Why was NA v6 dropped from 2020 explorer?

I can see replacing the NA v6 in the mustang with the 2.3L ecoboost but the explorer is 4,500lbs curb weight. Thats alot of truck to move around for a boosted 4 banger.

I don't understand their powertrain strategy at all. The base f-150 XL reg cab still offers the 3.3L v6 as the base engine option. This would have been a cheaper engine option since it would combine the volume of fleet f150s and explorers. Both applications have similar curb weights and both are rwd.

The explorer ST seems to be a fun choice but for the money they're asking you may as well buy the lincoln aviator which is 3x nicer and has the same powertrain. So the engine choices and pricing dont make sense from either stand point. I do love they went back to a true RWD format for explorer. What i don't like is the pricing for all trim levels is now in the stratosphere. Lots of working class families wont be able to afford explorer anymore.

Factory capacity and contracts from into play as well.

My wife has an NA Explorer it's a tank on wheels, slow AF. The next one will definitely be an EcoBoost

PC03GT said:

My wife has an NA Explorer it's a tank on wheels, slow AF. The next one will definitely be an EcoBoost

Click to expand...

So you gonna drop over $50k for an ST or platinum when you could be in an aviator for almost the same price?

You can get pretty good discounts on the Explorer ST's right now (link below), next year it will get more aggressive I'm sure. Still a lot of $, they are quick though, I believe low 12's on tune only.

New 2020 Ford Explorer ST With Navigation & 4WD

***Mods please delete

Probably because they knew that the internal water pump designs on those transverse engines was going to be costly if they continued on with them.

Look at the torque curve of an NA v6 and a boosted 4 cylinder and the answer is clear. A turbo 4 can put out peak torque much lower, and hold it much longer. You can literally shape the powerband to be whatever you want, whereas with an NA engine your only option is revs.

I’d take a turbo 4 over a na 6 cylinder all day.

If I was Ford, I wouldn't even produce a V6 anymore.

V8- turbo 4 cyl- N/A 4 cyl

pwrshft99 said:

If I was Ford, I wouldn't even produce a V6 anymore.

V8- turbo 4 cyl- N/A 4 cyl

Click to expand...

Don't tell that to my 2.7. Lol

hockeylover86 said:

Probably because they knew that the internal water pump designs on those transverse engines was going to be costly if they continued on with them.

Click to expand...

The 2020 is RWD so that wouldn't be an issue.

The 3.0 EcoBoost in the Explorer ST is pretty good.

mc01svt said:

I can see replacing the NA v6 in the mustang with the 2.3L ecoboost but the explorer is 4,500lbs curb weight. Thats alot of truck to move around for a boosted 4 banger.

Click to expand...

The new full size Silverado has a turbo 4 banger as the base engine. It's actually a pretty sweet piece.

SID297 said:

The 3.0 EcoBoost in the Explorer ST is pretty good.

Click to expand...

That's an understatement! That will be an awesome motor once it's proven reliable. You're at 500HP with a tune, intake, and exhaust.

Voltwings said:

Look at the torque curve of an NA v6 and a boosted 4 cylinder and the answer is clear. A turbo 4 can put out peak torque much lower, and hold it much longer. You can literally shape the powerband to be whatever you want, whereas with an NA engine your only option is revs.

Click to expand...

That's true, however, with vehicle applications there are inherent limits to what's practical as far as stress limits, duty cycle and heat management considerations. To oversimplify things you can't just slap a 500hp turbo busa engine into a UPS truck. In general, displacement needs to increase with vehicle curb weight and aerodynamic load.

Looks like the ranger is 2.3L eco only as well. Its a shame you cant get the 2.7L ecoboost with that.

gimmie11s said:

The new full size Silverado has a turbo 4 banger as the base engine. It's actually a pretty sweet piece.

Click to expand...

It is well documented to get worse MPG than the 5.3L. So im not sure where they were going with this. Surely they dont think customers drive only 48mph on the highway.

Four Cylinder Chevrolet Silverado Gets Worse Fuel Economy Than V8 In Real World Test

mc01svt said:

So you gonna drop over $50k for an ST or platinum when you could be in an aviator for almost the same price?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't buy it new, I'm just saying the explorer NA is a turd

mc01svt said:

That's true, however, with vehicle applications there are inherent limits to what's practical as far as stress limits, duty cycle and heat management considerations. To oversimplify things you can't just slap a 500hp turbo busa engine into a UPS truck. In general, displacement needs to increase with vehicle curb weight and aerodynamic load.

Looks like the ranger is 2.3L eco only as well. Its a shame you cant get the 2.7L ecoboost with that.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I'll have to disagree. Let me preface this by saying that i personally prefer a V8 for my cars - I prefer simple horsepower - but I've been doing the turbo 4 thing long enough to know that even 100 ft/lbs per cylinder is child's play for most common 4 cylinder engines these days.

Let's take your example of stress limits though, because it does bring up an interesting view point. Turbo engines can easily handle, and make, lots of low end torque. Let's say you have the 2.3L turbo and 3.5L NA v6 both making 280 ft/lbs.
The 2.3L can make that torque probably as early as 1500 to 1800 rpms and hold it out probably as far as 4500 or so.
The 3.5 might not even make that much torque until 4500+ anyways.

So, if I were just chugging along in my car, using the engine's torque to move me through the air, rolling resistance, carry the weight, etc... which engine is actually having to work harder at a cruising RPM of say 2000 or so?

mc01svt said:

It is well documented to get worse MPG than the 5.3L. So im not sure where they were going with this. Surely they dont think customers drive only 48mph on the highway.

Four Cylinder Chevrolet Silverado Gets Worse Fuel Economy Than V8 In Real World Test

Click to expand...

Because it has to work harder to do everything.