Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
In contrast, my Taurus X is getting over 20 MPG in daily use. Commuting to work with 70% highway, I average 23-25 MPG for the whole week with the Taurus X, depending on how much city driving I do on errands. That mileage is just fine for such a useful vehicle, and way better than the alternatives for the same capability - a minivan or SUV.
Still, it will be nice when Ford EcoBoost comes out, and mileage increases 20-25%, in my case up to 25-30 MPG overall average in daily use for the large vehice. Some people will then be upset if they'd bought a cramped and less useful compact car to get better mileage, providing for a insignificant extra savings at that point.
You're forgetting that the Flex has been a slow release to dealers and is only now starting to trickle into some in smaller markets. Also, the ad campaign does not start until late this month or sometime in September. Sales were low for July but they weren't easy to find unless you wanted one of the first copies built which around here were 99% Limited models with just about every option.
I'm not saying the Flex will be a runaway success. But you do have to take the lack of inventory into consideration when judging first month sales. I'd wait until the ads hit the airwaves before measuring full month sales because dealer inventories are sure to be up to par by that time.
I have an '05 Freestyle, and I laugh when I think of the low-key, barely there, mellow, boring ads Ford did for the Freestyle/TaurusX, while the Edge and Flex get star treatment.
About the "promise" of Eco-boost: I don't see how you can get 20% greater efficiency out of the Ecoboost concept. The current Mazda CX-7 uses an engine that is very, very similar to Ecoboost right now (smaller 4-cylinder, direct injection, turbo) and it gets terrible MPG!!! If the CX-7 engine was maybe at 1.9L instead of the present 2.3L, you might be able to get about 10% greater MPG, which is about the displacement that Ford will do for Ecoboost in a vehicle that size. But not 20%.
There are some airing and I've even seen a billboard or two for the Flex. However, they have not released a full-on media blitz yet. Wait 2 or 3 weeks and you'll be sick of seeing them.
True about the CX-7 FE. Same goes for the Acura RDX, similar engine, terrible FE. However there is one big difference in the EB engines. They have 2 turbos, not one, and they don't work in a traditional TT fashion from what I've gathered. This seems to be something brand new.
Here's a video describing the technology. I still haven't seen a good description of how it will save so much fuel, but this is about as good as I've seen so far.
One has to wonder if those two aren't cases of too small an engine trying to push a heavy vehicle and then making it worse by using gearing to improve performance, not FE. The Mazda5 might be guilty of that too.
Actually the Ecoboost concept would put an even smaller 4-banger in there than the CX-7's 2.3L. Maybe a 1.9L, and a twin turbo, and of course with direct injection as is now.
There was one very funny piece of news in this week's print Automotive News magazine: Anti-Ecoboost here all the way! Mazda is reporting they are getting so many complaints about the CX-7 MPG from owners and potential buyers that they now say they will drop the turbocharger so they can raise the nominal compression ratio in the engine, thereby increasing its fuel efficiency! (The Freestyle has a 10.1 compression ratio, high enough for good fuel efficiency, while the current boosted Ecoboost-like CX-7 has a 9.5 ratio because the turbos are present.) Get rid of the turbos, and you can raise the compression ratio to get better MPG, as Mazda will now do. I wonder if Ecoboost will somehow manage to keep the compression ratio high while adding the twin turbos, avoiding knock (detonation) all the while using some trick. I don't see how, at least not without going to something like GM's HCCI diesel-like combustion cycles; not likely.
Thats why I just don't understand the whole Ecoboost strategy, since simply by raising the compression ratio a bit, and adding direct injection, into the current Freestyle 3.0L or TaurusX 3.5L V6s which are low-friction, aluminum block lightweight, harmonically balanced 60 degree bank angle V6s for smoothness, you get get a gain of about 15% MPG right there, sans turbo.
Does anyone know if the Taurus and TaurusX will survive to see Ecoboost (small direct injected 4-cylinder with twin turbos, maybe 1.9L or so)? If so, then I'll be comparing the MPG to my '05 Freestyle, and possibly equaling Ecoboost MPG, all with the current 203 ft-lbs and 204 hp I have now.
FWIW, I just took my new Taurus X on a 200 mile round trip, mostly highway with a lot of long hills, and averaged 28mpg (at least according to the trip computer). That was the true trip average; for about a 30 mile stretch, the trip computer displayed an eye-opening 33mpg - this was with the A/C on, two adults + two kids, and the cruise set at ~68mph.
I've seen a couple of articles which came out within the past week stating that you will not. Nothing is official yet, but it seems the TX and the Mercury Sable are getting the axe after the 2009 MY.
