Bronco reportedly getting 7 Speed matched with 2.7L Ecoboost

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, 02MustangGT said:

I find it hard to believe that you have to “basically floor the MKX”.  The 3.7 has plenty of power in all applications whereas the 2.0EB not so much.  I have driven Ford vehicles with EB’s over the past several years, love the 2.7 in my the Fusion, but I can also appreciate the fact that the 3.5/3.7 is the best choice in vehicles like the Explorer/Edge/Taurus etc over the 2.0EB.  Just because you have a different opinion or press the accelerator in a different manner doesn’t make you correct.  

 

The fact that I prefer the ecoboost to the NA 3.5/3.7 is just my preference.  Others may prefer the 3.5./3.7 but that’s not the question.  The question is whether the 2.0 is a suitable replacement for the 3.5L as the base engine in the Edge and all the objective data says it is.

[akirby]

7 minutes ago, Deanh said:

my issue is complete lack of mid-range....the 6 is fine, the ecos run out of gas it seems....and Ive been selling them since their intro....lol....the engines themselves are fine, I just think Ford designated thenm to one vehicle up the ladder more than they should have...and the 1.0...that was just a bloody disaster...and soldiers on in the Ecosport , which is being criticized hand over foot for lackadaisical performance...now put 4 adults in it............

 

Again it depends completely on how you drive it and most drivers probably never exceed 50% throttle.  And the curb weight difference between Fusion and Edge is 300-400 lbs or about 2 people.  

[Deanh]

100 pounds is equivalent to 10 hp, so that makes sense given the difference in seat of the pants feel....here in California...mid range is of the essence...unless of course you are stuck in bumper to bumper...off the line and 0-60 is irrelevent….

[02MustangGT]

7 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

The fact that I prefer the ecoboost to the NA 3.5/3.7 is just my preference.  Others may prefer the 3.5./3.7 but that’s not the question.  The question is whether the 2.0 is a suitable replacement for the 3.5L as the base engine in the Edge and all the objective data says it is.

That’s your spin on the question.  But yet you continue to defend your opinion/preference with subjective data.   What is the take rate on 2.0EB vs 3.5L in the 2015-2018 Edge?  Just because you moderate a forum where owners prefer the 2.0EB, that doesn’t equal objective data.  You do realize that maybe .01% of Edge owners actually visit/post in that forum?  

[akirby]

I never said forum members preferred the 2.0L.  I said most aren’t complaining about the 2.0L being inadequate which is what Dean said to begin with.  

 

The only objective data on sales will be the 2019 Edge sales numbers which won’t be complete for a few more months.  If sales drop then maybe you’re right about buyers wanting the 3.5 and not the 2.0 but I don’t think that will be the case.  I think sales will be the same or a little higher.

 

There isn’t much objective difference between the two engines.  One has more hp the other has more torque and at lower RPM.  The differences are mostly subjective as to how it feels based on how you drive it.

[jcartwright99]

What this thread has taught me is that some folks are obsessed with peak hp and their seat of the pants feel.  That's fine. Everyone lives in different realities and environments.

I once had a Honda Civic 5 speed. It only had 130 horsepower but my seat of the pants feel said it was faster than what i drive today. Maybe that it was due to it's 7250 redline, lack of sound deadening, and overall nice but buzzy sound compared to rather muted and ho hum sound.  Unfortunately the facts don't support it. 

Drive what you want but let's not pretend your seat of the pants feel is reality. Sometimes it is....sometimes it's not.

 

[02MustangGT]

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

I never said forum members preferred the 2.0L.  I said most aren’t complaining about the 2.0L being inadequate which is what Dean said to begin with.  

 

The only objective data on sales will be the 2019 Edge sales numbers which won’t be complete for a few more months.  If sales drop then maybe you’re right about buyers wanting the 3.5 and not the 2.0 but I don’t think that will be the case.  I think sales will be the same or a little higher.

 

There isn’t much objective difference between the two engines.  One has more hp the other has more torque and at lower RPM.  The differences are mostly subjective as to how it feels based on how you drive it.

Cool, thanks for the post and being civil akirby.  

[bzcat]

Ford discontinued the 3.5 V6 and they had all the data. If the lack of 3.5 V6 was a deal breaker for any significant number of existing Edge owners, Ford wouldn't have dumped it in such an important model.

