Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
I should have realized it was the different trim around the rear lift gate that made all the difference.
M-E-R-C-U-R-Y M-O-U-N-T-A-I-N-E-E-R
F-O-R-D E-X-P-L-O-R-E-R
It's the extra letters.
Mention "Mercury Mountaineer" and no one automatically thinks "rollover".....
I'm sure Penske and Ryder have gotten some benefit, too.
Adding an '11 Explorer would work, and next fall we can let the '02 go 'Free Willie'.
I get attached to my old stuff, so although logical, it would be tough to do.
Where do you get the data for the 2.0L EcoBoost guzzling gas? This is the second time you have stated it without backup.
So 98-99% of the time you will be running in derated/detuned mode with lower FE than with a non-turbo DFI engine.
My guess is that before, or about the time the Explorer I4 is introduced there will be an option for a smaller N/A DFI V6 but with 12:1 CR and HP equal to the current N/A non-DFI V6 but even better FE.
Might even include a couple of throttle-body injectors to overcome the EGR buildup in the intake manifold and valves.
The first thing I noticed is the way the dash and seats are shaped. I felt like I was sitting in a crossover that is trying too hard to be edgy and vibrant. The seat is high and shaped oddly and the dash feels low. The gauges seem too low to be able to see them while driving. It's just shaped wrong.
The next thing I noticed was the interior is too bright and nothing matches anything. The Light Stone Limited with leather and 2 sunroofs looked ridiculous. Silver here, gray there, cream over thataway, stainless trim mixed in, some chrome, some wood, it was awful. Not gonna happen. It'll have to be black. I can handle some silver and wood with black but it's way too busy in the other interior colors.
Third row seating looked cramped but wasn't too bad. I'm 5'11" and 270 and I could deal with it for a couple hours at a time but don't ask me to go to New York. Second row is wonderful and the first is also but I'm hoping the basic trim in cloth on a base model will be less styled/shaped like something that ought to be in a Mustang.
17 city, 25 highway. C&D averaged what, 18.4 in mixed, their numbers are always lower than what I get. They got 14mpg in a 13/18 rated Durango and I get 18-19. So low to mid-20s would be nice. I bet the Turbo four won't do that well if it's constantly loaded with kids and things. The V6 should be more consistent over a wider range of loads.
I do plan to test drive one of these with my wife in a couple of weeks and I hope I'm able to find a base model to test drive so I'm not so turned off by the uplevel trim mismatching and the oddly shaped seats.
For one, I've never seen a turbocharged engine that didn't have less compression than the non-turbo variant, so I guess what you have against the Ecoboost can be said about any turbocharged gasoline engine.
Considering the Ecoboost v6 is being used primarily in heavy vehicles and it develops peak torque as low as 1,500 rpm, it will be using some level of boost quite often.
Will it get the same mileage as a 3.5 DI n/a v6, probably not, but it will produce a lot more power and still get 20% better fuel economy than a v8 with similar power and that's the point you obviously don't get. It will offer 2-3 mpg improvement while offering more power vs the 5.0v8 in the F150.
You may think the Ecoboost is only attractive to the immature boy racer types, but from my perspective it's intriguing. The 5.4 300hp/365ft-lbs engine in my 07 Expedition provides adequate power and rarely gets above 17mpg highway. I tow quite a bit and would love more torque and better fuel economy. If the Ecoboost v6 can reliably offer a 20% fuel economy improvement while also offering 15% more power (particularly 420 ft-lbs across a wide rpm range) it's a win/win in my book.
No, absolutely NOT.
Even an idiot would conclude that absent the need to accommodate turbo boost thereby increasing the CR to 12:1 would not only yield an improvement in FE but also HP/torque.
Like, say, the Taurus SHO...?
"...peak torque as low as 1,500 rpm.."
Yes, but only at/with WOT.
"..it will be using some level of boost quite often.."
No, with only partial cylinder "fills", part throttle, there would be no reason for BOOST so my guess would be that the wastegate will be fully open.
Sure, but not close to the levels achieved with boost.
Yes, but only at/with WOT.
"..it will be using some level of boost quite often.."
No, with only partial cylinder "fills", part throttle, there would be no reason for BOOST so my guess would be that the wastegate will be fully open.
I'm convinced you have zero experience with turbocharged engines gas or diesel. Whether you went to UTI or slept in a Holiday Inn
Every one I've owned or driven produce boost at throttle inputs that are not even remotely close to WOT.
Sure max torque generated at 1,500 rpm would be a WOT, but that doesn't mean at 1/2 throttle a turbocharged engine is not producing more power than a n/a engine, because it will be using some boost, it's not all or nothing.
Are you willing to go on record claiming a 3.5L DFI engine with 12.1 compression or more can produce more torque vs. a 5L 32v v8 with SFI at a usable RPM <4k
BTW, Porsche uses a 3.6L 6 cylinder with 12.5:1 compression and DI. It produces 300HP and 295 ft-lbs of torque. Yep that's better than the 3.5 Ecoboost.
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. Also, the Panamera us a 7 speed trans vs a 6 speed in the Taurus.
I have an older Eddie Bauer model and everything is a variation on cream/brown/tan.
Burden the engine with exhaust flow restriction just to produce BOOST that can't get by the throttle plate.
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.
So yes, anytime acceleration is desired, an engine torque level cognizant with acceleration, the engine is most likely to be "on-boost".
The EPA numbers are everything. It is a low stress test.
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.