All things Hellcat (and other platforms) vs The Explorer

[midnightSun]

Having built engines for racing, 180 cu in @ 400 hp is very good. That's over 2x its cubic inch.
Naturally aspirated 2x cu in is a great goal = 360hp
Forced induction on pump gas is 3x = 540hp.
4x = 720hp.
Ford made these so you can safely drive them for 100K + miles and I'm happy with it.

At the end of the day the saying "no replacement for displacement" still applies to forced induction so the Trailhawk engine simply based on Cubic Inches will ALWAYS have more potential than this 3.0L Ford. Not our fault they chose a supercharger.
If people are out running the Trackhawk for minimal $$$ on this tiny engine.... that's enough for me to bleed blue. :wink: :wink:

 

[TMac]

There is a replacement for displacement; boosted or not- it's called RPM. A 3 ltr engine at 12000 will pump just as much air as a 6 ltr engine at 6000 rpm (theoretically). But unless your budget is in the unobtainium range of beryllium and titanium alloys....well, let's just say that you should be glad that your ST will net you a savings of $40k and a fuel mileage (on the highway) of 25 or so MPG. It's the best performance bargain in a 3 row SUV to be found. Follow that up with ONLY a 93 tune for about $900 bucks or so at approx 440 WHP, and there is simply nothing in that price range to touch it. That's why I bought it, and it's the reason after 50+ cars this is my first Ford.

 

[midnightSun]

There is a replacement for displacement; boosted or not- it's called RPM. A 3 ltr engine at 12000 will pump just as much air as a 6 ltr engine at 6000 rpm (theoretically). But unless your budget is in the unobtainium range of beryllium and titanium alloys....well, let's just say that you should be glad that your ST will net you a savings of $40k and a fuel mileage (on the highway) of 25 or so MPG. It's the best performance bargain in a 3 row SUV to be found. Follow that up with ONLY a 93 tune for about $900 bucks or so at approx 440 WHP, and there is simply nothing in that price range to touch it. That's why I bought it, and it's the reason after 50+ cars this is my first Ford.

 

[midnightSun]

Since you said unobtanium

If you like that one

 

[TMac]

I have dual majors in computer science and mechanical engineering. I coined the term "unobtainium" in the early '90s (although I won't suggest someone didn't beat me to it) when I was writing FEA software with a group of other engineers (using C++ and assembler language on 16mhz PCs) . They thought it was hilarious. Imagine how surprised I was to hear it in "Avatar" 20+ years later! Unfortunately, due to my age, I could only get a minute into that video before I couldn't continue. Sorry.

 

[GearHead_1]

"Although it isn't clear who first coined the term “unobtainium”, the first known documented case of it appeared in the February 27, 1956 edition of the Marshall, Michigan Evening Chronicle where it stated, “The metal is so hard to come by that the scientists have devised a lugubriously-humorous name for it." Nothing in this world is brand new.

unobtainium.docx

 

[2PAC]

I agree with most of the statements you've been making, and it's actually a breath of fresh air from those who are constantly bitching about a vehicle they theoretically researched, test drove, and finally purchased in lieu of using that same money for the down payment on a home. (Waaah, my expensive Fook Mi 16" phone won't fit in the cubby!)

I would disagree with one of your points- certainly Ford left something on the table when it came to the tune, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing 80-100hp gains. However, "half-assed" is not how I would assess it. If you had a business that could be completely destroyed by warranty claims, you'd probably want a pretty nice margin between a bleeding edge tune and something that has to work for people from huge variances in different climates, altitudes, octane numbers, quality of fuel, and maintenance. Wouldn't you?

The average joe isn't filling up his ST with 93. Just look at some of the posts on this site- a supposed enthusiast site. Nor is it possible that everyone even has access to it. And let's be clear about this- even though the number of feedback mechanisms for knock detection, IAT, EGT, wide-band etc, is pretty friggin sophisticated on these engines, when the cutbacks occur due to poor gasoline and it drops a ton of hp to preserve the engine, the average joe is just going to bitch and trouble the service dept at his local dealer who is clueless. So isn't it better that they leave a bit on the table for those who are willing to put the extra bucks into the tune, fuel quality, etc so they don't have to replace engines or listen to whiners?

You make good points, the middle ground/alternative may be to just have run a ford performance tune (cost extra but retains warrant) that gives you an extra 60-70 hp on 91+ octane. I guess I have to remember that the niche group of performance guys might be running 91/93 but everyone else is probably just running 93, and yes most manufacturers do leave some extra wiggle room for longevity, I know guys have gotten 70-100 hp out of tunes on the M and Amg cars but that's after coming out of the box with already high numbers.

I still think half-assed is a good term in a certain sense, it's not just the performance it includes the parts related to that performance as well, when you start to account for the 1 bolt/2 bolt rear subframes, the weak spark plugs with the ecoboost motors, the fake exhaust tips borrowed from the other trims, using the same exhaust as the other less sporty trims of the explorer (kr/platinum), etc etc You start to see Ford doing ford stuff as opposed to Ford performance doing a bang up job.

My non performance related gripe would be the stupid layout of the camera system on the screen.

Overall though I love the platform and truly I feel like the St is a few tweaks away from being damn near perfect.