Jump to content

Bronco reportedly getting 7 Speed matched with 2.7L Ecoboost


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Deanh said:

someone tell that to kooky California with octane ranges and Summer and winter blends....

 

GA and I'm sure many other states have summer and winter blends.  It helps to prevent evaporation in the summer which can affect air quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Deanh said:

someone tell that to kooky California with octane ranges and Summer and winter blends....

We have 89/91/92/93 Octane in NJ. I normally stick with Sunoco for my tuned SHO because I never have a problem with 93 octane they sell there. When I lived in MD for a while, pumps where marked 93, but you only got 92 octane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MY93SHO said:

I wish they would streamline fuel in this country: 87 and 93 only. no 89, 91, etc.  Nearest 93 pump is an hour away and it's usually in the wrong direction.

I know it won't happen but it would be easier.

I would rather eliminate 87 entirely and make 89 the basic standard

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MY93SHO said:

I read that, probably on Jalopnik because I remember people whining that they didn't want to put 95 in their crapwagon.

How many manufacturers recommend 91? With all these turbo motors it would be nice to have access to the recommended fuel.

Jalopnik commenters are the worst. Nothing said there should ever be taken seriously 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C&D seemed to indicate the 3.5L model in mentioned in that article had issues. Right above it in the list was a test of a 3.5L Titanium of the same generation, it produced better performance than the earlier one the tested and smoked the 2.0L AWD in all but the 50-70 and that was only by 0.1 sec. These were 3rd gen models. We are now in 4th gen, but they only seem to have tested the ST in that gen and it (as expected) smokes all of these. I'm used to the 2nd gen one, since my wife has a 2011 Limited AWD. The newer ones seem to have gotten slower, as 0-60 times on ones like she has were around 7 sec. We rent a lot of cars and until the last 18 months had rented a lot of Fords. My wife hated the 2.0L Edges we rented, she thought it was "a slug" and that they "ruined her car". But she loved that engine in the Escape. Her words on that one were something like it felt like it had a ton more power than the 3.0L Escape we had before the Edge.

 

2.0L AWD

0-60 8.3

0-100 23.3

0-120 42.5

5-60 9.0

30-50 4.3

50-70 5.5

1/4 16.2@76

 

3.5L AWD

0-60 7.6

0-100 20.7

0-120 39.6

5-60 8.0

30-50 3.7

50-70 5.6

1/4 15.9@90

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, RPF said:

C&D seemed to indicate the 3.5L model in mentioned in that article had issues. Right above it in the list was a test of a 3.5L Titanium of the same generation, it produced better performance than the earlier one the tested and smoked the 2.0L AWD in all but the 50-70 and that was only by 0.1 sec. These were 3rd gen models. We are now in 4th gen, but they only seem to have tested the ST in that gen and it (as expected) smokes all of these. I'm used to the 2nd gen one, since my wife has a 2011 Limited AWD. The newer ones seem to have gotten slower, as 0-60 times on ones like she has were around 7 sec. We rent a lot of cars and until the last 18 months had rented a lot of Fords. My wife hated the 2.0L Edges we rented, she thought it was "a slug" and that they "ruined her car". But she loved that engine in the Escape. Her words on that one were something like it felt like it had a ton more power than the 3.0L Escape we had before the Edge.

 

2.0L AWD

0-60 8.3

0-100 23.3

0-120 42.5

5-60 9.0

30-50 4.3

50-70 5.5

1/4 16.2@76

 

3.5L AWD

0-60 7.6

0-100 20.7

0-120 39.6

5-60 8.0

30-50 3.7

50-70 5.6

1/4 15.9@90

 

Those quarter mile stats don't look correct. The V6 is 3 tenths quicker yet 14 MPH faster? That doesn't seem right at all. Also does it really take an additional 7.9 seconds to gain 16mph? This is why magazine bench racing kinda sucks.

