Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Crossover SUV Comparison

1130131133135136142

Comments

  • mega1gatormega1gator Member Posts: 2
    I am getting 33 MPG with my 2008 Rouge, fully loaded doewn so long as I keep it at 60 MPH and just at 2000 RPM!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's great. What's the lowest ratio on that CVT? And the final drive? Must be geared very tall.

    We can break 30 on our Forester as well, also by keeping speeds down. Problem is, limits are 65 in some places, and everyone else is moving a lot faster.

    Here's a euro-only (for now) Forester diesel:

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/09/subaru-selects-forester-europe-- only-sorry-for-beefier-cleaner-new-diesel.html

    38.5mpg on the european cycle, but it won't meet CARB standards without AdBlue urea injections.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    mega1gator: "I am getting 33 MPG with my 2008 Rouge, fully loaded doewn so long as I keep it at 60 MPH and just at 2000 RPM! "

    I don't want to brag (oh wait, yes I do...), but my Freestyle does 60 mph at 1600 rpm. The Freestyle's CVT wide rang of ratios are:
    Low ratio: 2.47:1
    High ratio: 0.41:1
    Final Drive Ratio: 4.98:1
    See Freestyle list of specs .. click here

    Come to think of it, I seem to remember my previous minivans would do about 2000 or so at 60 mph, so I don't think thats too exciting in the Rogue.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's very tall gearing, and should be good for economy, but remember the Rogue only burns 2.5 liters of air/fuel mix each revolution of the crank.

    Plus we'd have to look at how rich (or lean) that mixture had to be to carry that load, and the Rogue is lighter. If you have a trip computer and set your cruise control you can see how the mileage numbers drop when you're going uphill, and climb while you drive downhill, all due to the lean or rich fuel mix.

    RPM is just one factor.

    Let's look at an example. Compare a Corvette to the Enclave.

    Corvette has ultra-tall gearing and great aerodynamics and weighs 1700 lbs less than the Buick, yet EPA highway figures are the same. Huh?

    Why? Displacement.

    Each revolution of the crank it's sucking in nearly double the air/fuel mix, and you can't go too lean else you'll torch the pistons in your 'vette.

    The Rogue will simply get better mileage on the highway, naturally, as it should.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    Sounds OK, except for the comments on lean and rich. The engine doesn't stray too far from stoichiometric under any conditions, since emissions are tightly controlled. Lean and rich refer to the air/fuel ratio at any given time, and that is nearly constant. As the butterfly throttle valve opens up inside the air intake, allowing more air in, the fuel injectors allow more fuel to flow, keeping air/fuel ratio constant no matter the road conditions.

    A vehicle's highway MPG is governed greatly by how much aero drag it has to push through, and how close to the peak torque point it can operate at, where its most efficient, as pumping losses in the air intake are lowest there.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, I guess it's using more air and more fuel to climb up a hill, though RPMs don't usually change.

    When you have a Trip Computer and get bored on a long trip, you pay attention to things like that. :D
  • psfod3psfod3 Member Posts: 63
    I am about to get a 09 Rogue. I have a small boat with engine that I would like to tow. I have seen to specs one stateing a 1000lbs limit and another set at1500lbs. Does anyone know which is correct. I have never seen a Rogue with a hitch. I have only seen one Murano with a hitch even though it is rated at 3500lbs. I am wondering if there is a issue with the cvt that makes it unsuitable for towing.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    This is an educated guess, but...

    It's probably 1000 lbs limit with no trailer brakes, and 1500 lbs when your trailer is equipped with trailer brakes.

    Problem is, small trailers often do not have trailer brakes.

    Funny thing is this is in the small print for even some full sized trucks!

    I don't think the 1000 lb limit has anything to do with the CVT, especially since the Murano has a CVT and can pull 3500 lbs.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    CR: "Reliability of new models by category

    These charts help you compare our Predicted Reliability Ratings for 2008 models within the same category. To create them, we calculate an overall reliability score for each of the three newest model years (2005, 2006, and 2007) provided the vehicle hasn't changed significantly in that time. Three-year data are a good predictor since most new models for this year are essentially the same as earlier models. Extra weight is given to some components, including the engine (major problems), cooling, transmission (major problems), and drive system. Each overall reliability score is compared with the average of all vehicles in our survey for that model year. The yearly differences are combined to give the Predicted Reliability score shown as percent. This overall average is the zero line in the charts. The bars represent the percentage by which each model was better or worse than the average.

