Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008/08/fords-35-ecoboost-v6.html
Looks like it'll go in several Fords, I wonder if Mazda will get one for the CX9 as well?
$700 for 340hp sounds good, and it even runs on regular octane. The timing may be bad, though.
Also, I'm sort of more anxious to see what they could do to a smaller, more fuel efficient engine. Perhaps start with the new 2.5l used in the Escape. That makes about 175hp now, with twin turbos it could beat the Escape's own V6.
Supposedly a 2.5L EB puts power output over 300HP but I've never seen anything "official" about that.
Click here to see the info about the 2.0L EB.
Oh, and the first one, the 3.5L V6, goes in the Lincoln MKS sometime next year. I think in the Spring. Anyone? No word on what will get the first I4 or when but they recently announced that they are accelerating those plans.
Really the Ecoboost strategy is to put a 4-cylinder Ecoboost producing just over 200 HP, which a 1.8L size would do, in a place of a V6 in the Escape and Edge, and the next Ford Explorer, and it should get about 20/30 city/highway EPA rating with "just adequate" power.
thanks!
The production 3.5l Ecoboost makes a down-to-earth 97 hp/liter.
I think an EcoBoosted 2.5l would make more sense, making perhaps 240-250hp or so.
The Mazda CX-7 ran on premium the first year it came out, but then Mazda tuned the engine to run on 87 octane, with no loss in power output (at least stated).
If Eco means Economy, then I think it's important to tune those engines to burn 87 octane.
Of course Eco could refer to Ecology, in which case emissions are more important than the type of fuel it burns.
VW requires premium fuel.
Not many turbos are tuned for 87 ocante.
I agree with your just good enough theory when it comes to the performance.
Car & Driver raves about Nissan's CVT, calling it the best in the business. I've only driven an Altima but I'd have to agree - it was seamless and always seemed to choose an optimal ratio.
Having said that, other CVTs I didn't like as much, for instance the one in the Mitsu Outlander 2.4 CVT felt very disconnect, unresponsive.
It will take some getting used to, with no shifts, plus the RAV4 has an unremarkable 4EAT automatic. Purely based on the powertrain, I think I'd actually pick the Nissan, but...
The RAV4 is bigger inside, so you get more space for your money. I find the Rogue a bit small, and visibility is just about the worst in its class. The cargo area is just about the smallest as well. That may still be enough to meet your needs, but I found the Rogue made too many compromises for style.
Drive them both, pay particular attention to the Rogue's tachometer, to see what it does in different circumstances. My guess is you will either love it (optimized ratios) or hate it (odd feel, droning at steady rpms).
Since the V6 only gives up about 1 mpg, I'd actually recommend that engine. You'll be happy to have the extra power when you have a full load.
The Rogue's CVT doesn't use fixed ratios, so some even say it has infinite ratios. In truth it varies over a range, from a minimum to a maximum overdrive ratio.
In order of performance, I'd say it's RAV4 V6 1st, then Rogue, then RAV4 4 cyl.
Right. I'm assuming that concept version was maxed out give or take several horses. Since this one might go in the Fusion, Escape, etc. I'd bet it will be de-tuned to around 230-250 HP which is what the new updated 3.0L DT makes.
Here's why - to run on 87 octane the compression ratio has to be lowered, and one way to lower the effective compression ratio is to decrease boost.
The catch is you sacrifice power in order to do that.
Let's look at corporate partner, Mazda.
The CX-7 makes 244 hp but can run on 87 octane. The specific output is a still good 106 hp/liter.
The same engine in the MazdaSpeed 3 makes 263hp but requires premium fuel. Specific output is bumped up to 114 hp/liter, not a lot higher but enough that they had to up the fuel octane.
So by that math it looks like a 2.0l could make 212 hp or so and still run on regular, but by the time you tune it to make 228hp Ford/Mazda engineers would put a premium fuel requirement on that bad boy.
