Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
silvrsvt

Bronco reportedly getting 7 Speed matched with 2.7L Ecoboost

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

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.

anyone here actually own a 2.0 Edge or a 2.3 Explorer and drive them daily?...Im quite sure I have more seat time than a majority commenting that its not an issue...touche........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deanh said:

anyone here actually own a 2.0 Edge or a 2.3 Explorer and drive them daily?...Im quite sure I have more seat time than a majority commenting that its not an issue...touche........

 

I drove a loaner 2.0 Edge with no problems.   And I'm sure that if it was an issue there would be 100s of posts complaining about it here and on the Edge forum AND it would be noted in all the online reviews.  I'm still waiting for you to post an online review that agrees with your assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deanh,

Again, your perception does not equal reality. Car and Driver tested both 2015 Edge 2.0T and 3.5 V6. The 2.0T delivered better mid range performance (50-70mph passing) so I don't know what to tell you other than objectively, you are not on the same page as the physical world. The real life instrumented test says when you mesh the pedal on Edge at 50mph, the Ecoboost gets you to 70 mph faster. And yet, this is precisely the speed range that you claim Edge 2.0T is inferior to 3.5 V6 because something about throttle response...

Like I said before, turbo charged engine behave differently so you get that "kick in the pants" feeling earlier in the rpm range (when turbo kicks in), not at the higher rpm range when naturally aspirated engine hit peak torque curve. Turbo engine accelerates just fine in the mid range. It just doesn't change the rate of that acceleration with more gas pedal input. You are already going faster than an identical car with large engine in that rpm.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-edge-titanium-20t-ecoboost-awd-test-review

 

Quote

The 35-hp gap between the EcoBoost four-cylinder and the 3.5-liter V-6 doesn’t loom large considering that the smaller turbo engine has a 25 lb-ft torque advantage that also peaks 1000-rpm lower on the tach. At the track, the difference is that the four requires 0.6-second longer to reach 60 mph, taking 8.3 seconds. For comparison, Kia’s lighter, slightly less roomy Sorento with a turbo 2.0-liter managed 8.0 seconds flat.

In the quarter-mile, the difference between this EcoBoost and Ford’s V-6 shrinks to only 0.1 second and 3 mph. The four delivers slightly better 50-to-70-mph passing acceleration (5.5 seconds versus 5.8) but takes a little longer than the V-6 to get from 30 to 50 mph. Both are mated to a six-speed automatic (but with different gearing), which can be sluggish on downshifts even if the driver commands them through the standard paddles. The transmission did seem to respond a little better to this car’s beefier torque output than it did with the six.

Edited by bzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kbb.com on the 2019 Edge:

Quote

The new transmission works well with the 2.0-liter’s 250 horsepower, and there is plenty of power for the Edge. Everything about driving the 2019 Edge is agreeable and comfortable.

Car and Driver on the 2015 2.0 AWD Edge:

Quote

The 35-hp gap between the EcoBoost four-cylinder and the 3.5-liter V-6 doesn’t loom large considering that the smaller turbo engine has a 25 lb-ft torque advantage that also peaks 1000-rpm lower on the tach. At the track, the difference is that the four requires 0.6-second longer to reach 60 mph, taking 8.3 seconds. For comparison, Kia’s lighter, slightly less roomy Sorento with a turbo 2.0-liter managed 8.0 seconds flat.

In the quarter-mile, the difference between this EcoBoost and Ford’s V-6 shrinks to only 0.1 second and 3 mph. The four delivers slightly better 50-to-70-mph passing acceleration (5.5 seconds versus 5.8) but takes a little longer than the V-6 to get from 30 to 50 mph.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Deanh said:

anyone here actually own a 2.0 Edge or a 2.3 Explorer and drive them daily?...Im quite sure I have more seat time than a majority commenting that its not an issue...touche........

I owned a Ginger Ale colored 2012 Edge 2.0 FWD. As I said earlier in this thread, it had more than enough power. The only place I noticed it struggle was over 80 MPH, then acceleration started to slow (more noise than acceleration). I didn't go that fast very often so it wasn't that noticeable. I drove once in CO an TN in mountains loaded to the gills with family gear and it did just fine. I never once thought it was underpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha - you beat me to the C&D quote by 1 minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, akirby said:

kbb.com on the 2019 Edge:

Car and Driver on the 2015 2.0 AWD Edge:

 

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...

Edited by Deanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we really worrying about a CUV going fast over 80 MPH? Thats pretty much the legal speedlimit in some states.

I know my 3.5 Ecoboost starts to run out of steam at that also, but it has plenty of useable power under that and I don't have a problem taking on 95% of the cars on the road when they are trying to pass me on the right on the highway or at a traffic light stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note to a side conversation of the original thread. I always recommend putting 93 octane in any Ecoboost engine. This will give modest power gains but the engine runs smoother, better mpg, and a tad broader torque curve. I also think it's good for DI turbo'd engines. Ford manual usually states this when doing towing or severe duty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

On a side note to a side conversation of the original thread. I always recommend putting 93 octane in any Ecoboost engine. This will give modest power gains but the engine runs smoother, better mpg, and a tad broader torque curve. I also think it's good for DI turbo'd engines. Ford manual usually states this when doing towing or severe duty. 

