sholxgt

You may be correct, but this Ford document doesn't agree - https://media.ford.com/content/dam/f...Tech_Specs.pdf

pawprint

I'm sure you are 100% correct, thanks for setting us all on the right path! I guess ford did not phase out the nano for Aluminum after all, Great Post!!! You are the man.

Laminar

Prove it.

Laminar

No.

Like I said before, everything on the internet references either a single error in a Car and Driver article or a misprint on some Ford marketing material from years ago.

blksn8k

The way that chart lists the material for the 3.0L is a little confusing. "60-degree V6, compacted graphite iron aluminum block, aluminum head". Apparently they didn't have space to separate the cylinder block material from the girdle so they just listed both.

What's even more interesting to me is the fact that they show the 3.0L as direct injection only. The 2.7L in the F-150 has been port and direct injected since 2018. If those two engines are from the same basic Nano design it's a bit surprising to me that they don't have the same injection system. I thought combining port and direct was the latest and greatest. Or is that an F-150 only thing?

Snoking

They added the port injection to wash the backside on the intake valves. It is a reliability issue.

sholxgt

Agreed, but it's strange they didn't include the port injection on the 3.0. Maybe packaging issues to fit it in the Explorer? I'm sure the ST guys would like to have the extra fueling capacity.

blksn8k

But they did use both on the 3.3L hybrid in the Explorer...

blksn8k

I was going to suggest that using both port and direct injection may only be necessary if a vehicle has a high likelihood of being driven under high heat and/or high load conditions such as towing where continuous high loads might be more likely to cause carbon buildup. But if that were the case then the four banger in the Ranger would surely need both. LOL

Napalm

sorry but I can't - I have no pics or bits from my time working in industry. But know that there are alot of engine design ideas and setups that make the test phase. for example there was a ecoboost v8 at one time. yes twin turbo, small displacement V8. If I recall the displacement was something around 4.2L so like a 3.5 v6 with 2 more cylinders tacked on. but obviously it never got past testing and this was years ago. There was a 4 cylinder powerstroke literally a powerstroke cut in half - ford didn't pursue it - GM did with the duramax though. The GM duramax diesel started life as a 4 cylinder single turbo setup. anyway there are a number of thing made that never see a vehicle.

A lot of people think this but no that's not quite true. while it would help to allow cleaning of the valves the reason for the dual injection engines is because a gasoline direct injection engine - like a direct injection diesel - will create soot powder under certain conditions because the fuel sprayed in under light load - will burn too slow on the edges of the cylinder and instead gassing out - will make ***** of ash. It's bad enough that EU starting wanting all GTDI motors to have the same particulate trap filters Diesels have. MPFI at lower RPM or Lower Load will mix better while compressing leading to a cleaner overall burn. So the new engine - with light load demand runs on MPFI alone - as it perks up - the strategy moves to both injectors and at hard load full demand it will use both injectors but lean on DI for most of the fuel delivery.

This leads to the cleaner exhaust over all and happens to also lead to a smoother running engine.