Edited by jcartwright99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

Those quarter mile stats don't look correct. The V6 is 3 tenths quicker yet 14 MPH faster? That doesn't seem right at all. Also does it really take an additional 7.9 seconds to gain 16mph? This is why magazine bench racing kinda sucks.

The 2.0 should be 86. Fixing that now... I guess I can't edit that post anymore.

Edited by RPF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deanh said:

well based on the C and D article color me corrected, sure as hell doesn't feel like that in the slightest...as someone mentioned before...perhaps its a consequence of sound and how the 4 sounds strained in comparison...haven't driven the 8 speed yet so maybe that will assist, but seriously...IMO the 6 is the stronger of the two in midrange punch...its absolutely no issue in the fusion 2.0, but I would not personally buy the engine in the Edge...funny...Ive spent quite a while trying to pull articles...all I get is fords propaganda and the ST ….lol...

?

You will buy the 3.5 V6 but not the 2.0 EB in Edge even though objectively the 2.0 EB has more midrange punch. Ok ok, I'm done teasing you... I think we've established that big bore V6 is your personal preference and for sure there is nothing wrong with it. We are just having fun discussion, no disrespect intended or implied. I used to own Audi S4 V8... they sound great. But I got 14 MPG on a good day. Once I went forced induction, I never looked back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bzcat said:

?

You will buy the 3.5 V6 but not the 2.0 EB in Edge even though objectively the 2.0 EB has more midrange punch. Ok ok, I'm done teasing you... I think we've established that big bore V6 is your personal preference and for sure there is nothing wrong with it. We are just having fun discussion, no disrespect intended or implied. I used to own Audi S4 V8... they sound great. But I got 14 MPG on a good day. Once I went forced induction, I never looked back.

 

and then along comes a different set of numbers...lol...that support my theory...so who knows...all I know is I MUCH prefer the V6 than the 4 cylinder ecos in the Edge and Explorer only....and I dig the engines in their other applications...that 2.0 is in  its sweet spot in the Escape and Fusion, the 2.3 in the Mustang, and I have high hopes in the Ranger ( for which we are placing quite a few orders and a lot of fleet interest from Water districts )....moot point now as the V6 has been discontinued ( in the Edge at least )

 

Edited by Deanh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to pour more fuel on this friendly fire but the numbers posted by RPF confirm what I felt with a 2.0 Taurus.   There is a massive gap in the 30-50 time.   That is very much the same as merging onto a freeway from a side street.   That is where I was most disappointed in the 2.0.   I also think 0-60 has some real world importance.   Minneapolis has many metered freeway on ramps.   You have to wait for the green light and then you have a fairly short ramp to join the traffic.    The 2.0 gets off the line quickly in 1st gear but falls on its face after shifting to 2nd compared to the 3.5.    C & D's review of the Taurus 2.0 is also in line with my experience:

This Taurus, however, gave up several tenths to V-6 cars both to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile. Our overall fuel-economy average of 23 mpg matches the EPA’s combined rating and was the highest we’ve recorded from a turbocharged Taurus, but we’ve had V-6 models return similar results. 

But the 2.0-liter always feels like it’s struggling against the Taurus’s bulk.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-ford-taurus-20l-turbo-tested-review

Again, I know the Taurus is dust in the wind but it is an example of a heavy vehicle with the 2.0.   I have never heard or read anything negative about the 2.3.   I have never driven a vehicle with that engine but it seems to be a much better replacement for the 3.5 or 3.7 than the 2.0.   By the way, I encouraged my wife to get a 2.0 AWD Fusion instead of her 3.5 AWD Taurus.   We spent quite a bit of time testing both and the Fusion 2.0 runs very well.   She just thought the Taurus felt more "substantial."   Besides, we got a better deal on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, brucelinc said:

Not to pour more fuel on this friendly fire but the numbers posted by RPF confirm what I felt with a 2.0 Taurus.   There is a massive gap in the 30-50 time.   That is very much the same as merging onto a freeway from a side street.   That is where I was most disappointed in the 2.0.   I also think 0-60 has some real world importance.   Minneapolis has many metered freeway on ramps.   You have to wait for the green light and then you have a fairly short ramp to join the traffic.

