Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2011 Ford Explorer

191012141522

Comments

  • iwant12iwant12 Posts: 269
    A nice review, thanks. How did you find the seat comfort and outward visability? I have a hard time digesting FWD.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Why would any automotive design engineer intentionally provide BOOST at the same time the throttle plate is being used to restrict the intake airflow....?

    Burden the engine with exhaust flow restriction just to produce BOOST that can't get by the throttle plate.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    Why would any automotive design engineer intentionally provide BOOST at the same time the throttle plate is being used to restrict the intake airflow....?

    I'm not an engineer and haven't a clue, but I do know certain intake restrictions/pluming is used for low rpm torque. But I've driven a few DI gas turbocharged 4 cylinders and they were way more powerful at part throttle vs. the non turbo versions and it was obvious they were generating boost at less than WOT. Turbo lag was almost undetectable. I couldn't tell you what the actual position of the throttle plate is as they are all electronically controlled on these engines.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    My argument about poor FE is based on constant speed cruise, relatively constant speed, say driving along the freeway at 65 with CC set.

    So yes, anytime acceleration is desired, an engine torque level cognizant with acceleration, the engine is most likely to be "on-boost".
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    If what you are saying about the CR in a non boosted engine and a boosted one is true, why would any manufacturer bother?
    The EPA numbers are everything. It is a low stress test.
  • Sorry to be off-topic as it relates to the Explorer but this NA vs. turbo discussion is interesting to me. I have a 2008 Taurus with the NA 3.5 and a 2010 Lincoln MKS with the 3.5 ecoboost. They have identical gearing.

    While the MKS is 400 lbs heavier and has AWD, it delivers MPG within a mile per gallon of the Taurus in real world driving - whether it is constant highway cruising, city stop & go, or any combination of the two. In terms of acceleration, the MKS would go past the Taurus so fast, it would suck its windshield out. Compared to my old V8 LS, the MKS would absolutely brutalize it in terms of both performance and fuel economy. The ecoboost 3.5 is the real deal.

    Of course a big benefit of the ecoboost is performance and low-end torque. You certainly do not need WOT to feel it or to get boost. In fact, I think one of the reasons my MKS does so well on fuel is that it can carry a higher gear than our Taurus to do the same job. For example, passing on a two-lane highway, the MKS can do it more quickly in 6th gear than the Taurus can with a downshift to 5th or even 4th.

    Both run at about 1500 RPM at 60 MPH in 6th. The MKS will accelerate strongly without a kick-down while the Taurus will not. Even around town, not using the manual shift function, the MKS will get into the higher gears sooner than the Taurus while still providing faster acceleration. Keeping the RPM lower while at the same ground speed uses less fuel, not to mention less engine noise. A huge benefit of low-end torque is the relaxed way the car accelerates and cruises - it is not just for boy-racers, although I might be guilty of that sometimes.
  • This is encouraging news. But the Ecoboost slated for the Explorer, isn't it the 4-cylinder 2.0L unit?
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    Sorry to be off-topic as it relates to the Explorer but this NA vs. turbo discussion is interesting to me. I have a 2008 Taurus with the NA 3.5 and a 2010 Lincoln MKS with the 3.5 ecoboost. They have identical gearing.

    While the MKS is 400 lbs heavier and has AWD, it delivers MPG within a mile per gallon of the Taurus in real world driving - whether it is constant highway cruising, city stop & go, or any combination of the two. In terms of acceleration, the MKS would go past the Taurus so fast, it would suck its windshield out. Compared to my old V8 LS, the MKS would absolutely brutalize it in terms of both performance and fuel economy. The ecoboost 3.5 is the real deal.


    Thanks for the post. I'll be looking to replace my 07 Expedition within 2 years. I'd love to see the EB offered in the F150 to end up in the Expedition. I might even decide to switch to a PU. Regardless, the EB certainly has my attention. All of that low rpm torque would be great for towing.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    This is encouraging news. But the Ecoboost slated for the Explorer, isn't it the 4-cylinder 2.0L unit?

    Yes, so from what I've read it won't have the HP of the N/A 3.5, but it will have favorable torque output and I don't think it's being offered initially with AWD. So it should offer class leading fuel economy in a 7 passenger SUV and decent performance. I don't see them selling many configured that way though.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    You just MADE my point...