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.

Edited by MY93SHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes 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.

 

Where do you live?   At higher elevations 91 is equivalent to 93.

 

I've never seen a gas station in the South that didn't have 87, 89 and 93.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

On a side note to a side conversation of the original thread. I always recommend putting 93 octane in any Ecoboost engine. This will give modest power gains but the engine runs smoother, better mpg, and a tad broader torque curve. I also think it's good for DI turbo'd engines. Ford manual usually states this when doing towing or severe duty. 

truth...and all the HP numbers seem to be with 93....we are limited to 91 at roughly $4 a gallon...wooohooo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Where do you live?   At higher elevations 91 is equivalent to 93.

 

I've never seen a gas station in the South that didn't have 87, 89 and 93.

East central S. Dak. Nothing to do with elevation.  Closest 93 is Marshall, Mn. Between there and the Twin Cities you can count them on one hand.

Everything here is 91.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

On a side note to a side conversation of the original thread. I always recommend putting 93 octane in any Ecoboost engine. This will give modest power gains but the engine runs smoother, better mpg, and a tad broader torque curve. I also think it's good for DI turbo'd engines. Ford manual usually states this when doing towing or severe duty. 

truth...and all the HP numbers seem to be with 93....we are limited to 91 at roughly $4 a gallon...wooohooo!

 

27 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Why are we really worrying about a CUV going fast over 80 MPH? Thats pretty much the legal speedlimit in some states.

I know my 3.5 Ecoboost starts to run out of steam at that also, but it has plenty of useable power under that and I don't have a problem taking on 95% of the cars on the road when they are trying to pass me on the right on the highway or at a traffic light stop. 

that 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

On a side note to a side conversation of the original thread. I always recommend putting 93 octane in any Ecoboost engine. This will give modest power gains but the engine runs smoother, better mpg, and a tad broader torque curve. I also think it's good for DI turbo'd engines. Ford manual usually states this when doing towing or severe duty. 

truth...and all the HP numbers seem to be with 93....we are limited to 91 at roughly $4 a gallon...wooohooo!

 

27 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Why are we really worrying about a CUV going fast over 80 MPH? Thats pretty much the legal speedlimit in some states.

I know my 3.5 Ecoboost starts to run out of steam at that also, but it has plenty of useable power under that and I don't have a problem taking on 95% of the cars on the road when they are trying to pass me on the right on the highway or at a traffic light stop. 

that 3.5 is a beast no matter what its in....and the 2.7 is a honey...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93 octane is a rarity around here.  I don't remember the last time I saw it.  87/89/91 is the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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).

I suspect that such significant drive train changes ended up being more than they wanted to do for what, let's remember, was a mid-cycle MKX refresh (and rebrand). There were still some very good things in that refresh, which ended up being more than one often sees in an mid-cycle (new front end, new transmission). There are a couple of other little things I would have liked to have seen inside -- HUD and larger touchscreen -- but Ford/Lincoln probably saw them as requiring a more extensive update to the interior than they felt was justified in a mid-cycle. I expect we'll see these and other kinds of significant changes and updates with the upcoming Nautilus redesign in a couple or three years.

That said, the reviews of the 2.0 base engine have been quite good (most reviewers prefer it over the older naturally-aspirated base 3.7), and the 2.7 twin turbo is as solid, quick and powerful an engine as it ever was. Still, the big premium of the Nautilus over the Edge would have been easier to justify with at least a bump up in the upgrade engine option.

Edited by Gurgeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Deanh said:

truth...and all the HP numbers seem to be with 93....we are limited to 91 at roughly $4 a gallon...wooohooo!

 

that 3.5 is a beast no matter what its in....and the 2.7 is a honey...

 

7 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

93 octane is a rarity around here.  I don't remember the last time I saw it.  87/89/91 is the norm.

Wow! Since Thanksgiving I've been back and fourth between the Detroit area and Chicago several times. 93 is always on the gas menu. I buy virtually all of my gas at Costco, Shell, and BP and the most I've paid is 2.99 for 93. The lowest was 2.25 this past weekend. Chicago/Cook County has some of the highest gas taxes in the nation too. I will say I am kinda a nerd about my gas buying habits and keep track via fuelly. I also check prices with Gas Buddy (I won't drive more than 1-2 miles for gas unless we are talking about $1 difference per gallon.

Edited by jcartwright99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes 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.

The auto industry actually one wants one, and it is 95. The oil industry is the one that is fighting it. The auto industry is actively trying to tie it to the updated fuel standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

The auto industry actually one wants one, and it is 95. The oil industry is the one that is fighting it. The auto industry is actively trying to tie it to the updated fuel standards.

This needs to happen but big oil and it's lobbyist will make sure it won't because of profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

The auto industry actually one wants one, and it is 95. The oil industry is the one that is fighting it. The auto industry is actively trying to tie it to the updated fuel standards.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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.

 

Well if we only had one grade (or even two) of gas. that would help out with pricing also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Well if we only had one grade (or even two) of gas. that would help out with pricing also.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

The auto industry actually one wants one, and it is 95. The oil industry is the one that is fighting it. The auto industry is actively trying to tie it to the updated fuel standards.

Note that is 95 RON, not what we see at the pump (R+M)/2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×