N/A engines

[Elfiero]

Can any of you guys tell me if ford makes a high performance N/A engine in a 6th gen exploder? I know I am an old- timer, but I will NEVER buy anything with a Hair dryer on it(turbo). I have way too much experience working on them as a stealership mechanic. I currently drive a 2017 exploder limited with a 3.5 L N/A v6- not too bad, but it’s getting a little long in the tooth, And it down shifts too much as compared to my Mustang GT.

 

[94Eddie]

The hybrid version has a N/A V6 but I wouldn't consider it high performance. It will likely prove to be the least costly to maintain long term of all the engines currently offered for the 6th gen Explorers and its variants. Especially when considering the fuel savings over 150k+ miles of driving. Turbo engines claim to be economical but most people don't see it because kicking in the boost is too addictive. Also, with the ten speed transmissions in the 6th gens I image they are constantly shifting from gear to gear. Hopefully they are smooth enough to not be able to feel it since the ratios of each gear are closer to adjacent gears.

 

[CDW6212R]

Can any of you guys tell me if ford makes a high performance N/A engine in a 6th gen exploder? I know I am an old- timer, but I will NEVER buy anything with a Hair dryer on it(turbo). I have way too much experience working on them as a stealership mechanic. I currently drive a 2017 exploder limited with a 3.5 L N/A v6- not too bad, but it’s getting a little long in the tooth, And it down shifts too much as compared to my Mustang GT.

For the late Explorer use, I would worry more about the internal water pump that all of the sideways V6's have. I would never buy one of those given a better choice.

I have never owned a turbo so I have the same concerns about long term lifespan, but Ford seems to have done as well or better than most other makers. The care a car gets is more important most of the time, than certain items of the vehicle like the turbo system.

I'm still leaning towards the N/A 3.7 from a 2017+ F150, for a donor engine in my 98 Mountaineer. I'd like to see that swapped into a lot of older Fords if it can fit without too much trouble.

 

[Elfiero]

I think I may have to take a peek at the grand Cherokee SRT. I don’t care what it costs, and I don’t care about fuel mileage. That is exactly what I want in an SUV. Why can’t Ford build something simaler?

 

[CDW6212R]

That's why I am building it myself. Mine will be fast and reliable, but definitely not cheap. They all make good SUV's, and they all have some great features, but the weak links are glaring and common. Some do better than others, good luck finding the one that makes you smile, and come give me a ride too.

 

[Elfiero]

Well, I live in the rust belt which means I would have to go a long way to find anything worth buying. Heck, my 2017 is quickly approaching the point of no return on the rust, no, I prefer to buy them new and run them into the ground. Also I much prefer something that is RWD primarily, and has a v8 engine. So I guess a new Ford is not in my future.

 

[CDW6212R]

My Mountaineer came from Milwaukee in 2003, and I didn't seal up the body to begin with. So after ten years here, I decided to make it my spare and find a better core project truck. You could probably protect one if you spent a lot of time sealing up the many body seams, with undercoat etc. But anything would require periodic inspections, close up on lift checks, and nobody does that. So you don't have good choices in the North, I had to look for a while to find one near me, that I trusted to be rust free after 20 years.

The newer Fords cannot be had with AWD, they only make automatic 4WD's since about 2010. I was looking for a newer AWD TC to bolt to the new six speeds, but I couldn't find anything beyond the BW 4410 TC, which may have been used as late as 2010. Everything after about 2010 Ford calls AWD, is not, it is all A4WD, either FWD with a rear drive automatic feature, or RWD with a front drive feature. The world loves to abuse words.

 

[J_C]

For the late Explorer use, I would worry more about the internal water pump that all of the sideways V6's have. I would never buy one of those given a better choice.

6th gen is RWD w/optional A4WD, so went back to longitudinal engine, with an external water pump IIRC.

 

[CDW6212R]

6th gen is RWD w/optional A4WD, so went back to longitudinal engine, with an external water pump IIRC.

Yes, that's what I had thought I read once before. So they did turn the engine back straight, did that require much change in the engine bay? I would like that drivetrain, even the turbo I could deal with.

 

[Rick]

The base 4cyl makes more HP than our 04 Mach 1 with it's DOHC 4.6. That is high performance in a small package.

As far as the 10 speed. In our ST it's the best shifting automatic I've ever felt. 17000 miles and no issues.