I'd love to be wrong, but I think 230-250hp from 2.0l would require more expensive premium fuel.
They do say the 3.5L EB will have 340 HP in the MKS and run on 87 octane. So that does fall in line with your numbers because that is 97 HP per liter.
Whatever happens with Ecoboost in the next couple of years, Ford may go for high MPG instead of all out acceleration capability. That would mean you could equal the performance of a Freestyle (a 4000 lb vehicle) with its 8.5 seconds 0-60 performance level, by using an Ecoboost 1.9L displacement engine, and expect to gain about 2 or 3 MPG over the '05-'07 Freestyle. I don't believe Ford's claim of gaining a full 20% greater MPG with equal power going from a non-aspirated 3.0L Duratec V6 to an equal power 4-cylinder Ecoboost.
One way to get around the high-octane requirements of a turbo engine with decent compression ratio for fuel economy and power, is to run a small ethanol tank (2 gallons) next to your 19 gallon gasoline tank, and directly inject ethanol into the engine only when under high load conditions, preventing knock, enabling a high compression ratio for good fuel economy to be designed in. See Ecoboost plus ethanol injection - click here. One nice thing about that concept is that when the ethanol tank runs dry, like it will once in a while, your engine just runs at 3/4 power, but still gets you around until you can find 2 more gallons of ethanol to refill it.
CR just tested the Cobalt SS and they averaged 22mpg on premium fuel, not terrible but not exactly anything to write home about, and this is an under 3000 lb car. Imagine a 4000+ lb crossover.
Their Caliber actually managed 25mpg on regular fuel, so more mileage on cheaper fuel. Hmm, a Dodge Journey SS, anyone?
It has a little bit more power than the CR-V, plus it weighs less. The Forester PZEV models make 175hp and it's among the lightest crossovers, so it performs adequately. It's a IIHS Safest Pick, and won 2 comparos in Motor Trend, and earned Consumer Reports highest rating, so the media seems to like it, too.
Other strengths include excellent visibility. Weaknesses? The passenger seat is set low, for some reason, and the cup holders are square (why is beyond me). The base engine is not fast - but you can get the turbo XT model, just be ready to pay more and they recommend (not required, but still) premium fuel.
...and the square cup holders is beyond idiotic.
I'd go for the Rav4 if you want the excellent, high fuel economy, 3.5L V6 with 6-speed automatic, since it has great acceleration and smoothness. If you go 4-cylinder, the Subaru is my choice. There is one thing about the SantaFe that is great: its long warranty period. All good choices, so just get the one that is most economically sensible to you, the cheapest.
I don't see the big mileage difference
Forester X gets 20/26
Rav4 - 6 gets 19/26
Forester XT 19/24
Seems a dead heat really unless you are driving very high mileage. There is no doubt that the V6 and 5EAT in the Toyo are a very smooth combination. If it is only about FE and you don't need AWD then the FWD Rav becomes an even better option. If you really need AWD the Subaru set-up is much smoother in loose traction than the Rav.
Another thing to consider is the Rav's swing gate. Will you be doing much loading of the trunk while parallel parked? If so, I'd avoid it like the plague. Not such a big deal if you are always in a parking lot situation, but it is still heavy, and my boys couldn't reliably close it. We know folks who own the Rav and love the vehicle with the exception of the hatch.
Square front cup holders are very dumb but the vehicle has given me several pleasant surprises:
* mileage better than expected
* throttle/engine is responsive with no lag at all
* LED lighting in center bin, console, and even rear cup holders
* both lights and radio fade out rather than cutting off abruptly
* cruise control says "cruise" and "cruise set" so no guessing
* fade the dash lights and the trip computer and radio also fade, nice
* steering wheel has all audio and cruise buttons, even a mute button
* hood struts lift the hood for you
We liked it when we bought it but since then every week or so I discover one new feature that I like that I didn't even know about.
Dislikes:
1. square cup holders are made for another planet, where drinks come in square cups.
