2021 Expedition news wanted! (needed actually)

[carymccarr]

Well I think you're pretty swell Loki! And if a person actually reads what you wrote, I would agree with your statements. I have had the 5.3 Tahoe and a 6.2 Escalade (although only the 403hp and no 10 speed) and although I never did 0-60 tests, the passing power of my Expy is quite impressive. I miss the rumble of the 6.2l and I do feel like it was a rock solid power plant.

I’d take the 6.2 all day long. Grunt and instant breakneck throttle response over an engine that whistles and waits. No comparison. Don’t get me wrong...the 3.5TT is a great engine for what it is but...

Ill live with the 3.5 but I do wish I could have more than 18 presets and didn’t get locked into 6 at a time...and don’t get me started on disappearing apps for XM (which I pay for!!) or the fact that I can’t sync the climate control for the entire car...but I digress Lol

 

[JasonH]

Anytime. Drop me a PM I will gladly send you my address. Come on by anytime.

So you can’t beat me with facts or actual data, so now you are physically threatening me.

Look at your stats on this forum vs mine. I get actual likes...and I actually help people.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Take a chill pill. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Threatening physical harm because someone disagrees is a bit much.

The Expedition and Navigator are rated on premium, which I believe is 91, not 93.

Attached are fuel guidelines from the 2020 Expedition and Suburban owners manuals.

 

[wakeboarder]

I prefer the drive ability of the 3.5TT over the 6.2 L. My in-laws have a 6.2 in their 2016 Yukon XL with the 6-speed. I am comparing the 6-speed to the 10-speed at the same time. The 6.2 L has some lag to it as well. They run it at a low rpm for fuel economy.

I notice the 6.2 L’s have an awkward sound to them when driving around town at 25 mph. Almost like it is misfiring but not quite. I notice it on all of them that drive past my house.

Sport mode makes the 3.5TT very responsive. Eco mode definitely has some lag.

 

[LokiWolf]

Take a chill pill. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Threatening physical harm because someone disagrees is a bit much.

The Expedition and Navigator are rated on premium, which I believe is 91, not 93.

Attached are fuel guidelines from the 2020 Expedition and Suburban owners manuals.

View attachment 37178

View attachment 37179

I didn't threaten...he did. I simply said anytime.

For clarity, yes it is based on 93. Even if 93 is not available everywhere. Ford actually used to say it on their website. Images of it have been posted in other threads on this forum discussing this EXACT subject. Dead Horse, beating we are...

Ford's site now says this: "premium fuel per SAE J1349® standard"(Which is basically 93), but we digress. Same standard GM uses, they were actually one of the first to use the standard.

Bottom line, Both the 6.2 and the 3.5TT power ratings by the manufacturers are based on the same standard. For arguments sake, lets say 91+. Either way, both need MORE than 87 to reach their full potential on stock tuning.

 

[LokiWolf]

I’d take the 6.2 all day long. Grunt and instant breakneck throttle response over an engine that whistles and waits. No comparison. Don’t get me wrong...the 3.5TT is a great engine for what it is but...

Ill live with the 3.5 but I do wish I could have more than 18 presets and didn’t get locked into 6 at a time...and don’t get me started on disappearing apps for XM (which I pay for!!) or the fact that I can’t sync the climate control for the entire car...but I digress Lol

HAHA!

Not trying to be a smartass, but why are you driving a Navi, and not an Escalade or Yukon Denali? The 6.2 is your preferred Engine, and I have heard good things about the newest revision of GM's infotainment, especially the new screens in the 2021's.

I like the 6.2, never said it was a bad motor, quite the opposite many times. If it had been available in the Tahoes we were looking at several years ago, there could have been one in my driveway. At full throttle it sounds good! Much better than the Turbo.

 

[carymccarr]

HAHA!

Not trying to be a smartass, but why are you driving a Navi, and not an Escalade or Yukon Denali? The 6.2 is your preferred Engine, and I have heard good things about the newest revision of GM's infotainment, especially the new screens in the 2021's.

I like the 6.2, never said it was a bad motor, quite the opposite many times. If it had been available in the Tahoes we were looking at several years ago, there could have been one in my driveway. At full throttle it sounds good! Much better than the Turbo.

