So that's what's hiding in there. ThanksHere's the Mustang, It's not a looker but not many engines are anymore.
Sponsored
So that's what's hiding in there. ThanksHere's the Mustang, It's not a looker but not many engines are anymore.
Yep. Americans are the biggest cylinders counters on the planet. Its got to be bigger heavier, louder and guzzle the hell out of gas.I have to admit... I find myself questioning my own line of thinking with my various relatives against the steady string of "you can't town anything with 4 cylinders" or "a 6 (or 8) cylinder engine is better on the highway because of lower RPMs" or "this engine is going to burn itself out faster because its working too had to move the truck."
I want to believe that the 2.3 is going to be enough, but man, keeping the faith in the HP and Tq numbers when all anybody talks about is cylinders is tough work.
That's me! Yes I realize I HAVE A PROBLEM! I am going to show HUMONGOUS self control by making the completely sensible choice of buying a 2.3l Bronco. As long as that's the only way I can "bang them gears"! Do I get a 12 step coin or something?Yep. Americans are the biggest cylinders counters on the planet. Its got to be bigger heavier, louder and guzzle the hell out of gas.
Most Americans would pick the V8 even if it only made 210hp and 260tq like many older ones did over a 2.3 inline 4 making 325hp and 375tq.
You should. Maybe a coin with a 2.3 engraved in it. Other side will say in performance I trust.That's me! Yes I realize I HAVE A PROBLEM! I am going to show HUMONGOUS self control by making the completely sensible choice of buying a 2.3l Bronco. As long as that's the only way I can "bang them gears"! Do I get a 12 step coin or something?
Yup that’s me give me 200 hp v8 with a lumpy cam happy as a clam.Yep. Americans are the biggest cylinders counters on the planet. Its got to be bigger heavier, louder and guzzle the hell out of gas.
Most Americans would pick the V8 even if it only made 210hp and 260tq like many older ones did over a 2.3 inline 4 making 325hp and 375tq.
Good, but less consistently so. Cologne V6 was a good one but some had head cracking/warping or head gasket issues. Sort that out and the engine will go 400,000 miles. Ford's I6 was a fantastic engine as well (I know, not a V. I wish we could go back!). Ford's been putting tons of V6 (NA and EcoBoost) in the F150 over the past decade to achieve CAFE standards, or I assume that is the reason, and they seem to rack up plenty of miles, based on what I see on the used market out here.I4 is a motor that faces tons of prejudice from the consumer...but Ford's I4's have historically been very good...going back many many years. v6? well you guys tell me?
What in the name of Lee Iacocca is a "cologne v6"? A v6 that "smells like a man"? Did Tommy Hilfiger start building v6 engines?Good, but less consistently so. Cologne V6 was a good one but some had head cracking/warping or head gasket issues. Sort that out and the engine will go 400,000 miles. Ford's I6 was a fantastic engine as well (I know, not a V. I wish we could go back!). Ford's been putting tons of V6 (NA and EcoBoost) in the F150 over the past decade to achieve CAFE standards, or I assume that is the reason, and they seem to rack up plenty of miles, based on what I see on the used market out here.
That said, if I were shopping for an old Explorer, or something along those lines, I'd hunt for a 5.0 or a modular 4.6, based on personal experience with the Cologne 4.0 (a strong engine, but not as reliable as the V8s they put in taxis/cop cars ?).
The days of a 4 cylinder always being underpowered for the application are behind us though. I've pointed out elsewhere the 2.3 makes 50% more horsepower than the 3.5/3.9/4.0 V8 I got used to powering Land Rovers of yesteryear. The power to weight ratio will be just fine.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=cologne+v6What in the name of Lee Iacocca is a "cologne v6"? A v6 that "smells like a man"? Did Tommy Hilfiger start building v6 engines?
Oh ok...im INTIMATELY famlliar w/4.0 SOHC. Thankfully most have been crushed! Never heard it called that...but I do remeber they were produced in Germany. 4.0 ohv wasn't great either, and 2.9 kinda sucked as well...thats all ancient history tho right? Ford doesn't build junk like that now do they?