    Think about how much better your Taurus' FE might be if that N/A engine could have the benefits of DFI with its 12:1 compression ratio. 20-30% improved FE and more HP/torque...?
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited February 2011
    A derated/detuned 2.0L I4 providing motive force for the HEAVY 2011 Ford Explorer...??

    Think about that...the 2.3L I4/stick in my '93 Ranger, empty, driver only, struggles, absent a serious level of downshifting, to climb even the slightest incline.

    Gonna spend a LOT of time ON-BOOST......
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    edited February 2011
    Think about how much better your Taurus' FE might be if that N/A engine could have the benefits of DFI with its 12:1 compression ratio. 20-30% improved FE and more HP/torque...?

    I'd like to see evidence where you get a 20-30% increase in fuel economy and power simply with DI, if you use smaller displacement with DI, you still lose torque. That's not to say newer designed DI engines with advanced valve systems, along with more efficient transmissions aren't on the way. But even Toyota has announced plans for Turbocharged direct injected engines. I don't understand your bias against turbo charging.

    Cadillac is using direct injected engines in the CTS and is showing no where near the numbers you're claiming.

    The 3.0 DI v6 offers HP similar to Ford's 3.5 but it's down on torque. FE for the rwd 3.0 CTS is 27mpg, still short of the 28mpg rating for the non-DI 3.5 in a heavier fwd Taurus.

    Ford, VW, BMW, Nissan, GM, Hyundai, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others have been using DI and turbo charging with good results (OK, I know BMW has had some reliability issues with fuel pumps).

    I've shown you several examples that dispute your claims, yet I haven't seen one example in the real world from you that substantiates your claims.

    A small displacment high compression DI engine simply will not produce enough torque for a heavy vehicle. I don't think anyone wants DI 4cyl in 4klb Taurus. Hyundai's DI 2.4l produces 184 ft-lbs of torque, that's not going to work in a car like the Taurus that weights nearly 1k lbs heavier than a Sonota. The Sonota does get about 30% better fuel economy than a Taurus, but it's a much smaller car weights 25% less and has a DI engine which produces about 25% less power.

    Ford will be using a 2.0l DI 4 cylinder in the 2012 Focus. It will produce 160hp and 146 ft-lbs of torque with 12.0:1 compression. Sorry, give me the turbo version.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    A derated/detuned 2.0L I4 providing motive force for the HEAVY 2011 Ford Explorer...??

    Think about that...the 2.3L I4/stick in my '93 Ranger, empty, driver only, struggles, absent a serious level of downshifting, to climb even the slightest incline.

    Gonna spend a LOT of time ON-BOOST......


    Don't even bring up Ford's old 2.3 boat anchor. It has nothing incommon with the new 2.0L turbo except that they share the same number of cylinders.

    Detuned? How so, the 2.0DI 4cyl Ford has produces 160hp, the 2.0 DI turbo will produce nearly double the torque at a very usable low rpm.

    Then again I understand where your coming from now. You drive one of the slowest vehicles on the road. I had a 2.3 Ranger once for a loaner from the Ford dealer. I drove out of the parking lot and turned around and demanded something tolerable, IMO it was so slow it bordered on being unsafe.

    One more thing. Wwest, have you ever driven a vehicle with a DI turbo 4? I've driven a few and everyone has been impressive in terms of refinement and power delivery. But I'm willing to give up a few MPG for more power.
  • You just MADE my point...

    I learned a long time ago not to read much of what you post so I am not sure what your point is...

    If the NA 3.5 had DI and 12:1 compression, would there be an improvement in performance and FE? Sure. However, it would still not perform like the twin turbo ecoboost. Currently the NA 3.5 has 10.3:1 CR and the ecoboost has 10:1. If you dropped the Turbos from the ecoboost but raised the compression to 12:1, you would have specs closer to the Cadillac CTS engine - although I do not recall the Cad's CR off the top of my head.

    The Cadillac CTS with its DI 3.6 develops 273 ft/lbs of torque at 5200 RPM and has only marginally better fuel economy ratings than a MUCH HEAVIER Taurus SHO or MKS ecoboost and lower FE than the NA Taurus without DI. Torque on the car-version ecoboost is 350 at 1500. On the F150, it is 420, also at a lower usable RPM.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "...But I'm will to give up a few MPG for more power..."

    But many of us are not...!

    Why is Ford shipping the new 2011 Explorer with a N/A V6 that is NOT DFI...? They clearly have the technological and design capability.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "..The Cadillac CTS.."