2. passenger seat is too low, basically matches the driver's seat at the very lowest setting.
3. It's not mine. It's my wife's.
I'd ask for a 5th ratio but to be brutally honest this transmissions is actually better then the 5EAT in our Sienna, which is the same powertrain the RAV4 gets.
Subaru is now selling a diesel Forester in europe with a 6 speed manual - sweeeet!
All the Santa Fe needs is a more fuel efficient drivetrain and it would have made my short list for sure. For us gas mileage was high on our list and that knocked it out, but there's not much else to complain about. Warranty is a plus. In Brazil Hyundai sells these for more than $90,000 USD and people happily pay that much, so it's a great value with USA pricing. Just get a gas card that has rebates.
The RAV4 has arguably the best powertrain, at least on paper. I like the 2GR-FE engine enough that I bought a Sienna with that mill. The transmission is only good, though, not great, with no manual controls. I found visibility was poor while backing up. You can get one without the spare on the tailgate, but that forces in to the miserable Run Flats that give Sienna owners nightmares. Plus - that tail gate still opens the wrong way, blocking any curb side loading. This is pure cost cutting because it's the correct way in their home market. Best engine but I was shopping for a complete vehicle, not just a great V6.
Forester was our choice. Right away people will say the 4EAT is a con, but honestly, it's better than our Sienna's automatic, plus SportShift gives you manual control. It is smaller than the Santa Fe and RAV4. Visibility is best in class, and so is mileage for the 4 banger. The XT is very quick but prefers premium fuel, and while it's technically not required I think you should just get the base engine if you really want a low fuel bill. PZEV is an option and you gain 5hp, plus you can actually still get a manual transmission, the only 1 of the 3 that offers one, with the base engine.
Bottom line - I felt the Forester is the best compact crossover, period. RAV4 and Santa Fe both try to act big, or at least mid-sized, offering tiny little 3rd rows, but in all honestly if you really need 3 rows you'll be better served by the bigger crossovers often discussed here (CX9, Lambdas, etc.)
Forester X gets 20/26
Rav4 - 6 gets 19/26
Forester XT 19/24 "
The point is that you get the fuel economy with the performance in the V6 Rav4. Getting a 4-banger in the sluggish Forrester makes you feel cheated on fuel economy compared to the V6 Rav4.
The RAV4 V6 will have plenty of reserve power, so if the buyer plans to haul a big payload or tow a trailer, it will be the better choice.
We have that exact same V6 in our van.
It's other parts of the vehicle that I had issues with.
Poor rear visibility. Look at the massive D-pillar, and high rear window.
Wrong-way rear gate blocks the curb (duh!).
Spare on the rear blocks the view even more, and even for 2009 to get rid of those you have to accept an even bigger problem - run-flats. This poor guy is the latest victim:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ee93e3c/8568
The RAV4's interior is also half a step behind the others in its class, and well behind the Sienna IMHO.
Plus when you evaluate the handling, body roll, AWD system, etc, that's where Subaru really wins.
Who was it, Lotus? One of those exotic brands is building a new car and they are using the 2GR-FE V6 engine. That's no surprise. In the RAV4, it's a great engine looking for a better host vehicle.
Toyota simply puts a priority on isolation and comfort. Period. The job of the suspension is to absorb bumps and keep the vehicle on its intended path, quietly. Isolation is a priority over feedback, so the steering is novacaine-numb.
I like my Sienna but I'll admit, the steering has less feedback than my Nintendo Wii Remote. Seriously. None.
Some critics say it's too light, that's actuall not true - it is well weighted. It's just not connected, the feel. Like you operate a joystick or a video game, one without the force feedback feature.
This is good in some ways - you don't feel jolts, speed bumps, irregularities in the road. This can reduce fatigue. Your passengers nap peacefully in quiet comfort.
Ok, what do you trade-off for that quiet isolation?
