Would be nice to see this in a 2022 Expedition for the ones who would like a V8

[poppie]

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ford-6-8-liter-v8-engine-godzilla/ . Seems the 6.8 V8 will be an option in the F-150 ,why not have it for an option in the Expedition ,l would buy one being as my son has the new larger godzilla 7.3 in his in his F-250 with 3:55 rear gears and get 18 MPG on the Hwy AND I believe in KISS with pushrods and no twin turbo's.

 

[poppie]

More on this engine, https://www.thedrive.com/news/37374...od-v8-coming-to-2022-ford-mustang-f150-report .

 

[JasonH]

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ford-6-8-liter-v8-engine-godzilla/ . Seems the 6.8 V8 will be an option in the F-150 ,why not have it for an option in the Expedition ,l would buy one being as my son has the new larger godzilla 7.3 in his in his F-250 with 3:55 rear gears and get 18 MPG on the Hwy AND I believe in KISS with pushrods and no twin turbo's.

I doubt it. I don't think the Expedition moves enough volume to add an engine option that provides no benefit over the existing 3.5 standard and HO. The F150 is different, because it moves huge volume and Ford sells to a broader range of customers, including fleet operators. So they have a customer base there that is more concerned with total cost of ownership. The Expedition is a more consumer oriented vehicle. The 6.8 won't have better power, towing, or mpg as compared to the standard or HO 3.5, so why complicate things by adding an engine option? If Ford thought maintenance was a non-starter for the consumer market, it wouldn't have switched to the 3.5 as the sole engine option for the Expedition in the first place.

If Ford could get the chain and tensioner issues resolved with the 3.5, it would be near bulletproof. Only two common issues I've heard of are timing chain stretch, and blown turbo/defective wastegate/leaks. Both can likely be attributed in most cases to a lenient service interval. My OLM suggests 9 - 10K intervals. I use full synthetic and my engine is fine at 112K so far, but what if someone is running conventional with that interval? The 6.8 would likely match the power of the Ecoboost at reduced mpg. I would honestly prefer Powerboost as an option over the 6.8. It provides more functionality and better performance in the form of 7.2kW of power and improved mpg.

 

[dlcorbett]

The leftover 5.0s would work in the expy. Everything mentioned above is spot on. I do think however, a v8 option would add a huge base for the expy and would actually do wonders in bringing larger segment share as its the only segment product without that option. Most people would prefer the expy over the gms(before redesign) but disregarded it for not having a v8 opt. A no/low cost 5.0 option with 9k towing and 15 city 22 hwy econ in 4wd set up I think would nearly double sales of the expy.

 

[Trainmaster]

The railroads and police turned to Tahoes when the Expedition became a soccer mom truck. I doubt Ford made much on those fleet sales, but they certainly lost them now.

 

[vincentrose]

When I was shopping for an Expy, I found out that Ford discontinued the V8 after 2014, so that's what I bought, a 2014, because I knew I would not be happy with a V6, I don't care how many turbo's you put on them. I just don't understand why Ford refuses to offer a V8 even as an option. I pretty sure you could get some Chevy buyers over to Ford, Since Chevy still has V8's in their Tahoe's and Suburban's, but ever since Ford discontinued it in 2015, Many Ford owners migrated over to Chevy. Any they wonder why Expy sales are sluggish???

 

[Machete]

^^ This is why I haven’t pulled the trigger on my next truck.

I don’t believe in the ecoboost motors in trucks and the 5.0 was moved over from ‘stangs due to the v8 crowd noise from f150 faithful.

Much debate in these forums about the ecoboost in trucks. Some buyers caved because they felt it in the seat of their pants during test drives but over the long haul even Ford is quietly recognizing the sturdiness questions w TT plus DI in VVT gimmick which really was a bean counter reaction to CAFE standards.

Evidence is the last two Ford truck gas engines are pushrod v8.

Don’t hate the messenger.

 

[JasonH]

^^ This is why I haven’t pulled the trigger on my next truck.

