3.5L EB in 2010 Flex

[baggs32]

Read all about it here.

 

22 mpg highway. Class leading for something with that much power but it does require AWD according to the press release. I have a feeling an SEL will be $40k + easily with that engine.

[Mark B. Morrow]

355 hp and 350 ft.lbs Torque that thing will take a Mustang GT

[papilgee4evaeva]

That answers my question about what transmission will be used with this application.

 

Those power numbers are higher than what was originally projected... and since they're turbos, I bet you could still get more mpg's with a light foot.

[Pioneer]

22 highway? Seriously?

 

I think they should have went the other way and turbocharged a 2.5 to get the mileage up before they turned their minivan into a race car. :rolleyes:

[Pioneer]

The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years.

 

SO much for trying to lure import buyers into the showroom. They are going to read this and think Ford can't build a car that lasts.

[one2gamble]

SO much for trying to lure import buyers into the showroom. They are going to read this and think Ford can't build a car that lasts.

 

 

import turbos arent going to be said to last any longer.

[Pioneer]

import turbos arent going to be said to last any longer.

 

I'm sure the average Toyota buyer isn't going to care. All they are going to see is a vehicle with a 10 year, 150k mile lifespan.

[one2gamble]

depends on how the media spins it, if I was Ford I wouldnt have published a number

[papilgee4evaeva]

I'm sure the average Toyota buyer isn't going to care. All they are going to see is a vehicle with a 10 year, 150k mile lifespan.

 

You act like the average Toyota buyer knows what a turbo is. :shades:

[TomServo92]

SO much for trying to lure import buyers into the showroom. They are going to read this and think Ford can't build a car that lasts.

 

So what happens at 150,000 miles? The turbos have to be replaced or just overhauled? To me it doesn't seem that different than other "wear" items that have to be replaced or overhauled after a given amount of time (i.e. clutches or timing belts).

[chevys]

Those are some pretty big numbers out of the Tt 3.5. :shades: Wonder how good a Mustang would run with that engine?

 

As for durability Ford says, at least the way I took it, that they are way harder in testing than the average care would ever be driven. I would hope to think the turbos would last at least 150K. Wonder what the cost is to replace them?

[MKII]

No mention of range Net Torque @ RPM, does anyone know these details?

EG: 295 @ 1500 - 4800

In the article it states 350 foot-pounds of torque @ 3,500 rpm

And only says that "The dual turbochargers spool up quicker, allowing the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine to reach peak torque faster."

So is the peak torque not reached until 3,500 rpm?

If so is this not quite late in the powerband when compared to most turbo engines?

Edited January 11, 2009 by MKII

[silvrsvt]

They are going to read this and think Ford can't build a car that lasts.

 

IIRC Ford designs their engines to last to 150K without any major overhaul issues...this just insurance that if they do break, they are covered. I'm sure you'll be able to get them to last longer then 150K with no problems

[FordBuyer]

22 highway? Seriously?

 

I think they should have went the other way and turbocharged a 2.5 to get the mileage up before they turned their minivan into a race car. :rolleyes:

 

The regular Flex in AWD form gets 22mpg seriously. So what is wrong with model with 100 more hp and much more torque with AWD getting same, exact fuel mileage? Obviously, an engine with that kind of power in FWD vehicle will have to go to AWD.

 

Yeah, I would have rather seen Ford introduce this ecoboost tech onto 4 cylinders first, but it is what it is. It is coming.

[theoldwizard]

That answers my question about what transmission will be used with this application.

Same one they are using today, 6F50.

 

IIRC, AWD is a mandatory option on any D3 with EcoBoost.

[theoldwizard]

IIRC Ford designs their engines to last to 150K without any major overhaul issues...this just insurance that if they do break, they are covered. I'm sure you'll be able to get them to last longer then 150K with no problems

The 150K turbo durability is listed in other EcoBoost press releases.

[theoldwizard]

The regular Flex in AWD form gets 22mpg seriously. So what is wrong with model with 100 more hp and much more torque with AWD getting same, exact fuel mileage?...

2009 Flex 3.5L V6 is 17/24/19 FWD and 16/22/18 AWD.

 

Have I missed the city fuel economy of the EcoBoost or has Ford just not posted it ?

 

The 2009 F150 posted peak HP and torque numbers while running on E85 and fuel economy while running on regular (check the brochures for yourself). I wonder if they are doing the same here ? Isn't marketing great !

