Transit is a new vehicle to the line up to take on the likes of the Iveco Daily, etc... and for the American market when Ford stopped making the Econoline. It gave the American market what it wanted in a van, size and load capacity.
While the Transit got bigger, it also got smaller with the Ford Courier. A gap filler between the Ford Fiesta van (itself a three door Fiesta with rear seats removed and rear side windows blanked off) and the Ford Transit Connect.
Though the U.S. doesn’t get the Fiesta van, the Transit Courier and the Transit Custom the Custom is what the Transit always was, while the smallest of two added further options for smaller load carrying around town, to get to work sites, for business tax reasons, etc...
|
shpuker
> Svend
08/01/2017 at 10:22 |
|
Ahhhh interesting. Well I’m not gonna claim to have some real deep understanding of the market for vans here stateside, if I had to make some assumptions as to what will sell here and what won’t I’d probably say we should for sure have the full-size transit and the Connect like we do. I don’t think the Courier would sell here much at all, but the Custom I could see doing alright. I’d say if the US starts to discourage or ban large trucks from city centers/specific cities in general, then it would sell very well. Otherwise the two van setup is probably the way to go.
Slant6
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 11:06 |
|
The 5.0 has been produced for so long that the R&D that has gone into it, as well as the tooling costs have been paid for many times over. It would be a bad idea to stop making them as long as people want them. Which they do.
Additionally the NA4s an v6s are cheap and for what most people use a car for completely adequate. And while long term reliability data is yet to be seen for the turbo the general market opinion is that turbos add a level of complexity to the car that really isn’t necessary.
Ford doesn’t seem to be struggling, don’t know why they’d change anything. I’m also quite certain they have 100s of people working for their marketing and development teams that guide their decisions. Of course they’ve made mistakes before, like everyone does, but Ford really couldn’t afford to make the mistake that would be your idea.
HammerheadFistpunch
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 11:08 |
|
There’s on paper and there’s real life. No V8 is a pass for me. And I’ve been following Ecoboost mileage figured since they can out and the eco part of the motor is a total myth with any kind of load or speed... It’s not just an on paper thing.
|
Svend
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 11:09 |
|
Of the line up I recon the Custom is the better looking of the lot.
M-Sport bodykit.
Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 11:10 |
|
If they can get the 3.5 EB to sound good on its own, no stereo-gimmicks. Then I’d probably be okay with no V8. I think with some tuning and exhaust development they should be able to get a good sound out of it. Other manufacturers have been able to do it in the past and present.
edit: Actually just heard Shpukers clips, they already sound quite good actually! I need to run off and get my downpipes on my SHO!
boredalways
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 11:41 |
|
No V8 option for a muscle car defeats the purpose of its existence.
A TTV6 with the performance you mentioned would make more sense as a specialty model, similar to a GT350R or SVO.
Also, you would kill any hope of another Mad Max film!
Rock Bottom
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 12:16 |
|
You’re crazy. The Cyclone and Nano family engines can’t be made to sound good. They always sound flatulent and “blatty”, stock and modified. They sound terrible in the SHO Taurus, the Fusion Sport, F-150, Raptor, everything. Just terrible.
Now, the old Hurricane Boss family engines sound pretty great no matter what. They sound fantastic with pipes, which brings me to the single biggest problem with Ford’s decision to use the V6. I know a ton of V8 Raptor guys, and every single one of them loves the way their trucks sound. The faux-Baja burble/rumble/roar is a point of pride with them, much as it is with Harley guys. It’s a big part of why people bought these trucks in the first place. The Cyclone-powered trucks will never generate that same cultural gravity.
|
shpuker
> boredalways
08/01/2017 at 12:27 |
|
Good thing the Mustang is a pony car! ;)
*Partially sarcastic*
You’d gain the ability to run it at a crazy range of trim levels so you could do both!
|
shpuker
> Slant6
08/01/2017 at 12:40 |
|
To be fair the 5.0L has only been in production since the 2011 Mustang. (Though the Modular V8 itself has been around since 1990) Considering the fact that the 3.3EB is going to happen either way, why keep the tooling and parts, etc for both engines running the entire time?