    A broken bar indicates a percentage that extends beyond the chart. In cases where a model was new or redesigned last year, or where we simply lack data for more years, we might rely on one model year's data. Those models are labeled with an asterisk (*).

    Most brand-new models don't appear here because they have yet to establish a track record. Models redesigned for 2008 are shown with (2007) in their model name. In rare instances, we make a prediction for a new or redesigned model if the manufacturer's or model's history is typically outstanding."

    image
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    image
  • psfod3psfod3 Member Posts: 63
    Nissan and many articles show the Murano as a top pick in the insurance institutes off set crash results. This is true but the NHTSA only give the Murano a 4 star rating for both the driver and front passenger in the 09 model(08 was 5 stars for both). This is awful for a 09 model. There is no excuse for that. In checking the NHTSA for small and midsize suvs it is one of the only cars with a 4 star rating. The 08 and 09 Rogue had 5 safety stars for driver a 4 for front passenger
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You should add their overall scores as well. The order changes a lot.

    Forester is their top rated compact SUV.

    Reliability is important but the overall score includes many more criteria.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    A reporter is looking to interview owners of a 2007 or 2008 minivan, SUV or crossover that is loaded with two or more high-tech features such as a navigation system, DVD player, heated mirrors, parking sensors, rear view cameras, iPod connectivity, radio data system, Bluetooth, satellite radio, tire pressure monitoring, universal garage door opener, Sync, etc. Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com before Friday, October 10, 2008 with your daytime contact information and a few words about your vehicle.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,146
    A reporter from a large business magazine would like to speak with consumers who downsized from an SUV to a crossover or minivan to get better fuel economy. If you downsized for better fuel economy, please respond to ctalati@edmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Monday, November 24th.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    This forum has slowed down more than SUV sales!
  • wheel_dawgwheel_dawg Member Posts: 15
    No kidding. I'm about to buy an 08 Outlander, and there's not exactly a lot of chatter to feed on here. What about you?
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    With gas prices plummeting and corporate bailouts it won't be too long before things pick up. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    wheel_dawg, I like the Outlander. It has an aluminum roof to make it less top heavy. Thats innovative. Makes it less rollover prone. Also, I noticed something else unusual: The 2WD version gets the same MPG as the AWD version in the 4-cylinder/CVT model. Thats nearly the case in the V6 model, too. I wonder if its because the AWD can be turned off completely when not needed? In other vehicles that offer an AWD and frontWD version, the AWD system drags a little all the time, even during the summer when you don't want it there, reducing MPG all the time. Are you getting the 4-cylinder/CVT one? I love the CVT in my Freestyle, as it always finds the optimal driving ratio and is smoothe as silk.
  • wheel_dawgwheel_dawg Member Posts: 15
    I'm looking at an XLS (V6) with Nav, towing, and protection pkg. I want something with a small V6 that suits our needs (a little towing and a lot of dog-hauling and mountain bike hauling). I like the little features like the tailgate, the selectable AWD, the paddle shifters, and all the storage inside.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    The Outlander is good. However, I like my '05 Freestyle better. It is wider than the Outlander by several inches, making it easier to haul bigger stuff. Longer, too. Freestyle crash tests well (Volvo-derived chassis). Small V6 like the Outlander. Love the CVT in the Freestyle, and I get 27 MPG on the highway, 20 MPG around town, very good for a big crossover. Steers and handles great. Mine is the 2WD version, not the AWD one, as the AWD Freestyle gets worse MPG.
  • skeksisskeksis Member Posts: 2
    Listen, I understand where you are coming from - American made is not at all the same as American assembled.

    However, I lived in Flint Michigan all my life (recently moved to Portland OR) and on both my side and my wifes, our fathers and grandfathers worked for GM.

    We get really good deals on GM cars, but I would not buy a GM car if I had to walk instead.