I like to drive lots of different stuff. To date I’ve owned Audi, Oldsmobile, Toyota, Land Rover, VW, GM, Ford, Chevrolet, Subaru, Infiniti and Mercedes.

None of them are perfect...that said, I’ve never had a more limited/maddening radio setup as I gave in my Navi.

 

[LokiWolf]

I like to drive lots of different stuff. To date I’ve owned Audi, Oldsmobile, Toyota, Land Rover, VW, GM, Ford, Chevrolet, Subaru, Infiniti and Mercedes.

None of them are perfect...that said, I’ve never had a more limited/maddening radio setup as I gave in my Navi.

Haha! Trying to find the magic code to fix your preset problem. Got them to show up, but couldn't actually assign something to the preset. It was weird. I am missing something...just haven't figured out the magic combo. Getting closer, and I think it is doable.

 

[Deadman]

I’d take the 6.2 all day long. Grunt and instant breakneck throttle response over an engine that whistles and waits. No comparison. Don’t get me wrong...the 3.5TT is a great engine for what it is but...

Ill live with the 3.5 but I do wish I could have more than 18 presets and didn’t get locked into 6 at a time...and don’t get me started on disappearing apps for XM (which I pay for!!) or the fact that I can’t sync the climate control for the entire car...but I digress Lol

A LS With GRUNT? The 6.2L takes high rpm before it even comes alive! The little 3.5L smokes it in low end torque. Look at the torque charts, its not even close down low. Sure once you rev it to the moon the 6.2L does well, but its not a low end monster like it should be with 6.2L's of displacement. I'd drive a 6.2L anyday, its great, but not a low end torque engine.

 

[carymccarr]

A LS With GRUNT? The 6.2L takes high rpm before it even comes alive! The little 3.5L smokes it in low end torque. Look at the torque charts, its not even close down low. Sure once you rev it to the moon the 6.2L does well, but its not a low end monster like it should be with 6.2L's of displacement. I'd drive a 6.2L anyday, its great, but not a low end torque engine.

Dunno, the 6.2L sounds better, is a beast when in comes to highway passing and has a flatter overall torque curve.

I don’t race minivans all that much so I can’t speak much to 0-60 times.

Not sure I would call this “smoking” either.

 

[Plati]

Next time I am in Richmond, I will look you up and we can settle this, tough guy. I am real sick of your stupid comments. You should be banned from this forum.

I think anyone who threatens violence should be banned from this Forum.
Sure looks like rjdelp is doing that. Is that to be tolerated? If so - BS!
WE had to put up with years of Jeff Kushner's mental madness before he went away
and that other guy 762MM went with him same day. That was waaaaay toooo looong.
Moderators should ManUp and stop this crap.

 

[Plati]

Take a chill pill. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Threatening physical harm because someone disagrees is a bit much.

The Expedition and Navigator are rated on premium, which I believe is 91, not 93.

Attached are fuel guidelines from the 2020 Expedition and Suburban owners manuals.

View attachment 37178

View attachment 37179

2 different things ... owners manual & the testing process
MrLoki is correct in that testing is done with 93.

Another funny thing is they dont measure the volume of gasoline used.
They collect the exhaust gas and measure the amount of carbon and then calculate.
I read that somewhere a few years ago, don't have the reference anymore.
Could be wrong, I was once in the 70's.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ower-mpg-figures-tested-using-different-fuels

 

[LokiWolf]

Dunno, the 6.2L sounds better, is a beast when in comes to highway passing and has a flatter overall torque curve.

I don’t race minivans all that much so I can’t speak much to 0-60 times.

Not sure I would call this “smoking” either.

Flatter, but less. At 2000 RPM’s they match. At 3500, the EB has an advantage, and for the majority of the RPM range the EB has the advantage in Torque.

Also, that is the Lower Factory Tune 3.5. Which until last year should only be compared to the 5.3, because equivalent trims that would have been what matched. You needed to get to the Denali or Escalade to get the 6.2, which would be the Platinum or Navi in the Ford/Lincoln lineup. The Platinum gains another 25 HP, and the Navi another 75. Compare those curves to the 6.2. I think you will be surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Deadman]

Flatter, but less. At 2000 RPM’s they match. At 3500, the EB has an advantage, and for the majority of the RPM range the EB has the advantage in Torque.