 

 

[Steve557]

Hopefully the 5.0 makes it into the Bronco, charge extra I don’t care I don’t want a V6.

[02MustangGT]

3 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

What this thread has taught me is that some folks are obsessed with peak hp and their seat of the pants feel.  That's fine. Everyone lives in different realities and environments.

I once had a Honda Civic 5 speed. It only had 130 horsepower but my seat of the pants feel said it was faster than what i drive today. Maybe that it was due to it's 7250 redline, lack of sound deadening, and overall nice but buzzy sound compared to rather muted and ho hum sound.  Unfortunately the facts don't support it. 

Drive what you want but let's not pretend your seat of the pants feel is reality. Sometimes it is....sometimes it's not.

 

So true!  I experience this same feeling when I hop into my bolt-on/tuned 2002 Mustang GT.  I always feel the Fusion Sport is a rocket, then I drive the Mustang again and that feeling changes.  Lots of variables, and the Fusion may very well be quicker, but the Mustang feels quicker (loud noises and manual transmission could be a factor lol).  

[akirby]

5 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

What this thread has taught me is that some folks are obsessed with peak hp and their seat of the pants feel.  That's fine. Everyone lives in different realities and environments.

I once had a Honda Civic 5 speed. It only had 130 horsepower but my seat of the pants feel said it was faster than what i drive today. Maybe that it was due to it's 7250 redline, lack of sound deadening, and overall nice but buzzy sound compared to rather muted and ho hum sound.  Unfortunately the facts don't support it. 

Drive what you want but let's not pretend your seat of the pants feel is reality. Sometimes it is....sometimes it's not.

 

I would be willing to bet the majority of Edge owners drive more like my wife - never exceeding 50% throttle.   For her and those like her even a 1.5 ecoboost would probably be just fine.   If I get on the throttle she goes nuts saying “there goes the gas gauge” and acting like the engine is about to blow up.  Drives me crazy.

 

Personal preferences are just fine but don’t apply them to everyone else.

[Gurgeh]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

 

I agree that the 2.7L (or at least the 2.3) should be available in the Titanium.  Even worse, Nautilus gets the exact same engines.

I think the Nautilus should have gotten 2.3t as base and 3.0t as upgrade to help justify the significant price premium over the Edge. That said, I did look at the Edge but still went with the 2.7t Naut because I couldn't get an Edge configured the way I would like. And there were things about the ST I just didn't like.

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, akirby said:

 

I agree that the 2.7L (or at least the 2.3) should be available in the Titanium.  Even worse, Nautilus gets the exact same engines.

Yeah, it's disappointing.

13 hours ago, Steve557 said:

Hopefully the 5.0 makes it into the Bronco, charge extra I don’t care I don’t want a V6.

Guess you aren't getting a Bronco then...

12 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

I think the Nautilus should have gotten 2.3t as base and 3.0t as upgrade to help justify the significant price premium over the Edge. That said, I did look at the Edge but still went with the 2.7t Naut because I couldn't get an Edge configured the way I would like. And there were things about the ST I just didn't like.

100% agree that Nautilus should've been the 2.3 standard and the 3.0 the upgrade instead of the 2.0/2.7 combo shared with Edge.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing the bean counters stepped in and forced the shared powertrain to keep the factory at those two engines (once Flex/MKT die).

[akirby]

12 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

I think the Nautilus should have gotten 2.3t as base and 3.0t as upgrade to help justify the significant price premium over the Edge. That said, I did look at the Edge but still went with the 2.7t Naut because I couldn't get an Edge configured the way I would like. And there were things about the ST I just didn't like.

 

Are they exporting Nautilus?  If so that would explain keeping the 2.0L base engine.   Otherwise it must be simple cost cutting or manufacturing simplification to keep the same 2 engines as the Edge.   Or there isn't enough capacity for the 2.3 and 3.0 engines as they are both going into the Explorer and Aviator and 2.3L for Ranger (and presumably Bronco).

[jpd80]

Nautilus had a good month 3,364 even with Shared Edge engines, the complexity of Lincoln only engines probably wasn't justified on expected sales but maybe that changes in the future...perhaps it's just engineering simplicity underscored by loss of NA V6?

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by jpd80

[rmc523]

38 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Are they exporting Nautilus?  If so that would explain keeping the 2.0L base engine.   Otherwise it must be simple cost cutting or manufacturing simplification to keep the same 2 engines as the Edge.   Or there isn't enough capacity for the 2.3 and 3.0 engines as they are both going into the Explorer and Aviator and 2.3L for Ranger (and presumably Bronco).