    What they did to their own workers in Michigan is unpardonable. Miles and miles of buried toxic waste under homes, scrapped quality vehicles, you name it.

    I feel differently about Ford, but I otherwise cannot and would not suggest supporting full American made vehicles. This is coming from a guy who helped his dad flip foreign cars onto their roofs as a kid, back in the 90s - when there were NO foreign cars in Flint.

    You cannot support em just because they are American. They treat Americans with pure contempt. Only way they will learn is to lose.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    skeksis,
    I mainly say to people to just buy the vehicle that gets good crash test ratings, best-in-class fuel economy, handles well, steers well, quiet enough, rides smoothe enough, is roomy enough for them. Regardless of where its made. Fact is, for all those factors, I don't see anything that beats my '05 Ford Freestyle, which is part Swedish (Volvo initially designed the chassis), American (Ford changed the chassis design quite a bit), and German (Porsche originally designed the engine and ZF the transmission). Its assembled in Chicago by people who have health insurance, and I'm proud to help fund that. Consumer Reports says it has above average reliability (no trouble with mine, too.). Bottom line: Great car! The EPA MPG is 18 city and 25 highway in a 200" by 75" footprint vehicle. I've gotten as high as 27 MPG on very long highway trips. Not bad at all!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Ford just announced they're stopping Taurus X production.

    Though that might mean some bargains can be had.
  • 313313 Member Posts: 7
    I am looking for compact SUV and the target is either RDX or RAV4 V6 (Sport or Limited one). RDX has better outlook and great interior design especially with TECH package, it has everything I want (leather seat, bluetooth, NV) but I am worry about the noisy, gas millage, turbo issue and soft suspension (felt all the bumps) that other people mentioned. I know RAV4 is reliable and fuel economy but it really looks too simple. After check with several dealers, I can get 08 RDX TECH and 09 RAV4 V6 4x4 with very similar pricing (only 2K difference) if add some options on RAV4 such as leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey. Please let me know which car will be the good choice? At the beginning, I really want to pick RDX since there is only 2K difference between Acura (higher class) & Toyota, but I don't want to have a trouble car after several years. Please let me know your comments. Thanks a lot.

    BTW, I am surprise that Toyota didn't drop their pricing a lot while the economy is so bad, especially in SF bay area. The 09 RAV4 SE V6 4x4 (w/leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey) still need $28K + tax & fees.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    I say don't get a turbo engine unless the engine has direct injection (not multiport injection). Therefore, the RAV4 is the best choice.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,146
    A reporter from a national newspaper would like to speak with consumers who have been frustrated by some manufacturers’ tendency to place safety related vehicle options into expensive packages. Have you ever wanted to equip a vehicle with specific safety features that required the purchase of an entire package? If so, please respond to jwahl@edmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Friday, December 12.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    Well, I don't agree with that statement at all...being an owner of my second non DI turbo. DI is an nice bonus but it would be on an N/A engine too. The plus for the turbo is that when driven very conservatively and keeping it "off-boost" one can get excellent mileage because essentially it's like driving a smaller engine, but the power is still there when needed or wanted.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    volkov, Wrong. The problem is that adding a turbo forces the engine designer to lower the compression ratio, which hurts fuel economy. Direct injection allows the designer to keep the compression ratio at a normal high level while allowing the turbo to work.
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    coldcranker, I somewhat agree with you.

    I remember a couple decades ago when Turbos became all the rage. You could theoretically get more power from a smaller more efficient engine. But the quoted high power only comes in a narrow range at the highest RPM, so you just just get a tiny kick before shifting down again. The hot compressed air also meant less compression and less efficiency, as mentioned. Add to that the turbo lag in spining up and down, and turbos again became history, as they should have been.

    Since then, several things have changed. Dual gate turbines allow them to spin up and stay at speed once you get off idle, over 1000 RPM. Better air coolers mean you can keep some of the compression. But these advances still wasn't enough to make them worth considering.

