Why we didn't buy an Explorer ST, and other various thoughts

[UNBROKEN]

The 3.0 is not a “punched out 2.7”
It was an all new, ground up design.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

The 3.0 is not a “punched out 2.7”
It was an all new, ground up design.

Compared to the 2.7L, the 3.0L revs higher, makes more torque lower, has a cast aluminum block and bigger turbos.

TwinForce_Fusion explains it here:

 

[UNBROKEN]

AL vs CGI block. Bore, stroke and compression ratio are different, etc. The list of differences is pretty long in a part by part comparison.
In now way is it a modified 2.7.

 

[TMac]

It does share part numbers for heads and intake. It's definitely different, but not particularly a "clean sheet" design. I think jury is still out on the CGI vs aluminum block. It does have that block skirting which is aluminum, so I suppose one could try a magnet on the block under the heads and above the skirting- or perhaps at the front or rear.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

The 3.0 is not a “punched out 2.7”
It was an all new, ground up design.

So was the Coyote, but it is still considered a modular engine which it was derived from.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

It does share part numbers for heads and intake.

If that is the case then the 3.0 is just a modified 2.7

Ford has been doing this since the sixties, the 302 windsor was just a stroked 289. 2.87" in the 289 and 3.00 in the 302. The 351 windsor is just a tall deck 302, they made the block taller to accommodate the longer 3.5" stroke and they also made the main bearing journals a larger diameter.

 

[UNBROKEN]

If that is the case then the 3.0 is just a modified 2.7

Ford has been doing this since the sixties, the 302 windsor was just a stroked 289. 2.87" in the 289 and 3.00 in the 302. The 351 windsor is just a tall deck 302, they made the block taller to accommodate the longer 3.5" stroke and they also made the main bearing journals a larger diameter.

One block is iron, one is aluminum. Other internal parts don’t interchange. It’s not a modified 2.7. Based on and bored out are not the same.

 

[UNBROKEN]

It does share part numbers for heads and intake. It's definitely different, but not particularly a "clean sheet" design. I think jury is still out on the CGI vs aluminum block. It does have that block skirting which is aluminum, so I suppose one could try a magnet on the block under the heads and above the skirting- or perhaps at the front or rear.

The 3.0 is all aluminum. That 1/2 CGI half Aluminum thing was scrapped. Wish I could find the article talking about it but I’m coming up empty.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

If they use the same heads, they are basically the same engine family, how hard is that to understand. The old modular engines AKA the 4.6 and 5.4 had the same bore but the 5.4 had a taller block and longer stroke. As a matter of fact the 4.6 came in an iron block and an aluminum block. Just because they designed and built a new aluminum block for the 3.0 does not make it a whole new engine. And the bore, well remember the old FE big blocks? They had various displacements ranging from 332 all the way up to 428 and the 390 had a 4.05" bore, the 427 had a 4.23" bore and the 428 had a 4.13" bore.

 

[BlkGS]

They just flat respond better to modifications. 500+ whp is a few button clicks and an IC away. Daily drive 550ish on E50 smoother than stock.
It’s a better, stronger, more well thought out engine than the 3.5 all day every day.

I'm far from. An Ecoboost expert, but 5 star's E50 tune on a stock 3.5.does 550 wheel hp. Stock intake, stock exhaust, stock IC.

That said, ethanol blends are of no interest to me, that's way too much hassle to fill up. E85 is at least a semi commonly available fuel, but I'm not gonna mix grades of gas to try to hit some magic fuel.

The only thing I can think of is maybe the 3.5 is cheaper or easier for Ford to build, retooling a plant is expensive, and if you can avoid a major retooling to build the nano engine vs an upgraded gen2 3.5, maybe that makes more sense.

 

[UNBROKEN]

You said they punched out a 2.7. They in fact did not. Period. You can throw out every obsolete Ford engine ever made…it won’t change that.

 

[GearHead_1]

Ha! The FE's and Windsors were going through my head reading this discussion. The 3.0 is indeed the 2.7's big brother (derived from the Nano or heavily based on). They're not the same but they are the same family.

This little blurb from the Ford Authority says it better than I can:

...the Ford 3.0L EcoBoost architecture has been part of the Ford EcoBoost family of turbocharged engines since 2016.

The engine is heavily based on the EcoBoost 2.7L Nano, with cylinder bore increased from 83 mm to 85.3 mm. The engine’s piston stroke was also lengthened by 3.0 mm (for a total of 86 mm). Ford also replaced the Nano’s compacted-graphite iron block design for a cast aluminum construction.

This engine first saw life in the 2017 Lincoln Continental. While it was once exclusive to the Lincoln brand, the EcoBoost 3.0L engine is slowly appearing in recent Ford vehicles, such as the 2020 Ford Explorer.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

I'm not going to argue with you. You obviously don't get it. Whatever, have a good evening.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

The 3.0 is indeed the 2.7's big brother (derived from the Nano or heavily based on). They're not the same but they are the same family.

My point exactly.

 

[TMac]

The 3.0 is all aluminum. That 1/2 CGI half Aluminum thing was scrapped. Wish I could find the article talking about it but I’m coming up empty.

I was looking at the Lincoln manuals for the 3.0. They may have changed things for the ST. I did a bunch of research on the 2.7 vs 3.0 (Lincoln), before I bought my ST thinking it was the same, so it's more than possible things have changed. Even now, although they use the lincoln prefix, the actual part numbers are identical on many things, including turbos.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

If they use the same heads, they are basically the same engine family, how hard is that to understand ...

The problem here is in terminology ...

What is "basic" to one man is "complex" to another.

 

[ZookaRoo]

I get average 12mpg in my tbss, so I'm not that worried about it, lol.

I looked at them. In 18 and 19 and dealers were doing "crazy" deals on them. There was a dealer in Kernersville that really had great pricing.

You still don't make sense , if you looked at them in 18-19 and they were doing crazy deals which I doubt....the explorer ST was not even out so you can't even compare prices. The SRT line in any dodge has never been heavily discounted. not to mention you are talking way over 20k discount...never happening. Your posts are filled with dream requests.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

... the actual part numbers are identical on many things, including turbos.

Guess you didn't watch the vid I posted from TwinForce_Fusion. Lol

 

[TMac]

I should have been more specific- the turbos from the 400hp lincoln and st are the same.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

Taking into account price alone, all arguments comparing Explorer ST vs. Durango SRT (including the inevitable "bring Explorer ST up to Durango SRT power levels") should be considered moot.