Why was NA v6 dropped from 2020 explorer?

Voltwings said:

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?

Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree to which point? You think you can put a turbo hayabusa engine in a UPS truck? LOL

To answer your question it probably only takes 70hp or so to keep an average car cruising on level ground. Under this condition the 4 pot will operate at a higher throttle position, have less pumping losses and thus consume slightly less fuel.

The problem comes in during transient loads. Going uphill, hard acceleration, headwind, pulling a trailer the 4 pot will need boost to compensate. At only 7psi, thats equivalent to the engine pulling 50% more mass of air than it would under NA operation. The cylinder pressure will be much higher, exhaust temps will increase and the engine will be under a higher stressed condition. You can build the short block components to take this stress but like i said, there are practical limits. This is why you don't see the ecoboost 3.5L used in superduty even though it has greater low end torque than a dinosaur 2v NA V8.

My na v6 explorer was one thirsty bitch for what it was...14ish

My 5.0 f150 gets better mileage 18.5-19

mc01svt said:

Respectfully disagree to which point? You think you can put a turbo hayabusa engine in a UPS truck? LOL

To answer your question it probably only takes 70hp or so to keep an average car cruising on level ground. Under this condition the 4 pot will operate at a higher throttle position, have less pumping losses and thus consume slightly less fuel.

The problem comes in during transient loads. Going uphill, hard acceleration, headwind, pulling a trailer the 4 pot will need boost to compensate. At only 7psi, thats equivalent to the engine pulling 50% more mass of air than it would under NA operation. The cylinder pressure will be much higher, exhaust temps will increase and the engine will be under a higher stressed condition. You can build the short block components to take this stress but like i said, there are practical limits. This is why you don't see the ecoboost 3.5L used in superduty even though it has greater low end torque than a dinosaur 2v NA V8.

Click to expand...

Don't be dense, I'm disagreeing that a turbo 4 cylinder is somehow stressed in a modern SUV. I think your argument lacking perspective as well, just because the 4 cylinder may be stressed more* still does not mean it is actually stressed. All the benefits of more power, lighter weight... really no downside. I really do fail to see the argument of how an NA v6 is better than a boosted 4 in this application... a mid 200s hp / tq engine is well within any sort of practical limits.

Voltwings said:

Don't be dense, I'm disagreeing that a turbo 4 cylinder is somehow stressed in a modern SUV. I think your argument lacking perspective as well, just because the 4 cylinder may be stressed more* still does not mean it is actually stressed. All the benefits of more power, lighter weight... really no downside. I really do fail to see the argument of how an NA v6 is better than a boosted 4 in this application... a mid 200s hp / tq engine is well within any sort of practical limits.

Click to expand...

Of course.

Everyone seems to forget the v8s of only a few years ago were lucky to break 250 hp and 300 tq.




Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Honestly, my little 165 cubic inch moves my 150 around with ease, and still gets close to 24 MPG around town. I’m honestly impressed. No need for more unless I’m pulling big weight.
Love this little V6.

03cobra#694 said:

Honestly, my little 165 cubic inch moves my 150 around with ease, and still gets close to 24 MPG around town. I’m honestly impressed. No need for more unless I’m pulling big weight.
Love this little V6.

Click to expand...

Best option there is for an F150.

03cobra#694 said:

Honestly, my little 165 cubic inch moves my 150 around with ease, and still gets close to 24 MPG around town. I’m honestly impressed. No need for more unless I’m pulling big weight.
Love this little V6.

Click to expand...

IronSnake said:

Best option there is for an F150.

Click to expand...

There's part of me that wishes I could have found the truck I wanted with the 2.7. However, engine choice wasn't a deciding factor at all in my used search. It just happens the truck that all the other checks had the 3.5. The 2.7 would tow my tractor and trailer just fine.

SCREW
6.5' bed
Middle front seat
XLT 302A
Tow Package

Sent from my SM-G975U using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Voltwings said:

Don't be dense, I'm disagreeing that a turbo 4 cylinder is somehow stressed in a modern SUV. I think your argument lacking perspective as well, just because the 4 cylinder may be stressed more* still does not mean it is actually stressed. All the benefits of more power, lighter weight... really no downside. I really do fail to see the argument of how an NA v6 is better than a boosted 4 in this application... a mid 200s hp / tq engine is well within any sort of practical limits.

Click to expand...