    But the recent discovery of combining the turbo with the direct fuel injection into the cylinder (not the air stream), made a magic synergy (that Ford calls EcoBoost). First, through direct gas injection, you can boost or cut off the gas and power instantly without waiting for the turbine to change speed, giving fast throttle response. Next, the direct gas injection cools the air mixture as it expands, allowing good compression even with use of standard 87 octane gas. Finally, the torque curve is nearly flat over all RPM, unlike previous turbos that just had the torque spike at high RPM. So this EcoBoost technolgy gives an even FLATTER torque curve than normal gas engines. This means you'll get pushed back into your seat from the instant you hit the pedal. Also, your acceleration times will be better because the power is more even across all RPM as you accelerate.

    EcoBoost means you can get 3.5 liter V-6 power out of a much smaller I-4 engine, simultaneous with up to 25% or more better fuel economy (like over 30 MPG instead of 24 MPG on my big Taurus X crossover.) Furthermore, EcoBoost will feel even racier with more uniform torque, and be very responsive. It's a fantastic engineering combination that can't get to the market fast enough, IMO.

    More on EcoBoost here
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    I have heard about Ecoboost, which is a new spin on the current direct-injected turbo gas engines out there now (GM, Mazda, VW, etc.). I do tend to advise people that a good small displacement, low internal-friction, non-turbo 60 deg V6 is a smoother way to go than a shaky 4-cylinder. Direct injection benefits any engine, either turbo or not. Actually, I think you have to go to the approach VW is using, with direct injection, a turbo, and a supercharger, all on the same engine, to really get the performance out of a small-displacement engine without sacrificing fuel economy. VW Twincharger engine concept Popular Science article click here
    I think you have to go that direction based on the current evidence we have with the GM and Mazda direct injection turbo 4 cylinders out there now. For example, the Mazda CX-7 has an Ecoboost-style engine right now and doesn't get very good fuel economy at all. In comparison, my 4,000 lb Freestyle with a low-internal-friction small smoothe V6 (10.1:1 compression ratio), making 205 HP gets better fuel economy than the small, lighter Mazda CX-7 with its Ecoboost-like 4-banger engine. The proof is in the pudding.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    Here's a comparison of power and fuel economy between an Ecoboost-like 4-cylinder direct injected turbo vs. a non-turbo V6 crossover:

    '09 Mazda CX-7 I4, 244 HP, 17city/23hiway MPG, 3700 lbs, 4 cylinder
    '09 Ford Escape V6, 240 HP, 18city/26hiway MPG, 3600 lbs, V6
    '05 Ford Freestyle V6, 205 HP, 18city/25hiway MPG, 3900 lbs, V6
    (all front-wheel drive 2WD only here)

    So where is the big advantage from direct injection combined with a turbo in a smaller 4-cylinder engine, vs. a good solid smoothe V6?
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    If you read through the fine details, you'll see EcoBoost is a bit different from either the VW or Mazda approach, although it's similar in the base concept. Most of the radical improvement simply involves much better engineering for way better results. The better engineering includes designing an even better Turbo boost curve versus RPM, where and how the fuel is injected for maximum cooling and efficiency, much better use of modern computer control, among many other items.

    Ford is putting the EcoBoost on the Flex next year, a car similar to my Taurus X and your Freestyle. The Flex, my T-X and your Freestyle get mileage of 17/24, 17/24 and 18/25 respectively. (The T-X has 260 HP versus 205 HP of the Freestyle, but only looses 1 MPG). In practice, I do much better than the standards with my T-X if I do slow starts and stops, and stay below 65 MPH, with Freeway at 26 MPG and combined 22-23 MPG.

    When the new EcoBoost comes out on the Flex next year. I suspect you'll see amazing numbers like 21/30 MPG for the same power and better performance. This will be a major breakthrough as Ford applies this low cost technology across the line. EcoBoost helps everywhere - Crossovers, economy cars, trucks, and even Hybrids get more than a 20% mileage improvement across the fleet, while keeping the same power and better performance (via a flatter torque curve).

    It's true that a V-6 is smoother and quieter. There's now an effort to add weights and muffler tuning to make the smaller I-4 (with the power of a V-6 now) feel and sound more like a V-6. We'll see how this works in the next few years.