[theoldwizard]

No mention of range Net Torque @ RPM, does anyone know these details?

EG: 295 @ 1500 - 4800

In the article it states 350 foot-pounds of torque @ 3,500 rpm

The government does not require auto maker to report ranges or graphs

So is the peak torque not reached until 3,500 rpm?

Yes, I believe that peak is the only number that can be advertised, although I would love to see both the HP/Torque graphs.

Edited January 11, 2009 by theoldwizard

[akirby]

Same one they are using today, 6F50.

 

IIRC, AWD is a mandatory option on any D3 with EcoBoost.

 

Wrong.

 

Mated to the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine is the 6-speed 6F-55 SelectShift automatic transmission, which is dedicated to the twin-turbocharger engine.

 

The 6F-55 transmission was developed from the successful 6F-50 transmission to specifically respond to the increased torque demands of the EcoBoost V-6 engine. Upgrades were made to the transmission’s friction material in response to the higher shift energies, and a new torque converter has been optimized for performance and fuel economy.

 

Additionally, the 6F-55 transmission operates more efficiently. The transmission team was able to reduce the fluid level in the transmission, which in turn reduced weight and drag torque on the system. Upgrades to the transmission’s thermal valve mean the system warms up quicker, reducing gear-spin losses.

 

“We’ve upgraded the gear sets to handle the increased torque,” said Joe Baum, powertrain team leader. “We’ve also adjusted the final drive ratio and matched the gear ratios to provide the optimum performance and fuel economy.

[rkisler]

Wrong.

 

OK, looks like it's a modified box, but I agree with Wizard -- I heard that AWD would be mandatory.

 

AWD would give you tire patch and reduced torque steer. But I would think that the engine would have to be torque-managed in at least first and maybe second gears to keep within the limits of the box. But I don't have any specific info on that.

[theoldwizard]

Wrong.

Missed that ! Glad to see they did some upgrades !

[rkisler]

22 highway? Seriously?

 

I think they should have went the other way and turbocharged a 2.5 to get the mileage up before they turned their minivan into a race car. :rolleyes:

 

Pioneer, I'm with you on this one.

 

I'm looking at examples like the Toyota Venza which has a 4-cylinder as a base engine which (once again) helps solidify Toyota's image as "fuel economy leader".

 

In the meantime, Ford will be advertising the new F150 and go-fast versions of Taurus, MKS, Flex, and MKT (oh, and Mustang). It's not that these won't be good products, or that they won't offer good value and a good performance/economy proposition. It's just that the combination of the introductions is on the big side -- and could continue to reinforce opinions in some corners that "Ford still doesn't get it".

 

I keep nervously looking at my watch waiting for the Fiesta.....

[TomServo92]

Pioneer, I'm with you on this one.

 

I'm looking at examples like the Toyota Venza which has a 4-cylinder as a base engine which (once again) helps solidify Toyota's image as "fuel economy leader".

 

In the meantime, Ford will be advertising the new F150 and go-fast versions of Taurus, MKS, Flex, and MKT (oh, and Mustang). It's not that these won't be good products, or that they won't offer good value and a good performance/economy proposition. It's just that the combination of the introductions is on the big side -- and could continue to reinforce opinions in some corners that "Ford still doesn't get it".

 

I keep nervously looking at my watch waiting for the Fiesta.....

 

What about the class leading economy of both the Fusion I4 and Hybrids? They've been getting plenty of good "green" press from those.

[baggs32]

As was said earlier, 22 mpg highway matches that of the NA 3.5L V6 with AWD. I think Ford is just proving that what they said before was exactly right. EB will give you V8 power with V6 FE. This new EB Flex is not quite as luxurious as a BMW X5 or the Audi Q7, but it's going to run with them, be less expensive to buy, and get better FE. I think that will make some, probably just a few mind you, shoppers of those big luxury CUVs take a second look at the Ford. Or the MKT since it will be very similar.

[rkisler]

What about the class leading economy of both the Fusion I4 and Hybrids? They've been getting plenty of good "green" press from those.

 

Tom, it's getting better, and I'm very happy that Ford has set as an objective class-leading fuel economy in all new products. We are seeing some better press -- even in LA and at Consumer Reports.

 

I'm really talking about brand perception which substantially lags product. Opinions are hard to change, and you need to take away every excuse for those people who are negative on Ford to cling to their opinions.