    The 3.6L DI engine is rated at 18/26 and the 3.0L SFI engine at 18/27.

    Simple math indicates that if that 3.6L DI engine were a 3.0L DI engine the numbers would be more in the range of 21/30.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    Simple math indicates that if that 3.6L DI engine were a 3.0L DI engine the numbers would be more in the range of 21/30.

    Well take it up with GM then. GM is using a DI 3.0 and DI 3.6L v6s and the EPA FE ratings are 18/27 for both the 3.0 and 3.6 DI engines. CR on the 3.0DI is 11.7:1 and CR of the 3.6 DI 11.3:1
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    edited February 2011
    Why is Ford shipping the new 2011 Explorer with a N/A V6 that is NOT DFI...? They clearly have the technological and design capability.

    Probably the same reason they didn't add DI to the 3.7 v6, 5.0 & 6.2 v8. I'd guess it's to save money and maybe just adding DI doesn't automatically equal 30% more FE as you claim. Though DI is going to included with the 2012 Focus N/A 2.0L.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    But many of us are not...!

    That's fine and there are vehicles out there that should suit you just fine. Go buy a Volt or a Civic. I use my full size SUV to tow my boat etc. A small displacement N/A DI engine isn't going to cut it. The fact that Ford offers a powertrain that offers big block v8 levels of torque at v6 levels of fuel consumption works for me. Otherwise, I'll just continue to drive my v8 Expedition getting 15mpg.

    Here's something else for you to chew on. Both the Honda Accord and Hyundai Sonata use 2.4L 4cyl. The Hyundai uses DI and the Honda does not. FE for the Accord is 23/34 and the Sonota is 24/35 and they both have Similar HP. 190vs 198.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,704
    DI is expensive. The only reason the Focus 2.0 gets DI is that in Europe that is a premium engine and they didn't want to have 2 versions. The power and fuel economy gain due to DI is small and not worth it on lower priced vehicles.

    Using a smaller displacement with DI and Turbos on the ecoboost models yield far better results than just DI alone on a larger engine.

    That said I believe Ford will put DI on all their Lincoln engines to distinguish them from the Ford versions.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    The Ranger is reserved for hauling yard waste, trash, gargage and the occassional trip to fetch gas/diesel. Daily driver, work to and fro, is an '01 F/awd RX300. Weekends the '01 Porsche C4 comes out of the garage.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    '01 F/awd RX300. Weekends the '01 Porsche C4 comes out of the garage.

    Interesting coming from someone who harps on FE so much. Would you like a 200Hp 2.4 DI 4cyl to replace the flat 6 in your Carrera?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    The 5.0 in the Mustang is not a DI engine. Try to find some complaints about that.
    285 HP from a 3.5 that is tuned for torque sounds good to me.
    How much do you really need?
    I will follow the fuel mileage reports with some interest.
    A few years ago, I had an '07 Edge as a loaner for a few days.
    I drove it harder than normal (not abuse) and averaged 20 mpg.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    No, but what I would really like would be a T-Top Porsche Caymen with the HSD system, maybe using the new Toyoya I4 (187HP) but with DFI and the West/Atkinson/Otto/Miller multi-mode engine.
  • @blevinsd
    Most Driver shafts are 46" long, max. Adding 6" for the bag and head cover, and another 4" for the club head puts you at 56". The cargo width at floor is 64.9". No issues with width.

    You would likely have to stack the bags, 2 on 2, to keep them reaching the wheelhouse. The width at the wheelhouse is only 40.8.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Plus in the Panamera with AWD it gets 18/26mpg. That's a huge improvement over the Taurus SHOs 17/25 with it's brick like drag coefficient and extra 300lbs vs. the Porsche.

    HUGE improvement, Gracie? looks like 1 MPG to me, and that's not huge to me, it's insignificant. Of course, I could be wrong....
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    if you want to match the 0-60 of the SHO, you need to step up to the Panamera S. 24 mpg highway, v8, 400 hp, 90k base MSRP.
    I'm ok with the '11 Explorer not being as quick.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    The Panamera is an awesome sport sedan that is clearly in a different league of an SHO. I only brought it up in regards to fuel economy.
  • 2ND REQUEST: Does anyone have definitive information when Ford will offer the 2.0 Liter I-4 EcoBoost engine on the new 2011 Explorer?
Sign In or Register to comment.