Feel and feedback. You can't tell when the tires are about to break traction, they just do, then the intrusive traction control nanny raises the red flag and ends the party. There will be no exceeding this limit, and we're not going to tell you where it is, nor when you are getting close.
That's the best way I can put it.
Funny thing is, ultimately they do handle well, albeit with more lean. Grip is fine. It's just you have no feedback to know what the tires are doing. True for the brakes as well, even for the throttle-by-wire for that matter.
That's just how Toyotas are. Isolated.
Basically think BMW-style feedback, where you can see the limits coming, even feel the texture of the road, then think the exact opposite. That's Toyota.
Note that in the C&D comparo the Sienna actually matched the lateral grip of the Odyssey, but read the text of the article and you'd never know.
Sorry if my explanation is hard to understand. A Toyota can be driven fast, perhaps even just as fast as car B, but it will not really reward you with driving fun the way a (insert your favorite car here) will.
So, why did I get one? Because the Sienna is a phenomenal vehicle for the other 7 passengers. Plus you don't drive your family vehicle the way you'd drive a BMW.
The lease price I got was exactly the same as the 6cyl rav. Actually one quote I got was substantially lower but the reviews for this dealership are very negative so I have a feeling they won't honor that quote:
36 month lease/ 15k miles
$0 down / $337 which includes tax.
The other quote I got seems more realistic:
$0 down / $339+ tax
Does that price seem fair? I'm in the Denver area. thanks!
Sorry if my explanation is hard to understand. A Toyota can be driven fast, perhaps even just as fast as car B, but it will not really reward you with driving fun the way a (insert your favorite car here) will.
So, why did I get one? Because the Sienna is a phenomenal vehicle for the other 7 passengers. Plus you don't drive your family vehicle the way you'd drive a BMW.
For those who only have one vehicle, the Odyssey is a good compromise. It doesn't ride as quietly as the Toyota or as smoothly either, but instead, its a lot like a big Accord; a benefit to many (especially me, an Accord driver
How many miles do you have on the 'yota now, a-t?
I would stick with premium fuel, though. They recommend it for a reason. See if you can get Costco gas, or get a Shell gas card to offset the difference.
The XT gets taller gearing, so at highway speeds the RPMs are kept low, lower in fact than the base engine. I believe Toyota does the same with the V6 (taller than the 2.4l 4 banger). That's why you don't see a big mileage penalty in either case.
Our Sienna is close to 14k miles now but it's in the shop because a Chipmunk chewed up our wiring harness.
Our Forester only has 1400 miles or so.
We like them both, each definitely has its own strengths. We plan to keep both cars for the very long term. I'm quite pleased with our fleet, actually, probably the most satisfied I've ever been with my cars.
Our 3rd car is a 1993 Miata and it just keeps on going. I'm thinking about trading it, but I ask myself why? It's perfectly fine. It is the slowest of our 3 cars, but it's just for my commutes.
Miata is a great city car.
Sienna makes a great highway/trip car.
Forester is a good compromise if you do both. :shades:
Subaru produces Tribeca, Legacy and Outback vehicles built by Americans in Indiana.
The country of origin for a manufacturer now has less and less importance to the economy of that country and its workers than ever before. If people are buying more Camrys over Malibus, that's bad for workers in Detroit, but good for the workers in Indiana where Toyota produces them for the NA market. If you are feeling left out, buy the stock and bring the profit back home too.
You are just counting who assembles the vehicles in factories, not where they were engineered. I am a mechanical engineer, and I can tell you, the best jobs are the ones where the vehicle is engineered, not necessarily just the factory jobs. Both are important, but don't you think a large number of high-paying $90,000 per year jobs in vehicle engineering are important? I do. Do you know how much income tax is collected on those income levels compared to lower-paying factory jobs? My family pays 4 times the income tax to the Feds/state than a factory worker's family, due to non-proportional progressive tax rates. ( As a side note, I once saw a county refuse construction of a new microchip factory in Oregon because the jobs were all low-paying factory jobs and they could not collect enough state/county income tax to pay for the huge influx of low-paying worker's public services at those low income levels!)