If your premise is absolutely true, that turbo 4 is superior for this application with no downsides then there would not be a single large NA v6 as an available option in the 3 row SUV segment. Instead the opposite is true.....

chevy traverse 3.6L
dodge durango 3.5L
honda pilot 3.5L
toyota highlander 3.5L
VW atlas 3.6L
nissan pathfinder 3.5L

BTW, the 2.3L eco uses max boost of 19psi, so the mass airflow at peak power is equivalent to that of a 5.1L NA engine. That's almost the highest power density of fords current offerings.

mc01svt said:

If your premise is absolutely true, that turbo 4 is superior for this application with no downsides then there would not be a single large NA v6 as an available option in the 3 row SUV segment. Instead the opposite is true.....

chevy traverse 3.6L
dodge durango 3.5L
honda pilot 3.5L
toyota highlander 3.5L
VW atlas 3.6L
nissan pathfinder 3.5L

BTW, the 2.3L eco uses max boost of 19psi, so the mass airflow at peak power is equivalent to that of a 5.1L NA engine. That's almost the highest power density of fords current offerings.

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I think you're being a bit narrow minded because you're not getting the answer you wanted. Take a step back and look at your list:

Chevy Traverse: V6 and 2.0T are both options
I don't think Dodge makes a 2.0T, outside whatever it is they put in the Wrangler
Honda only makes a 1.5L turbo outside of the 2.0 in the Type R, but all Acura SUVs use that 2.0L turbo.
Toyota / Lexus don't make a 4 cylinder turbo worth a damn.
The 2.0 turbo in the Atlas is the base engine, but that same engine (with just a higher tune) is also the base engine in every Audi SUV.
Nissan really doesn't make a 2.0T worth a damn.

Most of your examples are Japanese, I encourage you to look German if you have doubts about the application of a turbo 4.
The V6s are the limiting factor here, and marketing people are not stupid. They know there is this misunderstood fact that somehow a turbo 4 is inferior to an NA6, so they make the 2.0T the base engine and make the V6 the premium offering. It would not be hard at all to make the 2.0T surpass the V6's power ratings, but people would 100% turn their nose up at a smaller engine being the more premium offering. Just look at the uproar getting rid of the 6.2 in the Raptor made even though the new V6 absolutely destroys that old engine in terms of performance.

I'll ask you again, a very simple question: Look at a dyno graph of the low end torque a turbo 4 can make vs an NA6 and tell me why we're even having this conversation?

Voltwings said:

I'll be honest, I think you're being a bit narrow minded because you're not getting the answer you wanted. Take a step back and look at your list:

I'll ask you again, a very simple question: Look at a dyno graph of the low end torque a turbo 4 can make vs an NA6 and tell me why we're even having this conversation?

Click to expand...

A smaller boosted motor will have alot better torque curve than large NA, no ones arguing that. But production vehicle applications have numerous other factors that come into play besides just simple torque vs speed.

the base v6 for f-150 only has 265lb-ft of torque whereas the Eco 2.3L has 310lb-ft

Why do you think they put a larger less power dense engine for base F150? It has to do with BTE/BSFC and B10 life, things you won't see in brochures. They could get away with it but it would need to be detuned to the order of 235hp or so since f150 has a higher load cycle. Funny thing is they detuned the 2.3L even for ranger use. That ought to tell you something.

So, last year I traded in my 2015 Explorer Limited 3.5 V6 for a 2018 Sport with a 3.5 EB. Night and day difference in driveablility. I do a fair bit of driving on mountain highways with a 75MPH speed limit and the 3.5 always felt like it was straining on the long hills. The EB just eats it up. Much better.

mc01svt said:

A smaller boosted motor will have alot better torque curve than large NA, no ones arguing that. But production vehicle applications have numerous other factors that come into play besides just simple torque vs speed.

the base v6 for f-150 only has 265lb-ft of torque whereas the Eco 2.3L has 310lb-ft

Why do you think they put a larger less power dense engine for base F150? It has to do with BTE/BSFC and B10 life, things you won't see in brochures. They could get away with it but it would need to be detuned to the order of 235hp or so since f150 has a higher load cycle. Funny thing is they detuned the 2.3L even for ranger use. That ought to tell you something.

Click to expand...

I am familiar with brake specific fuel consumption, but ultimately that's something that only impacts the end user, not a manufacturer trying to sell us something - 30 horsepower worth of fuel is 30 horsepower worth of fuel regardless of how many cylinders it's in. I believe that's a separate conversation though.

I also believe the Ranger being detuned (compared to the mustang 2.3?) has more to do with octane than anything. A Ranger is going to be rode hard and put away wet, so I don't think there's any doubt it would be detuned a bit. Same even goes for a mustang 5.0 vs F-150 5.0.