I don’t believe in the ecoboost motors in trucks and the 5.0 was moved over from ‘stangs due to the v8 crowd noise from f150 faithful.

Evidence is the last two Ford truck gas engines are pushrod v8.

Ecoboost engines are the volume leaders in the F150.

The 7.3 engine was designed to fill the gap between the 6.2 and 6.7 diesel. It was designed to go into fleet and commercial vehicles, not consumer vehicles. Fleets and commercial operators generally tow/haul more frequently so unladen mpg wasn't a concern. Ford wanted an architecture that was more durable, provided reduced maintenance, and provided good mpg while under heavy loads. The Super Duty chassis vehicles aren't subject to CAFE because of their weight.

For the 6.8, it's probably a downsized 7.3 with some changes for consumer applications to boost mpg. Ford doesn't have a decent v8 alternative for the Ecoboost. The F150 moves enough volume that having a higher output v8 likely makes sense. It would probably sell more than the 3.0 diesel, and costs can be spread out by adding it to the Mustang. Both platforms likely have some consumers for whom mpg is secondary, either because they tow frequently or the car is not a daily driver. And both platforms will have more fuel efficient alternatives to the 6.8 available.

I'm not convinced that we'll see the 6.8 in the Expedition. The mpg hit would be too heavy, for virtually no performance improvement over the 3.5. The 3.5 HO already offers superior hp/torque to what the 7.3 offers. I average 15 mpg around town.I can't imagine what the 6.8 would be rated. I think a rating in the low teens would be a turnoff for many people.

Personally, I would rather see Powerboost offered. More power, better mpg, and more functionality for camping.

 

[JExpedition07]

The 6.8 most likely is going to be more powerful than the 7.3, the 7.3 is low compression with a low profile cam for torque and durability. If the 6.8 is indeed set out for Mustang, you can bet it will have higher compression, aggressive cam, and direct injection. Ford currently offers the 5.0 at 460 horsepower, so the 6.8 will need to top that...It would likely be tuned down to 420-430 horsepower in the F-150 like the 7.3.

 

[JasonH]

It would likely be tuned down to 420-430 horsepower in the F-150 like the 7.3.

I agree. At that power level, there's no advantage over the Powerboost powertrain. Maybe better mpg while towing and durability. Any of these engines should see 200k without major repairs. But if someone is towing so much that towing mpg is a decisive factor, that person should probably consider a diesel or a Superduty.

 

[Machete]

Ecoboost engines are the volume leaders in the F150.

The 7.3 engine was designed to fill the gap between the 6.2 and 6.7 diesel. It was designed to go into fleet and commercial vehicles, not consumer vehicles. Fleets and commercial operators generally tow/haul more frequently so unladen mpg wasn't a concern. Ford wanted an architecture that was more durable, provided reduced maintenance, and provided good mpg while under heavy loads. The Super Duty chassis vehicles aren't subject to CAFE because of their weight.

For the 6.8, it's probably a downsized 7.3 with some changes for consumer applications to boost mpg. Ford doesn't have a decent v8 alternative for the Ecoboost. The F150 moves enough volume that having a higher output v8 likely makes sense. It would probably sell more than the 3.0 diesel, and costs can be spread out by adding it to the Mustang. Both platforms likely have some consumers for whom mpg is secondary, either because they tow frequently or the car is not a daily driver. And both platforms will have more fuel efficient alternatives to the 6.8 available.

I'm not convinced that we'll see the 6.8 in the Expedition. The mpg hit would be too heavy, for virtually no performance improvement over the 3.5. The 3.5 HO already offers superior hp/torque to what the 7.3 offers. I average 15 mpg around town.I can't imagine what the 6.8 would be rated. I think a rating in the low teens would be a turnoff for many people.

Personally, I would rather see Powerboost offered. More power, better mpg, and more functionality for camping.

7.3 comes in all trims not just fleet and is only in the f250.

Ecoboost will eventually be replaced on full size trucks and go into crossovers exclusively.

The 6.8 will be offered in the f150 only.