That being said, I understand John Q. Public just looking at the best performing, best value vehicle for them personally, without noticing who makes it. It is market competition. Just give American-designed vehicles a fair shake. Those vehicles are most Ford, GM-brands, Chrysler/Dodge. Japanese makes do some engineering here, but not the toughest engineering work in the U.S., mostly just styling exercises and corporate espionage ( I personally know of one Honda Research Labs engineer in Colorado whose job it is to steal any available tech from the U.S. aerospace and auto industry for possible applications in Japanese Hondas, but that is another novel.)
By the way, for myself and many other mechanical engineers I know, we are proud of vehicles such as the Ford Freestyle/500/Taurus and Ford F150s, the two vehicles I own, as thoroughly engineered and tough competition. Very well built vehicles, especially for the money (no expensive BMW comparisons pa-leeze!).
My concern is that money goes to which headquarter office and who controls that amount of profit. For example same American workers, but different bosses, to me it is a big difference; Getting paid by an American boss is different from a Japanese, there are also many other aspects would be affected by that....When amount of money belongs to someone and in his pocket, it doesn't matter where he is traveling to.
Also keep in mind that if you use regular gas you will also loose gas mileage. But what is critical since the XT is a high performance engine you may damage the turbo and you could void the warranty.
I have owned a 2001 Forester and you will discover it is a solid well build vehicle. IMO it has one of the best AWD systems in the industry. Just ask any of the members on this board that owns a subaru what they think.
best of luck to you on your choice.
Thanks for all your help!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
That may be so but patriotism is still not the topic here. I think most people know where the cars are being built and can weigh the domestic versus import factor for themselves. Clearly, there may issues regarding who is building the vehicles, say Toyota vs. GM vs. BMW but the issue here is not Japan vs. U.S. vs. Germany etc. It's CUV vs. CUV.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
ateixeira, You can be patriotic toward any country of your own choosing. I'm not restricting you or anybody. I personally know of one person who will choose the CX-9 over the Acadia simply due to the fact that the CX-9 is Japanese. Since both vehicles are good ones, in this case, they can't go wrong.
Of course, nothing today equals the combination of roominess, handling, and fuel economy as my '05 Freestyle, including the current TaurusX (Freestyle descendant) that gets worse fuel economy in the same body. Smaller CUVs get worse or equal gas mileage as mine. To me, the fact that it is a Ford is icing on the cake. In the end, most of us will take the best vehicle for our needs/wants and just live with the country-of-origin issue if we don't like it. With the Freestyle, I didn't contribute to the trade deficit at least.
Ford makes the EcoSport there, though, but it's not sold here.
Does Ford market the Freestyle/TaurusX in Brazil? That EcoSport looks like it would do well in the U.S., similar to Ford's Escape, a least a little bit. Wikipedia says the EcoSport is selling well inside Brazil. A lot of countries like Australia I know, and maybe Brazil, place a lot of value on body-on-frame tougher vehicles like what Jeep does in the U.S. instead of the expensive unit-body vehicles.
The Fiesta does well, and the Focus. The Fusion is very low volume but it's offered. That gives you an idea what's in demand, mostly subcompacts and compacts.
The EcoSport was a break-out hit, though. It's the best-selling "utilitario", which basically means any thing that isn't a car. It's based on the Fiesta, so it's pretty tiny. It looks like a scaled down Escape.
I think a crossover the size of an Escape would stand a chance, but the T-X would just be too big and costly.
I did the math last time I visited, and gasoline comes out to roughly $6.12 per gallon. Diesel is just $4.83 per, but it's not the low-sulfur variety.
They sell Ethanol for just $4.14 per gallon, so vehicles capable of running on flex-fuel, i.e. gas or ethanol, are in demand now.
It's a very different market, obviously. Cars are priced much higher, as is the fuel, so you can choose between two sizes: small and smaller.