My fiance has a manual Crosstrek. It's actually an awesome little ride only let down by it's lack of power. The manual makes it tolerable though. But yeah, 152 hp really doesn't cut it.I don't know if I'd count the Kia soul in that group, lol.
But I was looking at the Crosstrek but it's too small and WAY underpowered.
For a brand new car though I'm very surprised that Ford included it in a brand new model.
My fiance has a manual Crosstrek. It's actually an awesome little ride only let down by it's lack of power. The manual makes it tolerable though. But yeah, 152 hp really doesn't cut it.
If they made a Crosstrek WRX I'd actually consider buying one.
I was a big fan of the 4.0 OHV in the Ranger, but it felt a little overworked in an Explorer. The 4.0 SOHC introduced reliability issues when paired with an automatic transmission, don't remember the details but it was something dumb like if there was a slow coolant loss, the vehicle could potentially run for a very long time with no functionality of the transmission cooler before the radiator got low enough to trigger a coolant light .... which is kinda BS. Plus the extra timing chains on the SOHC were not well executed and added unnecessary complexity as compared to a pushrod. In any case, OHV was great with a manual and I'd put up with the SOHC but recognize its limitations. Both were so much better than the average fare of the 80s or 90s in my recollection, unless you are talking about Toyota.Oh ok...im INTIMATELY famlliar w/4.0 SOHC. Thankfully most have been crushed! Never heard it called that...but I do remeber they were produced in Germany. 4.0 ohv wasn't great either, and 2.9 kinda sucked as well...thats all ancient history tho right? Ford doesn't build junk like that now do they?
Oh I vividly remember the details. 4.0 sohc was junk from day 1. But I can tell a story of a good ford v6 from that era. Seems nobody remembers 3.0 vin U. Really good motor. But this is all ancient history now! I quit the Ford dealership in 2004...i was hoping somebody w/thier finger on the pulse of Ford's current products could chime in?I was a big fan of the 4.0 OHV in the Ranger, but it felt a little overworked in an Explorer. The 4.0 SOHC introduced reliability issues when paired with an automatic transmission, don't remember the details but it was something dumb like if there was a slow coolant loss, the vehicle could potentially run for a very long time with no functionality of the transmission cooler before the radiator got low enough to trigger a coolant light .... which is kinda BS. Plus the extra timing chains on the SOHC were not well executed and added unnecessary complexity as compared to a pushrod. In any case, OHV was great with a manual and I'd put up with the SOHC but recognize its limitations. Both were so much better than the average fare of the 80s or 90s in my recollection, unless you are talking about Toyota.
In any case, I wouldn't say the engines themselves were junk for the time, but they did have their issues, especially the SOHC. Ford (and all manufactures) have drastically improved quality and manufacturing tolerances since the '90s. The issues on vehicles now are often failures of non-drivetrain components. So the defect rate per vehicle may be the same or slightly higher today, but that is more due increased complexity and not actual powertrain reliability issues.
To answer your question directly, no, no one makes junk like they used to anymore. They make junk differently these days
Yup i test drove the crosstrek couldnt believe how slow it was i think it 14 sec to 60,i told the salesman check the anchor i think were dragging.Got a focus st and was very impressed.My fiance has a manual Crosstrek. It's actually an awesome little ride only let down by it's lack of power. The manual makes it tolerable though. But yeah, 152 hp really doesn't cut it.
If they made a Crosstrek WRX I'd actually consider buying one.
3.0 Vulcan, I believe. Was underwhelming in the torque department and got about the same fuel economy as the 4.0, but was a real quiet and smooth motor. But you are right, ancient history. Sorry, other than anecdotally (I see them racking up plenty of miles in F150 form), I don't have a background in more recent Ford V6s.Oh I vividly remember the details. 4.0 sohc was junk from day 1. But I can tell a story of a good ford v6 from that era. Seems nobody remembers 3.0 vin U. Really good motor. But this is all ancient history now! I quit the Ford dealership in 2004...i was hoping somebody w/thier finger on the pulse of Ford's current products could chime in?