Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Performance Upgrades - Maintenance - Modifications - Problem Solving - Off-Road - Street Trucks. Covering the Explorer, ST, Sport, Lincoln Aviator, Sport Trac, Mercury Mountaineer, Mazda Navajo, Ford Ranger, Mazda Pickups, and the Aerostar. Featuring H.I. - Human Intelligence.
Does anybody know why Ford chose to give the 3.5L V6 on the 2011+ Explorers a power push only in the upper RPM range? Is it gas mileage? I would think since families probably use it around town that it would be programmed to deliver more low and mid range power to dart forward in traffic and around cities. Seems like it's very slow to me until I hit around 4-6K+ RPM's, then it takes off real quick. But there's nothing down low. What gives?
No, but I felt exactly the same when I drove a naturally aspirated v6 version of the explorer. Very soft until the upper register of the rpm band. That's what pushed me over to the sport (that and the fact that I tow a boat)
Does anybody know why Ford chose to give the 3.5L V6 on the 2011+ Explorers a power push only in the upper RPM range? Is it gas mileage? I would think since families probably use it around town that it would be programmed to deliver more low and mid range power to dart forward in traffic and around cities. Seems like it's very slow to me until I hit around 4-6K+ RPM's, then it takes off real quick. But there's nothing down low. What gives?
That is the only way you can get a lot of horsepower out of small motors that don't have boost. The naturally aspirated 3.5 had more top end than our 2002 4.6l v8 Explorer, but it was a dog down low. It sucks to have to spin it over 4k every time you want to take off. The 3.5 Ecoboost feels like our old V8 Explorer down low and has more power on top. I did drive an MDX though with the same hp rating as the NA 3.5 and it had a lot more mid-range and felt much quicker than the NA 3.5. The power felt closer to the 3.5 EB than to the NA 3.5 and it got better mileage than the NA 3.5. Variable cam timing helps a lot to broaden the torque curve, but the powerband is determined by the flow of the heads and intake and the profile of the cam lobes and the timing of the valve events. My old 4.0 OHV motor in my Ranger was pretty torquey down low, but it wouldn't spin passed 4500rpm. The Dodge Pentastar felt even worse than the Ford NA 3.5. Nothing down low and tons of power up top. I don't know why they don't design these motors in the SUV's for more lowend and midrange. That is why I think the ecoboost 2.3 is a better motor in the Ex than the NA 3.5. Less horsepower but more torque down low. The 3.5EB is great, it has power everywhere.
