Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
When you have a Trip Computer and get bored on a long trip, you pay attention to things like that.
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.
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."
Forester is their top rated compact SUV.
Reliability is important but the overall score includes many more criteria.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
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.
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!
Though that might mean some bargains can be had.
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.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
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
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.
'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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 add alcohol injection, to get a 20% gain. Ecoboost alone won't do it.
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.
Just a thought.
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.
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.