 

Ha lucky!  Our metered ramps lead to a bumper to bumper 20 mph slow moving blob, which means flooring it means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.7 vs. 4.3 is NOT a “massive gap”......   It’s enough to feel by the seat of the pants.

 

If the Edge had come with a 2.5 or 3.0 NA base engine you’d be praising the 2.OT as a huge improvement.   It’s the base engine and as the base engine it’s perfectly adequate for 90% of the buying public.   For the other 10% like Bruce and Dean they have the 2.7T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Ha lucky!  Our metered ramps lead to a bumper to bumper 20 mph slow moving blob, which means flooring it means nothing.

LOL....yeah, ours are like that between about 3 and 6 PM.    A bicycle would provide adequate acceleration during those times.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, brucelinc said:

LOL....yeah, ours are like that between about 3 and 6 PM.    A bicycle would provide adequate acceleration during those times.   

Yeah, that's when I'm rolling through them.

Otherwise the metered ramps are turned off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, akirby said:

3.7 vs. 4.3 is NOT a “massive gap”......   It’s enough to feel by the seat of the pants.

 

 

LOL...would you accept "notable gap?"    Actually, I am surprised that it is that much.   There is always some variation in production vehicles.   Other road tests can and will produce different results.  But really, six tenths difference in just a 20 MPH span seems a bit odd when looking at the other time differences.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Deanh, the 4x4 Crew cab XLT Ranger went 0-60 in 7.36 seconds at altitude in Colorado, it's about the same weight as the AWD Explorer 2.3 EB so whatever they put in the 10AT's porridge is working..

and that was also a 4x4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, brucelinc said:

LOL...would you accept "notable gap?"    Actually, I am surprised that it is that much.   There is always some variation in production vehicles.   Other road tests can and will produce different results.  But really, six tenths difference in just a 20 MPH span seems a bit odd when looking at the other time differences.    

 

Notable or noticeable would be more accurate.  I wonder how much of that was due to a lag in transmission downshifting or lack of downshifting?  That could easily add half a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Notable or noticeable would be more accurate.  I wonder how much of that was due to a lag in transmission downshifting or lack of downshifting?  That could easily add half a second.

That is exactly what I was thinking.   Could be a difference in how quickly the downshift took place.   All I know is that when I am bracket racing and my competitor is given a 6 tenth head start, it seems massive to me!   :shift:     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:

If the Edge had come with a 2.5 or 3.0 NA base engine you’d be praising the 2.OT as a huge improvement.   It’s the base engine and as the base engine it’s perfectly adequate for 90% of the buying public.   For the other 10% like Bruce and Dean they have the 2.7T.

 

The issue is that the 2.0EB is not a "base" engine, it is the ONLY engine, if you don't get the ST. For most buyers (like my wife), the ST is a non-starter due to the characteristics that make it an ST. For enthusiasts like us, it would be the only variant worth getting but I'm not a buyer for this type of vehicle for my personal use. I'm a repeat buyer for my wife's use and she has made it perfectly clear the ST and 2.0EB variants are not in the running to replace her current one.  Had they kept the 3.5 or replaced the 3.5 with the 2.3EB this wouldn't be the case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RPF said:

 

The issue is that the 2.0EB is not a "base" engine, it is the ONLY engine, if you don't get the ST. For most buyers (like my wife), the ST is a non-starter due to the characteristics that make it an ST. For enthusiasts like us, it would be the only variant worth getting but I'm not a buyer for this type of vehicle for my personal use. I'm a repeat buyer for my wife's use and she has made it perfectly clear the ST and 2.0EB variants are not in the running to replace her current one.  Had they kept the 3.5 or replaced the 3.5 with the 2.3EB this wouldn't be the case.

 

Fair point, although I think she’s in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...