Pushrod engines are back at Ford for a reason. Ecoboost is not the future on Ford trucks.

 

[Thunderbirdsport]

7.3 comes in all trims not just fleet and is only in the f250.

Ecoboost will eventually be replaced on full size trucks and go into crossovers exclusively.

The 6.8 will be offered in the f150 only.

Pushrod engines are back at Ford for a reason. Ecoboost is not the future on Ford trucks.

Umm, the 7.3 is available in the F350. I personally know of a guy who has one, at that.

I can't speak on the future of the ecoboom, but I'd think that it may remain an option for Mustang and half tons.

And the 6.8 WILL be in a Mustang soon. Maybe have some letters and numbers on it that say GT500....and it may well be a SS killer...oh wait. My bad..

If you've got a factual source for your claims, I'd like to see it. Wish I could post mine. They're spoken words from a guy who is on an engineering team at Ford. He posted this on some other boards.

Personally....I'd just wait and see. But speculation is fun too.

 

[JasonH]

7.3 comes in all trims not just fleet and is only in the f250.

Ecoboost will eventually be replaced on full size trucks and go into crossovers exclusively.

The 6.8 will be offered in the f150 only.

Pushrod engines are back at Ford for a reason. Ecoboost is not the future on Ford trucks.

By fleet and commercial, I meant vehicles used for work. No one gets an F250 as a daily driver unless they're towing or hauling regularly. The ride is less comfortable with the higher payload. The 7.3 is in higher trims because people buying 70k trucks make money and still want to be comfortable.

The pushrod is back because the 6.2 was not strong enough, but the diesel was overkill and a very expensive upgrade. The 7.3 slots between the 6.2 and 6.7 diesel. Ford went OHV because it is cheaper and less complex. Peak performance isn't as much of a concern for commercial engines, so no need to wrong every last hp out of that displacement.

The Ecoboost has been in half tons since 2011 and Ford just doubled down by adding Powerboost. We don't see it in the Superduty because a gas turbo gets worse mpg in vehicles that operate frequently at heavy loads. Hence, we get Eco or Boost, but not both simultaneously.

For the Superduty, mpg isn't the primary concern because it will suck with a heavy load no matter what. For the 1/2 tons, Ecoboost isn't going anywhere. We'll see more electrification across the Ford product line as battery costs continue to decline.

 

[Machete]

Umm, the 7.3 is available in the F350. I personally know of a guy who has one, at that.

I can't speak on the future of the ecoboom, but I'd think that it may remain an option for Mustang and half tons.

And the 6.8 WILL be in a Mustang soon. Maybe have some letters and numbers on it that say GT500....and it may well be a SS killer...oh wait. My bad..

If you've got a factual source for your claims, I'd like to see it. Wish I could post mine. They're spoken words from a guy who is on an engineering team at Ford. He posted this on some other boards.

Personally....I'd just wait and see. But speculation is fun too.

Yes but in the context of this thread about Expy’s and f150’s is what my comments were aimed at. I know the f350 can be had w 7.3 gas.
In terms of the 6.8 in a mustang, we’ll see but anything definite in this thread about that is speculation mate.

 

[Machete]

By fleet and commercial, I meant vehicles used for work. No one gets an F250 as a daily driver unless they're towing or hauling regularly. The ride is less comfortable with the higher payload. The 7.3 is in higher trims because people buying 70k trucks make money and still want to be comfortable.

The pushrod is back because the 6.2 was not strong enough, but the diesel was overkill and a very expensive upgrade. The 7.3 slots between the 6.2 and 6.7 diesel. Ford went OHV because it is cheaper and less complex. Peak performance isn't as much of a concern for commercial engines, so no need to wrong every last hp out of that displacement.

The Ecoboost has been in half tons since 2011 and Ford just doubled down by adding Powerboost. We don't see it in the Superduty because a gas turbo gets worse mpg in vehicles that operate frequently at heavy loads. Hence, we get Eco or Boost, but not both simultaneously.