 

[94Eddie]

I think I may have to take a peek at the grand Cherokee SRT. I don’t care what it costs, and I don’t care about fuel mileage. That is exactly what I want in an SUV. Why can’t Ford build something simaler?

You might want to grab one sooner rather than later. The owners of Chrysler did away with the SRT design group. They have been disbanded and sent to the four winds within the company. The rumors are that V8s are on a fast track to being eliminated too. I wouldn't be surprised that in a few years the only V8s to be had will be in heavier duty trucks and most of those will be diesel powered. Ford is well on their way to doing this themselves. GM isn't far behind but seems to be holding out for now.

 

[Elfiero]

You might want to grab one sooner rather than later. The owners of Chrysler did away with the SRT design group. They have been disbanded and sent to the four winds within the company. The rumors are that V8s are on a fast track to being eliminated too. I wouldn't be surprised that in a few years the only V8s to be had will be in heavier duty trucks and most of those will be diesel powered. Ford is well on their way to doing this themselves. GM isn't far behind but seems to be holding out for now.

I am sure you are correct. Maybe I just need to drive my current model in to the ground and start ubering around after that

 

[94Eddie]

I am sure you are correct. Maybe I just need to drive my current model in to the ground and start ubering around after that

The only non-V8 I would be interested in buying is a V6 with a positive displacement supercharger. Preferably a twin screw type. Why these aren't used more instead of turbos is beyond me. They are stone cold reliable and often outlive the engines they are bolted to. They provide a torque curve like a much, much larger displacement engine because they make full boost from idle to redline. The power can be finely modulated with the throttle. For a street driven vehicle they are perfect. They are also great for off road vehicles.

I ran a Kenne Bell twin screw on my '89 LX Mustang for many years. On a 302 it made a peak of 462 rwtq at 2,100 rpm ( and was above 400 rwtq to close to 6k rpm. They don't affect gas mileage when not making boost either. They are easy to service or remove and replace because they sit on top of the engine. Hardly nothing is in the way to get to them. Another good thing is they are far less complicated in addition to being more compact (they replace the upper intake manifold) than a turbo setup.

 

[CDW6212R]

The only non-V8 I would be interested in buying is a V6 with a positive displacement supercharger. Preferably a twin screw type. Why these aren't used more instead of turbos is beyond me. They are stone cold reliable and often outlive the engines they are bolted to. They provide a torque curve like a much, much larger displacement engine because they make full boost from idle to redline. The power can be finely modulated with the throttle. For a street driven vehicle they are perfect. They are also great for off road vehicles.

I ran a Kenne Bell twin screw on my '89 LX Mustang for many years. On a 302 it made a peak of 462 rwtq at 2,100 rpm ( and was above 400 rwtq to close to 6k rpm. They don't affect gas mileage when not making boost either. They are easy to service or remove and replace because they sit on top of the engine. Hardly nothing is in the way to get to them. Another good thing is they are far less complicated in addition to being more compact (they replace the upper intake manifold) than a turbo setup.

Now you're talking about my project. I've got a KB 2200 I'm planning to sell, so I can move up to a 2600. I need to put a bunch of things up on eBay.

 

[94Eddie]

Now you're talking about my project. I've got a KB 2200 I'm planning to sell, so I can move up to a 2600. I need to put a bunch of things up on eBay.

What manifolds do you have for the 2.2L KB? Does it have a bypass?

 

[CDW6212R]

I only have the main unit, I will have to fabricate the entire set of parts, to include an intercooler. Mine is NOS that came from someone else who was going to make one fit onto his old Mopar. So I will need a snout I think similar in length to the 03/04 Cobra short snout. I'm eying the ones TRE sells which are upgrade kits for the Cobra, they have the short snout, and an intercooler made to fit those. I don't know if that's the ideal IC size I will want, I'll be using a TFS R lower intake, and make a plenum on top of that to hold the IC, KB off to the left side etc.

 

[94Eddie]

I assumed you had a 302 version with the long snout.

 

[CDW6212R]

Yes, most of what turns up is a Fox or SN95 kit, the kits for modular engines were kind of rare. There's one on eBay, last week, that is for an HO 302, and the KB leaks a lot of oil into the intake. For one that isn't for a GT40, and needs rebuilt, $2k was crazy to read there. I saw a bare one last year like mine, but very dusty from storing in a garage, and overseas in the Middle East. It had 30 watchers, but nobody gave him the $2k he was asking.