If they do survive another year and do get the EB I4 it would most likely be the 2.5L version (not the 1.9L version if that even exists because I thought it was actually 1.6L) which has been confirmed to make something like 250 HP and 240 ft-lbs. If the FE claims are true it would most likely get the same FE as your 3.0L CVT equipped FS while making a good deal more power.
Keep in mind that Ford's claims are that a 2.5L EB motor will get 20% better FE than a comparably powered V6 and not the NA 2.5L I4.
The very small bump in FE for the new 3.0L is completely due to the 6-speed tranny in the '09 Escape. I'm betting that engine has worse FE than the 200 HP version but it was saddled with a 4-speed tranny so we can't really make an apples to apples comparo of the 2 versions of the engine unfortunately.
In fact, if you go to fueleconomy.gov they list the 200 HP '08 Escape V6 4WD as doing 17/22 and the '09 240 HP version (with the 6-speed tranny) doing 17/24. So the improvement is only in the highway mileage. Take that 6-speed tranny away from the '09 and I bet you would see numbers more like 15 or 16 city and 21 or 22 highway.
So that means an EB I4 would have to bump the FE up to 20/28 or 29. Seeing that the NA 2.5L I4 in the '09 Escape AWD gets 19/25 I don't see that being unreasonable or a "miracle". The DI alone on the EB engines should get it close to 20/28 I would think.
Actually, using the '09 Escape, since they are putting in the 6-speed in both 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder versions for the '09 model year, is a good evaulation vehicle for just how much efficiency we have now and what gains we hope to have in a couple of years.
Vehicle A: '09 Escape 4-cylinder, 171 hp, 6-speed, 2wd: 20/28 MPG
Vehicle B: '09 Escape 6-cylinder, 240 hp, 6-speed, 2wd: 18/26 MPG
Ecoboost marketing strategy: For success, an Ecoboost 4-cylinder should equal the power of a 6 cylinder with a gain in MPG over the 6.
We know that adding a turbo to a non-aspirated (NA) engine lowers MPG, lets say by 2 MPG hiway and 1 MPG city, assuming you have to drop the nominal compression ratio down to accomodate the turbo. Therefore, vehicle A becomes 19/26 MPG, almost the same as the V6 version vehicle B. But we're not done with the full Ecoboost treatment yet. Now add direct injection (ala Ecoboost strategy) and raise city and hiway by 1 MPG, as we have seen happen in the transition between '08 and '09 models of the Acadia as they add direct injection in those GM vehicles, the best example we have. Now, with direct injection and a turbo added to the 4 cylinder vehicle A, it becomes 20/27. Then, lets give Ford a little credit for adding a twin turbo arrangement in some sort of scheme to minimize energy losses in the turbo system, and also some credit for finding a way to run the Ecoboost on regular gas while raising the compression ratio just a bit. Therefore, add 1 MPG to the city and hiway for this "techno credit bag of tricks", and you have vehicle A getting 21/27 MPG. And finally, add another 1 MPG by simply adding variable valve timing to both intake and exhaust valves, another part of the Ecoboost strategy, and you arrive at 22/29, at around 230 HP in an Ecoboost 4-cylinder. Compared to the non-Ecoboost 6-cylinder, the Ecoboost 4-cylinder would then get 22/29 and the 6-cylinder is at (vehicle B above) 18/26 MPG, giving an increase of about 20%. I do think 20% is achievable, based on the incremental gains you can get. Much more and you run into compression ratio / octane trouble real fast, some physics walls more akin to HCCI stuff which Ford is not doing. Note that Ford might end up with closer to 10% gains (rather than the lofty 20%) if they can't raise compression ratio with clever engineering.
I still say this is a great strategy they came up with. You don't lose your V6 or V8 power and still get the FE of the smaller engine that everyone else is switching to. Take Toyota for example. They just announced that they will make an I4 available in next year's Highlander. Ford can trump them in a big way by putting an EB engine in their comparable CUVs IMO.
One might argue that even the mighty Toyota got caught out by the changing gas prices and consumer attitudes. Back in its first generation, the Highlander came with the I4 with the v6 coming on the upper tier models or with the 3rd row. I was very surprised when the new model omitted an I4 option. Maybe the added weight of the new model changed their minds or maybe they had assumed that the public would go for the Rav if they wanted better FE. I'd take a Highlander with an I4. The hybrid had been tempting, but came with a significant price premium although some came back with the gov't rebates available. Our cold weather and driving habits would not have been able to get full advantage of the Hybrid which made us balk. An I4 should be cheaper and get better FE. It would likely be a little slow, but I'd be willing to bet it is still better than our first gen Pathfinder was and fine for our city driving needs.