For the Superduty, mpg isn't the primary concern because it will suck with a heavy load no matter what. For the 1/2 tons, Ecoboost isn't going anywhere. We'll see more electrification across the Ford product line as battery costs continue to decline.

I know plenty and see plenty of f250’s that are not “work” trucks only hauling loads. I see them and chevy and dodge 2500’s in driveways and all over the highways w premium trims shining waxed and purdy. Not working.

As far as electric trucks, sure, political pressure warrants them but see sales of electric vehicles in general. Also see torque limitations of electric motors ... ie why diesel is preferred for shipping, trucking, etc not electric. You’ll never see a space shuttle launch that’s electric.

The ecoboost was a CAFE driven product that’s run its course in truck applications.

 

[Aspen03]

I know plenty and see plenty of f250’s that are not “work” trucks only hauling loads. I see them and chevy and dodge 2500’s in driveways and all over the highways w premium trims shining waxed and purdy. Not working.

As far as electric trucks, sure, political pressure warrants them but see sales of electric vehicles in general. Also see torque limitations of electric motors ... ie why diesel is preferred for shipping, trucking, etc not electric. You’ll never see a space shuttle launch that’s electric.

The ecoboost was a CAFE driven product that’s run its course in truck applications.

The space shuttle crawler was powered by quite a few electric traction motors to move a 4 million pound vehicle into place...seems like an electric motor should be able to move a semi just fine. Give them time to improve the technology. Diesel has a century head start.

Plenty of people drive massive fully loaded trucks to show off to their friends. I work with one of them. He even cringes at the idea of picking up groceries in his 2500 for fear something could get on the carpet.

 

[Machete]

The space shuttle crawler was powered by quite a few electric traction motors to move a 4 million pound vehicle into place...seems like an electric motor should be able to move a semi just fine. Give them time to improve the technology. Diesel has a century head start.

Plenty of people drive massive fully loaded trucks to show off to their friends. I work with one of them. He even cringes at the idea of picking up groceries in his 2500 for fear something could get on the carpet.

Yep but electricity was discovered almost 50 years before Rudolf Diesel invented the compression ignition motor in 1892.

 

[JasonH]

I know plenty and see plenty of f250’s that are not “work” trucks only hauling loads. I see them and chevy and dodge 2500’s in driveways and all over the highways w premium trims shining waxed and purdy. Not working.

As far as electric trucks, sure, political pressure warrants them but see sales of electric vehicles in general. Also see torque limitations of electric motors ... ie why diesel is preferred for shipping, trucking, etc not electric. You’ll never see a space shuttle launch that’s electric.

The ecoboost was a CAFE driven product that’s run its course in truck applications.

CAFE is still the law of the land. Ecoboost isn't going anywhere.

Electric motors produce superior torque as compared to ICE applications and are over 90 efficient in converting energy to motion. Diesel is using for shipping and trucking due to battery constraints, not limitations of the motor. As the batteries improve, we'll seen more and more applications of electric motors, because they're just plain better. Virtually no maintenance, torque from 0 RPM, much broader power band, eliminate transmissions and shifts, etc.

 

[JasonH]

The space shuttle crawler was powered by quite a few electric traction motors to move a 4 million pound vehicle into place...seems like an electric motor should be able to move a semi just fine. Give them time to improve the technology. Diesel has a century head start.

Plenty of people drive massive fully loaded trucks to show off to their friends. I work with one of them. He even cringes at the idea of picking up groceries in his 2500 for fear something could get on the carpet.

I'm not saying that doesn't exist, but it's likely the minority. My father in law has a Chevy 2500 that he uses to tow his grill. He's retired and just wanted a big truck. But of the overall number sold, I'd wager that the ones not doing substantial towing or hauling are well into the minority.

 

[Flight-ER-Doc]

I'm not saying that doesn't exist, but it's likely the minority. My father in law has a Chevy 2500 that he uses to tow his grill. He's retired and just wanted a big truck. But of the overall number sold, I'd wager that the ones not doing substantial towing or hauling are well into the minority.

Those giant dump trucks used at mines? Diesel-electric, traction motors..