Yet pretty much every non-US manufacturer isn’t having any problems moving them and keeping costs down. In theory that’s accurate but among the average consumer, they just don’t care.
*Looks at Ford’s stock price/trend* Yea quite a lot of people would beg to differ.
|
shpuker
> HammerheadFistpunch
08/01/2017 at 13:06 |
|
If you’re talking F-150 in terms of the no V8 then sure, the 5.0L does tend to return better fuel economy numbers than the EB while towing, those numbers are pretty much even in real world testing. The addition of the 10-speed should benefit the EB significantly more than the 5.0L as well, pushing it further ahead.
Car & Driver did a pretty good review of the two options for the 2016's (see below). I’ll just go ahead and quote them directly, but they attack this topic pretty much head on.
“We can’t imagine a day when anybody tunes a V-8 to sound more like a V-6, and yet the 5.0’s engineers would do well to emulate the EcoBoost’s eagerness. They may not get a chance. We hear rumors that the 5.0-liter will be pulled from the F-150 next year. It seems like the time has come. Yes, the 5.0-liter is more relaxed and easier to live with in daily commuting. But in hardworking F-150s, twin turbos handily trump an extra pair of cylinders.”
Also this:
“You might think that convincing buyers to give up the engine configuration that has powered nearly every iconic American vehicle over the last six decades would be a tough sell. But Ford claims the EcoBoost 3.5 is the highest-volume engine in the F-150 now. It can’t hurt that it costs just $600 to upgrade from the V-8 to the turbo V-6.”
|
merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 13:32 |
|
It definitely sounds better than the one in TGUSA for some reason. But it still not quite the same as a V8. It’s just a bit off, but better.
|
merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 13:36 |
|
Now that stock focus exhaust sounds nice. The open exhaust is a bit too much for my tastes, but I like it better than the raptor exhaust.
|
shpuker
> merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc
08/01/2017 at 14:03 |
|
I imagine some of it comes down to having different audio equipment (doesn’t hurt that its a company trying to sell its exhaust systems too). I agree it seems like it’s missing a little something in the exhaust note, but I feel like that’s something that’ll come with time.
|
merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 15:11 |
|
Definitely will probably become okay over time. That’s the direction it’s heading anyway. The real benefit though is the turbo and ability to tune them. It’s tough to beat that with NA anything.
ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
> shpuker
08/01/2017 at 16:01 |
|
Can confirm. I bought a 2017 F150 with the 2.7l ecoboost. 325 hp and 375ftlbs of torque, sub 6 second 0-60, tows like a champ, and is getting between 22.5-23.5 mpg on my commute to work. I’ve not done enough long-distance towing to really see what fuel economy it actually returns in that use, but overall I’ve come to the conclusion that the V8 is a technical problem that has been solved. Given the long-term reliability of the 3.5eb, I wouldn’t buy a gas V8 in a new truck for any reason at this point. If I needed more than my 2.7 in the future, I’d just get the bigger TTV6.
Itsmemupos
> shpuker
08/02/2017 at 04:55 |
|
I know you said to hell with Lincoln, but the 3.0T from the’17 MKZ has been setup with more power and torque than the 3.5T. It sounds pretty exciting in stock form too. I see one in my future once someone else takes the depreciation hit for me.
|
shpuker
> Itsmemupos
08/02/2017 at 07:04 |
|
Partially true unless you look at the high output versions of the 3.5EB and 2.7EB. In the 2018 F150 the 2.7 puts down 400 lb*ft, matching the 3.0L (yes it’s 75 HP short still) and the 3.5L puts down 470 lb*ft in the regular engine, and 510lb*ft in the Raptor. So really torque is where the 3.0L falls behind the 3.5L. You could still make an argument for it over the 2.7L, but considering the fact that the 2.7L is already significantly more common in the lineup. I’d dive into the two motors more and give you a better answer than that, but there isn’t really anything else readily available to compare them by. If you find torque curves let me know!