Aren't all of them for China made here?

[akirby]

3 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Aren't all of them for China made here?

I thought the Chinese vehicles were all made in China.

[rmc523]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

I thought the Chinese vehicles were all made in China.

I don't think Lincoln has any production capacity in China yet.  Lincoln production isn't expected until late 2019, but they're "working on accelerating" the start of production there.  I think either Corsair or Aviator would be the first to be built there.

I do believe Chinese Edges are built there, though.

Edited January 3, 2019 by rmc523

[Deanh]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

I never said forum members preferred the 2.0L.  I said most aren’t complaining about the 2.0L being inadequate which is what Dean said to begin with.  

 

The only objective data on sales will be the 2019 Edge sales numbers which won’t be complete for a few more months.  If sales drop then maybe you’re right about buyers wanting the 3.5 and not the 2.0 but I don’t think that will be the case.  I think sales will be the same or a little higher.

 

There isn’t much objective difference between the two engines.  One has more hp the other has more torque and at lower RPM.  The differences are mostly subjective as to how it feels based on how you drive it.

that's a mis-interpretation of what I was getting at...the 2.0 works fine in the Fusion, fine in the Escape and doesnt cut the mid-range mustard in the Edge,  the 2.3 works in everything other than the behemoth Explorer...the 1.0 ONLY worked in the Fiesta stick....the 2.7 I have ZERO issues with in the f-150 and Edge....at 50-60 mph you actually have some worthy throttle response. This is not a bash to the engines...I just question where Ford utilizes them....

[bzcat]

1 hour ago, Deanh said:

that's a mis-interpretation of what I was getting at...the 2.0 works fine in the Fusion, fine in the Escape and doesnt cut the mid-range mustard in the Edge,  the 2.3 works in everything other than the behemoth Explorer...the 1.0 ONLY worked in the Fiesta stick....the 2.7 I have ZERO issues with in the f-150 and Edge....at 50-60 mph you actually have some worthy throttle response. This is not a bash to the engines...I just question where Ford utilizes them....

But I think objectively, your observations doesn't hold true. The 2.0 EB in Edge has more torque than the upgrade or optional V6 engines in competitors. It's kind of absurd to say it is under powered. What you are saying is you prefer to rev the piss out of an engine and this one doesn't do it the same way as a naturally aspirated V6.

You don't need to mesh the pedal on a 2.0 EB to get it moving because it has a broad and nearly flat torque curve pretty much from 3000 to 5000 rpm. The "throttle response" you are describing is because naturally aspirated engine has a linear torque curve and typically doesn't hit peak until high in the rpm range. So in order to get it moving, you have to apply progressively more input (step on the gas pedal). That's just not how turbo charged car behaves. There is no "kick" because you are already at or near max torque in relatively low rpm. So applying more input will just build speed and won't necessary increase the rate of acceleration.

It's true the 2.0 EB "runs out of steam" when you rev it high but you are already so far ahead of the V6 at the point, it is besides the point. If you are reaching into the red line on the 2.0 EB, it means you are going much faster than 3.5 V6 at the same rpm.

I have been driving turbo charged cars for over a decade now and it always make me chuckle when people argue about lack of "throttle response" or "mid range punch". It's definitely a personal preference not backed up by any performance metrics or reality. I could argue the same for naturally aspirated engine at low rpm... they are lifeless and drives like limp noodles compare to turbo charged engines.

Edited January 3, 2019 by bzcat

[akirby]

23 minutes ago, bzcat said:

But I think objectively, your observations doesn't hold true. The 2.0 EB in Edge has more torque than the upgrade or optional V6 engines in competitors. It's kind of absurd to say it is under powered. What you are saying is you prefer to rev the piss out of an engine and this one doesn't do it the same way as a naturally aspirated V6.

You don't need to mesh the pedal on a 2.0 EB to get it moving because it has a broad and nearly flat torque curve pretty much from 3000 to 5000 rpm. The "throttle response" you are describing is because naturally aspirated engine has a linear torque curve and typically doesn't hit peak until high in the rpm range. So in order to get it moving, you have to apply progressively more input (step on the gas pedal). That's just not how turbo charged car behaves. There is no "kick" because you are already at or near max torque in relatively low rpm. So applying more input will just build speed and won't necessary increase the rate of acceleration.