    Combining their new EcoBoost with their new totally redesigned modern fleet coming out in the next year or two, Ford could easily start to dominate the market. They're already starting to regain market share with their new improvements that now put Ford at the top of the market in safety, fuel effiency, reliabilty, and use of modern electronics (like SYNC for one).
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    You're assuming Ford can do something with direct injection (DI) and turbo in a gas engine that GM, VW, and Mazda have been unable to do. Not likely. In fact, MIT engineers have been saying you need ethanol boosting to get a 20% gain in efficiency from a DI/turbo (aka, Ecoboost) engine. Ethanol Boosting -- click here. Basically, ethanol boosting is Ecoboost with added alcohol injection to eliminate engine knock at mid-to-high engine loads, requiring about a 3 gallon separate ethanol tank to go with a regular 20 gallon gas tank. As far as I've heard, Ford says you can get a 20% gain in fuel economy without ethanol injection. Yeah, right.

    Bottom line is that Ford's claims are hyper-inflated. Doing clever things in the engine control software to an Ecoboost (DI/turbo) 4-cylinder engine might get you 5 or 10% greater fuel economy at the same power levels as a decent V6 you're replacing, but nobody yet knows how to get a 20% gain.

    All I've heard about the Flex is that it will eventually go to direct injection on its 3.5L V6, adding a turbo, calling it Ecoboost, and then marketing it as getting better MPG than a 4.6L V8 if it existed in that application. What I'd like to see them do is put a 1.5L 4-cylinder Ecoboost in the Flex and get at least 215 HP out of it, with a fuel economy gain. Granted, 215 HP is not as much as a non-turbo 3.5L V6, but they would at least get a significant fuel economy gain.
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    coldcranker, you say "You're assuming Ford can do something with direct injection (DI) and turbo in a gas engine that GM, VW, and Mazda [and MIT] have been unable to do. ... As far as I've heard, Ford says you can get a 20% gain in fuel economy without ethanol injection. Yeah, right."

    Yes, that is indeed what Ford has done. Took years of hard work and engineering. Yes, it's amazing and unbelievable. Among many awards surely to come, EcoBoost already won the Popular Science "Best of What's New" award this year. See here.

    Ford has scaled back their projections from 25% MPG improvement to instead 15-20% now, just to be conservative across the fleet average and account for some use instead towards increased power. But it could be up to 25% MPG improvement in many cars, if desired.

    For example, Ford is replacing the Freestyle/Taurus X by the Explorer America next year (2010 model). This new Explorer America will have a similar but improved appearance to the Taurus X and Explorer (rather than Flex appearance) and is based on the same unibody chasis as the F/S, T-X, and Flex. The capabilty will be the same or improved - more ground clearance and towing capability for instance.

    Ford states here about the Explorer America engine options:
    A powertrain lineup that includes a 4-cylinder 2-liter engine with EcoBoost technology delivering 275 hp and 280 lb.-ft. of torque or, as a premium engine, a 3.5-liter V-6 delivering about 340 hp. Depending on engine selection, fuel-efficiency will improve by 20 to 30 percent versus today’s V-6 Explorer

    There's also a nice diagram in the same link above showing how EcoBoost works. This isn't hype. It's working, and it's coming to market soon. Yep, truly amazing.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    Sounds good, but there is some marketing hype in there crediting the Ecoboost tech when it doesn't deserve 20% credit. Don't get me wrong, I do think Ecoboost alone should get around a 5% up to 10% fuel economy gain if done right. And thats optimistic, since there might be some innovation in doing VVT with direct injection + turbo. Not big gains. DI alone might give up to 5%, and maybe another 3% or so from downsizing the engine and adding a turbo to make up for the loss in displacement.

    For example:
    larrygw says: "Depending on engine selection, fuel-efficiency will improve by 20 to 30 percent versus today’s V-6 Explorer " In reality, half (10%) of the gain in fuel economy of the Explorer America over the current Explorer is due to the new Explorer America being a unit-body, front wheel drive based, lower friction drivetrain (D3 platform based), with a newer 6-speed tranny over the old Explorer's body-on-frame, 4-speed tranny, rear wheel drive, and heavier platform. All that has nothing to do with Ecoboost. In fact, we might see 5% to 10% gain in fuel economy from going to Ecoboost, which is direct injection + turbo. I believe MIT, GM, Mazda, VW, and my own mechanical engineering experience over Ford's claims.