As far as a four cylinder Highlander...Toyota heard you:
PRESS RELEASE:
August 14, 2008 - Torrance, CA - Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., announced today that the 2009 Highlander mid-size sport utility vehicle (SUV) will offer an all-new, powerful yet fuel-efficient 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine. When it arrives at dealerships in mid-to-late January, the new Highlander powerplant will be among the best mid-size SUVs in the areas of performance, fuel economy and value.
The new 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine will generate an impressive 187 horsepower at 5,800 RPM and 186 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,100 RPM on regular 87 octane fuel. A dual exhaust manifold will help achieve exceptional low-end torque and maximize its power output. In addition to its performance output, the Highlander equipped with the new four-cylinder will be EPA-rated as an Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEVII) and is expected to be among the leaders in fuel efficiency in the gas mid-size SUV segment. Official EPA fuel efficiency ratings will be announced closer to launch.
The rest of the press release is available on autoblog and Toyota's website.
For those saying they think Ecoboost would have been great in the Freestyle/TaurusX, remember you would have to put up with a noisy, thrashy, hot-turbo 4-banger under the hood instead of a smoothe V6. I hope Ford at least uses the advanced denser engine castings for greater durability out of a blown compact high-output 4-cylinder that the Mazda CX-7 (and Mazda3) uses. That would help. It would also be nice if the exhaust valves are sodium-filled like the GM boosted 4-cylinder (Cobalt SS, Sky, Solstice) uses. We'll see what the "wonderfull world of Ecoboost" will do for durability. The crank bearings and turbo bearings on an Ecoboost will go through hell compared to our Freestyle/TaurusX V6, stretching the limits of durability engineering. Ford better mandate the Acura HTO-06 motor oil spec for the new Ecoboost universe. Meeting quality and customer satisfaction goals is going to be tough over the next few years.
So how did you get to drive one? How was the rest of the drive? Did it accelerate well? Was there turbo lag?
Yes, I know you didn't drive one. But you sure made it sound like you did! :P
Toyota will still sell Tundras and Sequoias, just not in very high numbers. Still with a profit. Its easy to make a profit off body-on-frame vehicles.
I think you missed the point. Neither of those sold well to begin with and now it will be even worse for them. They built that new plant expecting to sell tons more of both trucks which shows even the mighty Toyota missed the market collapse to an extent.
Misconception #1: Turbo charged engines get worse fuel economy than equivalent normally aspirated (n/a) ones. False: For many years Saab produced both turbo charged and n/a versions of the same 2.0l 4-cyl engines. Their cars could be had with either engine. It is well known that the Saab turbo charged cars got BETTER gas mileage. Typically, the n/a ones got about 26mpg highway while the same exact car with the same engine but turbo-charged would get 30mpg. The reason is the turbo recycles exhaust energy that previously was wasted thus increasing efficiency. As long as the boost level is mild to moderate the fuel economy can be enhanced. Where this misconception probably lies is typically most turbo charged vehicles (including the Mazda CX-7) are tuned for ultimate performance. Had Mazda backed off the high levels of boost which also require increased fuel flow, they could have had a 200hp vehicle that got 30mpg on the highway rather than a 225hp vehicle that gets 24mpg. Now that everyone is focusing on fuel economy I trust Ford will do the latter with Ecoboost.
Another misconception is that four cylinder turbo motors are somehow thrashy or not smooth. This also is likely due to most modern turbo charged motors being tuned for performance so there are issues like turbo lag, and then when boost comes on it means the power isn't as linear. This can lead to thinking all turbo motors are this way, but once again if tuned for economy rather than ultimate performance there is no reason a turbo charged motor should be any less smooth than a V6. Plus some people think 4-cyl motors in general are thrashy. This may be the case with a n/a engine since you have to wind it up to get much power, but a turbo charged version offers torque down low in the RPM range so you don't have to wind them up. They are much more sedate.
Lastly, there are accusations that turbo charged motors aren't durable. I beg to differ. My previous turbo charged Saab was a '97 9000 Aero. I sold it with 180,000 miles on it and it still ran like new. It never had a single engine problem. My current turbo charged Saab is an '01 9-5 wagon. It's a baby with only 163,000 miles on it and like the other never has had an engine problem. I fully intend to keep this car well beyond 200,000 miles.
Let's give Ford the benefit of the doubt that they can learn from manufacturers like Saab and pull off an Ecoboost engine that is durable, refined, and highly fuel efficient.