It's true the 2.0 EB "runs out of steam" when you rev it high but you are already so far ahead of the V6 at the point, it is besides the point. If you are reaching into the red line on the 2.0 EB, it means you are going much faster than 3.5 V6 at the same rpm.

I have been driving turbo charged cars for over a decade now and it always make me chuckle when people argue about lack of "throttle response" or "mid range punch". It's definitely a personal preference not backed up by any performance metrics or reality.

[Deanh]

32 minutes ago, bzcat said:

But I think objectively, your observations doesn't hold true. The 2.0 EB in Edge has more torque than the upgrade or optional V6 engines in competitors. It's kind of absurd to say it is under powered. What you are saying is you prefer to rev the piss out of an engine and this one doesn't do it the same way as a naturally aspirated V6.

You don't need to mesh the pedal on a 2.0 EB to get it moving because it has a broad and nearly flat torque curve pretty much from 3000 to 5000 rpm. The "throttle response" you are describing is because naturally aspirated engine has a linear torque curve and typically doesn't hit peak until high in the rpm range. So in order to get it moving, you have to apply progressively more input (step on the gas pedal). That's just not how turbo charged car behaves. There is no "kick" because you are already at or near max torque in relatively low rpm. So applying more input will just build speed and won't necessary increase the rate of acceleration.

It's true the 2.0 EB "runs out of steam" when you rev it high but you are already so far ahead of the V6 at the point, it is besides the point. If you are reaching into the red line on the 2.0 EB, it means you are going much faster than 3.5 V6 at the same rpm.

I have been driving turbo charged cars for over a decade now and it always make me chuckle when people argue about lack of "throttle response" or "mid range punch". It's definitely a personal preference not backed up by any performance metrics or reality. I could argue the same for naturally aspirated engine at low rpm... they are lifeless and drives like limp noodles compare to turbo charged engines.

how many times do I need to say the word mid-range and how the ecos in heavier models wheeze out over 60 mph ?.......they have no midrange oomph in the Edge and Explorer iterations....fine off the line, but I grew out of 0-60 bragging rights 30 years ago when I still had pimples...my 1.6 ST fiesta has midrange...the 2.0 in the Fusion and Escape has midrange, no revving the piss at all...in the 2.0 EDGE it doesn't, and neither in the 2.3 Explorer and the 6 cylinders are all over them  ( and without all the thrashiness…) akirby noted theres a 400 pound difference between the Fusion and Edge...that equates to 40 hp....it equates to driving the fusion with 40hp less, that acceptable?...its all power to weight and thus inertia....if youre doing 65 -70 and you punch the throttle to overtake and find it more difficult than it should be, god bless ya...not for me...the 6 cylinder in the Edge and Explorer is more comfortable in utilizing mid-range....something in comparison the 2.0 and 2.3 in the Edge and Explorer lack...

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Deanh

[Deanh]

Quote " It's true the 2.0 EB "runs out of steam" when you rev it high but you are already so far ahead of the V6 at the point ".....its not a race to a specific finishing line...side by side , punch the throttle to overtake.....and this ONLY pertains to the 2.0 and 2.3 in the Edge and Explorer respectively....which means its most likely all about weight....

[akirby]

4 minutes ago, Deanh said:

it equates to driving the fusion with 40hp less, that acceptable?

 

Acceptable as a base engine?  Absolutely.  Especially when you get SO much more torque at lower RPM.

 

By the way it doesn't "wheeze out" at 60 mph.   It "wheezes out" at 5000+ RPM.   If I'm turning 2000 - 2500 RPM at 60 mph I have peak torque available instantly in the 2.0.   With the 3.5 you have to floor it to get it to rev up to peak torque.   As bzcat tried to explain, it's how you drive it.

[akirby]

3 minutes ago, Deanh said:

Quote " It's true the 2.0 EB "runs out of steam" when you rev it high but you are already so far ahead of the V6 at the point ".....its not a race to a specific finishing line...side by side , punch the throttle to overtake.....and this ONLY pertains to the 2.0 and 2.3 in the Edge and Explorer respectively....which means its most likely all about weight....

 

Dean, take a breath - nobody is telling you that YOU have to like it.  But you can't say it's objectively a problem just because YOU don't like it.