Also, that is the Lower Factory Tune 3.5. Which until last year should only be compared to the 5.3, because equivalent trims that would have been what matched. You needed to get to the Denali or Escalade to get the 6.2, which would be the Platinum or Navi in the Ford/Lincoln lineup. The Platinum gains another 25 HP, and the Navi another 75. Compare those curves to the 6.2. I think you will be surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Exactly.

 

[carymccarr]

Compare those curves to the 6.2. I think you will be surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I wouldn’t be I have owned both. I much prefer the passing/kick down power of the 6.2L to even the Navi 3.5L. No comparison IMO.

 

[JasonH]

I wouldn’t be I have owned both. I much prefer the passing/kick down power of the 6.2L to even the Navi 3.5L. No comparison IMO.

It's great that we have options. Can't wait to see what Ford fires back with when the new Expedition comes out. Chevy really stepped its game up with the IRS on the new Suburban/Denali. I still prefer the Ecoboost for towing though. Not sure why GM doesn't drop the 3.6 turbo in its SUVs.

 

[carymccarr]

It's great that we have options. Can't wait to see what Ford fires back with when the new Expedition comes out. Chevy really stepped its game up with the IRS on the new Suburban/Denali. I still prefer the Ecoboost for towing though. Not sure why GM doesn't drop the 3.6 turbo in its SUVs.

Let’s just hope Ford doesn’t let the expy/Navi rot for a decade like they did with the last gen...their success with the current gen will hopefully be enough to keep them awake!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dice Roll]

I have t been anywhere you can’t get premium fuel. States with higher elevation don’t require the same octane as those closer to sea level. CA might restrict it to 91, but I have t bought gas there in years so can’t remember.

 

[cmiles97]

What I find amusing about the V-8 vs smaller forced air induction motor argument is folks forget about the weight of the motor and efficiency.

Of course gearing and transmissions come into play. As well as the turbo motor requires more automation & higher end components to work well with higher pressure.

A Naturally Aspirated (NA) motor runs at about 80% volumetric efficiency. So a 6.2L NA motor is really running at 4.96L.

A turbo charged motor running at 14.7 psi of boost doubles its volumetric efficiency. A 3.5L at 14.7psi boost is really operating as a 7.0L. No wonder it uses more fuel during high boost.

Not sure of the weight difference but even carry an extra 100lbs will hurt the 6.2L V-8.

This is at sea level. Go up in elevation and it gets worse for N.A. motor.


https://www.agriculture.com/machinery/maintenance--repair/turbocharging-basics_567-ar52062

From the article:
If atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi and the turbocharger is producing 14.7 psi (via the gauge reading), then the cylinder is actually seeing 29.4 psi. Thus, the effective size of the engine can be considered doubled for every 14.7 psi of boost.


https://www.hotrod.com/articles/cubic-inches-boost-or-rpm/

 

[Deadman]

I wouldn’t be I have owned both. I much prefer the passing/kick down power of the 6.2L to even the Navi 3.5L. No comparison IMO.

A high revving engine always feels deseptively faster than a low rpm engine that makes more power. Its just the feel that sets them apart even if the low rpm engine pulls harder. Feel is good too.... Its all about what you like, and its great that we have both available.

 

[JasonH]

A high revving engine always feels deseptively faster than a low rpm engine that makes more power. Its just the feel that sets them apart even if the low rpm engine pulls harder. Feel is good too.... Its all about what you like, and its great that we have both available.

I suspect noise adds to the perception of performance as well. My old 94 accord 5 speed had a cold air intake. It added a few ponies sure, but it sounded much faster than it actually was. In comparison, the model 3 performance my wife test drove the other day was mostly silent. She was was shocked when she realized she had hit 100 mph so quickly.

Now that the Tahoe/Suburban has an IRS, it is much more competitive with the Expedition. Before, the paucity of space in the 3rd row was an instant non-starter for me. I love it when manufacturers compete for my dollars.