    I recommend not swallowing the marketing hype. Ford's real accomplishment appears to be in the Fusion Hybrid, out in 2 months, as its already getting 40 MPG in real-world, 3rd party tests recently.
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    coldcranker, I agree with you, that for sure other factors help the Ford Explorer get up to 30% better fuel efficiency. It's becoming more of a car than a truck, which is how people really use it. I don't know either how much of that mileage improvement is EcoBoost, but they're repeatedly claiming 15-20% mileage improvment and I'm sure they have a LOT of test data to back that up, opposed to random speculation by us, who are not in their engineering team.

    Ford has been conservative in their projections more recently. So I tend to believe them. They also claim the EcoBoost is of much greater value than Hybrid technology as it helps the gas mileage of ALL cars and trucks of all types (including Hybrid) across the board, which also makes sense to me.

    As for Ford hype and claim versus reality, we'll all know in a few months when the EcoBoost vehicles come out and get properly rated for fuel economy by an independent firm. Till then, we just got opinions.
  • tourguidetourguide Member Posts: 190
    Sounds good, but there is some marketing hype in there crediting the Ecoboost tech when it doesn't deserve 20% credit.

    I think you are EXACLTLY right in this cc. 5-10% is a good estimate. The boys and girls over on Blue Oval News who are working on the project and have some knowledge about it personally I've read saying that the 20% figures that Ford put out early on were best case scenarios as compared to V8 technology!

    WELL NO WONDER!! I completely understand how it would compare that favorably in that light. Makes sense, huh?!

    I personally can't wait to see what the real 'boost' ends up being. I decided after I heard where they pulled that 20% figure from that it wasn't worth waiting for. It's just more of the same kids. Soon enough we will see. Personally, I've gotta believe that if it was a true 20% boost, they'd have rolled it out sooner that this.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I decided after I heard where they pulled that 20% figure from that it wasn't worth waiting for.

    All of the Ford Media literature I've read on EcoBoost claimed UP TO A 20% increase in FE. Never have I read that 20% was guaranteed across the board.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    baggs32, It depends on what is compared to what. For example, my '05 Freestyle has 205 HP in a 3.0L V6, so a meaningful comparison would be to an Ecoboost 1.5L 4 cylinder, since you could get the same power out of that engine. Doing that, it is possible I could see better fuel economy. Its doubtful if the gain would be 20% based on all the evidence I've seen so far, without using alcohol injection of some kind to keep the compression ratio high and knock absent. Alcohol injection was used in WWII on the P-38's Allison V12 engines to get rid of knock while being supercharged at a high compression ratio for efficiency. Allison Engine Link -- click here MIT's Sloan labs are now investigating new twists on this old idea, needed to get 20% efficiency gains.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    It depends on what is compared to what.

    Exactly, and that's why they never guaranteed 20% across the board. They did a blanket statement for the tech as a whole stating that 20% gains were possible but when you actually read the literature they tell you that the gains will be a good bit less in some applications. I'm guessing that going from a 5.4L V8 to an EB 3.5L V6 will net larger gains than going from the 4.6L V8 to the EB 3.5L V6 for the F150 for example.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    baggs32 said: "They did a blanket statement for the tech as a whole stating that 20% gains were possible "

    One point that should be made. Ecoboost tech doesn't deserve the full 20% on any application. As was pointed out earlier, Ford was holding up their upcoming Ford Explorer and then comparing it to the current Explorer. Only problem is the new Explorer will have a unit body, 6-speed tranny, and will be lighter, all good for about a 5%-10% fuel economy gain without adding Ecoboost. That means the Ecoboost part is good for about a 10% gain. Not bad, but the marketing hype for it is misleading. As I've said before, you need alcohol injection to get a 20% increase in fuel economy in a direct injection turbo application.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Ecoboost tech doesn't deserve the full 20% on any application.