- Chad
Did you mean the former maybe?
I think you are exactly right. For example, Ford has stated that the 3.5L EB can make up to about 420 HP with similar torque. Since the first vehicles to get it are only going to output 340 HP it seems they are holding back on peak performance in the name of fuel efficiency. Or at least reaching a happy medium anyway.
About the Saab turbos getting better MPG than the non-aspirated versions, thats just not true. Take a look at the '94 Saab 9000 turbo and non-turbo, and subject them to the same fuel economy tests to control the variables in order to get the emotions and old wives tales out of the picture, and see the turbo gets 26 MPG on the highway and the non-turbo gets 27 MPG. Close, though. Still, for the modest HP gains Saab got in the turbo 4, that 1 MPG loss could have been achieved with a V6 at similar power (like the Freestyle's V6, which gets better MPG in a much heavier vehicle than the Saab 9000).
Also remember with turbos and Ecoboost that you must find a way to keep the compression ratio above 10:1 and have it use regular gas, which is very difficult. Thats why the MazdaCX7 has a compression ratio of 9.5:1, not good for gas mileage, and the Mazda engine still requires premium gas. Turbos also increase exhaust back pressure, further reducing MPG. When all is said and done, the added torque you get from the turbo is more than paid for by high back pressure and low compression ratio, so you don't really get something for nothing.
The solution for Ecoboost is to maintain a high compression ratio through use of VVT and direct injection, with the lower internal engine friction of a 4-cylinder helping, too. I don't see how they are going to do it without using some of MIT's alcohol boosting tricks to make Ecoboost actually deliver 20%+ fuel economy gains. See Alcohol boosting of half-sized turbo direct injection engines for fuel economy..click here
Thanks so much in advance.
With the headphones engaged, the sound only comes out of the front speakers so the rear isn't bombarded with sound it doesn't need.
To engage your system, I suggest you read your manual. If it's missing, you can get it from the Ford site. Go to the Myford section using the tab at the upper right.
Ford Pulls the Plug On Taurus X (Inside Line)
For example does it also suffer from the rear brake problem in the 2005/2006 Freestyle?
Thanks.
The rear brake issue with the Freestyle was fixed about three years ago, even before the conversion to the T-X.
Consumer Reports surveys show the Freestyle/T-X as being well above average for reliabilty in all categories.
I get even better milage than the official number - more like 25-27 MPG if I stay at 65 MPH.
It's a superb vehicle. I still can't believe what a nice crossover I got.
Its too bad that the TX got a bad start when it was introduced - the marketing and sales positioning suffered from the problems facing Ford.
Discontinued models like the TaurusX will not be high on the list of these suppliers.
Discontinued models like the TaurusX will not be high on the list of these suppliers. "
Let's hope not, because the mechanical components used in the T-Rex are the same as the other Ford corporate platforms; same engine and transmission. So I wouldn't worry about major repairs. Maybe some of the smaller components, but I should imagine that if there is a market, some small overseas firm (i.e., China or similar) will step in and produce the parts.
I would be much more concerned about the Freestyle components. The engine has been used for a long time, so there should be no problem there, but that CVT is not common. Uncertainty about the CVT is the main reason I chose to not purchase my FS at the end of its lease.
Ford bought that CVT from another mfr right? If that's the case, what other models from other mfrs was it used in if any?
Great question. Ford enlisted the German company ZF to modify the CVTs currently found in some models of MiniCoopers (at BMW dealerships) and Audi's. I don't know of any other applications of ZF's CVT transmission. The Freestyle's ZF-brand CVT (assembled in Ohio, by the way) is not exactly the same CVT found in those other vehicles, but it is similar, although I think our Freestyles use the same internal CVT chain as the Audi. I doubt the other models of ZF-brand CVTs would fit (external housing, bolt pattern, mechatronics).
The only advantage may be that BMW and Audi dealerships might be willing to work on our CVT, since there might be enough similarities. Some internal parts are probably shared between all these ZF family of CVTs. Ford dealerships are still probably our best hope.
I hear that's where Rocky goes to punch some 'car'casses now. :shades:
Thanks,
Mark
There was some sort of deductible for the Mustang since it wasn't an '07 but I don't recall how much it was. I think it was $50. I'm not sure that the warranty was transferrable either so the used FS you are looking at may not carry that 5/60 over.
TIA
Just curious if Ford really requires a 15K service? Or is the service "recommended" by the dealer? Did you buy new or used?
For the air filter, look in your owners manual. There should be a diagram/explanation as to how change this.