2018 F-150 and Expedition powertrain

[svtfocus2cobra]

I'm kind of curious about the sales figures of expeditions. I don't see nearly as many as I used to. They were everywhere back in the day. The 99-04 body style was almost like an infestation of F150 and Expeditions on the road. I see more of those still than the newer body styles.

The Expeditions are great SUVs! I was driving a 2016 Limited with the 3.5 EB all last week. They are fast, nice interior, fuel mileage was probably the most surprising. I didnt calculate it but when I started it was just under full tank and after a week of commuting from home to work and other people taking it out and beating on it as well it got down to 3/4 of a tank. It makes me excited to see how the 2018 turns out. I would buy and Expedition over a Tahoe anyday.

Sent from my SM-G935P using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[mc01svt]

Having you been living under a rock? The power difference has been going on since the Coyote debuted in both platforms. And they are NOT the exact same hardware, there are reasons why the Mustang version puts out more power.

meh, the mustang had tubular exhaust manifolds, different intake cams and slightly higher compression. Now that both vehicles are getting direct injection there is no reason to go with lower compression on the f-150. Which is where the majority of the power difference comes from.

from 2011 to 2015 the f150 5.0 got a magical 25hp bump from 360 to 385 with the same fuel system and major components.

So after adding a 2,000psi high pressure pump, lines and an additional 8 injectors its only gonna have a 10hp bump?

They are sandbagging plain and simple

 

[Willie2]

IIRC it was updated for 2017, so there isn't really an update for 2018.

+50 lb/ft in the '17

 

[Willie2]

Lincoln says 450hp with 93 in the new Navigator. pretty cool.

 

[Coming Up]

Anyone else feel the new expedition looks more like a tahoe now?

 

[Willie2]

- 3.5L EcoBoost - 375 HP/470 lb.-ft./rpm from the ford site

 

[mc01svt]

- 3.5L EcoBoost - 375 HP/470 lb.-ft./rpm from the ford site

even for a v6 hater like myself you have to show some respect to those numbers. Thats more torque than the lightning 5.4l sc and the 6.8l 3v triton v10

 

[SID297]

meh, the mustang had tubular exhaust manifolds, different intake cams and slightly higher compression. Now that both vehicles are getting direct injection there is no reason to go with lower compression on the f-150. Which is where the majority of the power difference comes from.

from 2011 to 2015 the f150 5.0 got a magical 25hp bump from 360 to 385 with the same fuel system and major components.

So after adding a 2,000psi high pressure pump, lines and an additional 8 injectors its only gonna have a 10hp bump?

They are sandbagging plain and simple

The intake cams make a huge difference.

 

[DHG1078]

meh, the mustang had tubular exhaust manifolds, different intake cams and slightly higher compression. Now that both vehicles are getting direct injection there is no reason to go with lower compression on the f-150. Which is where the majority of the power difference comes from.

from 2011 to 2015 the f150 5.0 got a magical 25hp bump from 360 to 385 with the same fuel system and major components.

So after adding a 2,000psi high pressure pump, lines and an additional 8 injectors its only gonna have a 10hp bump?

They are sandbagging plain and simple

Its not about peak hp in trucks. Its about power under the curve.

 

[mc01svt]

Its not about peak hp in trucks. Its about power under the curve.

this i know, but the whole argument goes out the window when you're giving up 60+ horses for a insignificant torque gain of <10lb-ft at a slightly lower rpm.

 

[DHG1078]

this i know, but the whole argument goes out the window when you're giving up 60+ horses for a insignificant torque gain of <10lb-ft at a slightly lower rpm.

Again, it's not about peak numbers.

 

[mc01svt]

Again, it's not about peak numbers.

again, the difference in the torque curve between the f150 and mustang is not significant aside from the mustang having a higher redline. The engines have the same stroke, same bore, same valves..etc and thus the BMEP and resulting torque is near the same. The only difference comes in trickery with the cam timing on the truck to give the impression of having more low end grunt.

The coyote actually has less low end torque than the anemic 5.4L 3v. No amount of VVT magic and intake optimization can make up for lack of displacement.

 

[SID297]

again, the difference in the torque curve between the f150 and mustang is not significant aside from the mustang having a higher redline. The engines have the same stroke, same bore, same valves..etc and thus the BMEP and resulting torque is near the same. The only difference comes in trickier with the cam timing on the truck to give the impression of having more low end grunt.

The coyote actually has less low end torque than the anemic 5.4L 3v. No amount of VVT magic and intake optimization can make up for lack of displacement.

I can tell you that the torque difference from the 5.4 and the 5.0 is certainly noticeable. The 2.7L EB feels more like a truck engine than the 5.0.

 

[mc01svt]

I can tell you that the torque difference from the 5.4 and the 5.0 is certainly noticeable. The 2.7L EB feels more like a truck engine than the 5.0.

The later 5.4l 3v, 6spd trucks are definitely more torquey than the coyote. However i say that some of that is gearing. A few years ago it was common for 5.4L trucks to be equipped with 3.73 rear gears. When shopping i noticed that the vast majority of the 5.0ls were 3.31 rear gears. Regardless the coyote will pistol whip the 5.4L at anything over 3,000rpm.

2.7L has a stronger gut punch than both of them, 20psi of boost tends to do that.

 

[SID297]

The later 5.4l 3v, 6spd trucks are definitely more torquey than the coyote. However i say that some of that is gearing. A few years ago it was common for 5.4L trucks to be equipped with 3.73 rear gears. When shopping i noticed that the vast majority of the 5.0ls were 3.31 rear gears. Regardless the coyote will pistol whip the 5.4L at anything over 3,000rpm.

2.7L has a stronger gut punch than both of them, 20psi of boost tends to do that.

All true.

 

[DHG1078]

again, the difference in the torque curve between the f150 and mustang is not significant aside from the mustang having a higher redline. The engines have the same stroke, same bore, same valves..etc and thus the BMEP and resulting torque is near the same. The only difference comes in trickery with the cam timing on the truck to give the impression of having more low end grunt.

The coyote actually has less low end torque than the anemic 5.4L 3v. No amount of VVT magic and intake optimization can make up for lack of displacement.

F150 has a lower compression ratio.

 

[Blk04L]

http://www.trucktrend.com/news/1707...ic_fb_social_TTN_170705_sf95665894#sf95665894

The source, a JLR employee speaking anonymously, says Ford will use the current Land Rover Discovery’s available 3.0L V-6 turbodiesel engine. In the SUV, that engine produces 254 hp and 440 lb-ft torque and is EPA-rated to return 21 city/26 highway mpg. The powerplant is also available in the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport.

 

[DHG1078]

http://www.trucktrend.com/news/1707...ic_fb_social_TTN_170705_sf95665894#sf95665894

The source, a JLR employee speaking anonymously, says Ford will use the current Land Rover Discovery’s available 3.0L V-6 turbodiesel engine. In the SUV, that engine produces 254 hp and 440 lb-ft torque and is EPA-rated to return 21 city/26 highway mpg. The powerplant is also available in the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport.

There's no new information there. We've known this for a while. I'm 100% sure Ford will make changes to the engine.

 

[AustinSN]

It needs to make at least 275hp.

 

[SID297]

That would seem doable.


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app