    You might want to hold off on making statements like that until we all learn of the applications first. There is talk of an EB I4 in the F150 in 2010 or 2011 probably to replace the base 2V 4.6L V8. Since you would be going from a V8 to an I4 in that case the gains very well might be 20% without any other mods to the model as in the case of the Explorer. But we don't know any of this for sure yet so I'll believe their claim until all of the planned applications are announced and tested.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    baggs32,
    For the comparison to be valid, the power from the new EB I4 you mentioned needs to be equal (or nearly equal) to the 4.6L V8. I own an '05 F150 with the 4.6L, and it is rated at 231 HP and 293 ft-lbs. OK, you could get to that power level with an EB 4 cylinder of about 2.2L, but you would either need A) add a 6-speed tranny, or B) add alcohol injection, to get a 20% gain. Ecoboost alone won't do it.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    I'm a member of the SAE, and I know someone who knows someone inside Ford. I'll see if I can't get an anonymous leak of information about Ecoboost fuel economy gains potential in the years to come.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think we're off on a bit of a tangent here, though.

    Let's get back to Acura vs. Toyota.

    RDX owners do complain about gas mileage so the concerns expressed above are valid. Plus you should use premium fuel.

    Toyota's 2GR V6 is plenty powerful, efficient, and runs on regular fuel. But we're only looking at the engine. I found the interior a bit lacking, and the swinging rear door opens the wrong way, blocking curb side loading.

    So I prefer the RAV4's powertrain, it's a shame the rest of vehicle isn't as good as the engine.

    To be honest the CX7 and Forester XT are more comparable to the RAV4, especially when it comes to pricing.
  • aggie10aggie10 Member Posts: 17
    We have an 04 Suburban,a nd we're looking to trade it in. We'd like a new one, but it might be too pricey. Does anyone have any ideas of a replacement vehicle that might be less expensive without a huge dropoff in space and cargo room? We're thinking about the new Chevy Traverse, but we're not sure. Our Suburban has about 60,000 miles, and is out of the warranty. That's wht makes us nervous. Thanks so much for any and all advice.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Member Posts: 877
    aggie10, The Traverse is exceptional. Chevy put direct injection in that powerful V6 this year. That is one well-built husky SUV. Its not cheap, as it goes for around $30,000. For a little cheaper, you can get an '09 TaurusX crossover, plenty big enough for most folks, and a very good performer. The TaurusX uses a derivative of the Volvo XC90 chassis, very solid and well built. The TaurusX engine won an award from Wards Automotive, and it shares a transmission with the Traverse (joint GM-Ford transmission in there).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    60,000 miles isn't many, but if you need lots of room, but not the "truck" abilities (4WD, 3500lbs+ towing capacity), consider a minivan. They're much cheaper than crossover vehicles, and always offer more cargo/passenger space.

    Just a thought. :)
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    If you don't need big towing capacity, the new extended Expedition was nice and quite comparable in interior room. We held off on that one due to the integrated hitch and less towing capacity than our 3/4 ton Yukon XL because we want it as a tow vehicle for a good size trailer.
    How many seats do you need? Coming from the Sub, you will find the Taurus or even the Flex a bit lacking in cargo room behind the 3rd row. The GM crossover options offer a little more trunk room but still a downsize from the Sub. I know that we never saw a crossover or even a minivan that would comfortably take both our dogs behind the 3rd row like the Suburban does even though for some the published cargo volume was similar. If you can pile your luggage or cargo vertically, this is less of an issue, but our dogs don't like standing on each other.
    Do you have the option that we are considering, namely semi-retire the Suburban and keep it for the big family trips, but use a smaller 7 passenger crossover as the usual daily driver? Driving around town cargo capacity etc becomes much less important. With current trade in values, it's not as if the Sub is worth that much on the trade-in market. I would be very hesitant about buying a new Sub for just that reason - they are still expensive, but unlike it was 5 years ago, the depreciation on these big SUV's is now abysmal.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'll 2nd the minivan suggestion.

    Sorry, I said the M word again. ;)

    Seriously, though, the two desires here are space and value pricing, and the simple fact is a minivan wins big in both areas.

    Going from a Suburban to a Lambda you lose about 20 cubit feet.

    Going from a Suburban to a Sienna you actually gain 10+ cubic feet.

    That plus a van will be a whole lot cheaper. $22-35k instead of $30-40k or so.
Sign In or Register to comment.