papilgee4evaeva Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Seems to me, more Americans are concerned about fuel economy over entering their "family hauler" in the next Daytona 500. So then how do we know that a turbo-4 would actually be more efficient? Consider that the Acura RDX gets the same mileage as the Flex EB is reported to get... and the RDX comes with a turbo-4 and weighs 500 lbs less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 (edited) LINK LINK[/font][/font][/font] LINK LINK Seems to me, more Americans are concerned about fuel economy over entering their "family hauler" in the next Daytona 500. Of course, all consumers want MPG. But you have to separate out the consumers into several categories. First, there are the eco-nazis who will buy nothing but and electric car. Then there are people who can't afford a lot of gas who will buy a Focus or a Fiesta to get good MPG. Then there are people who can afford a little more at the initial purchase who will buy a hybrid to get good MPG. Think Fusion/Escape. Next, there are people with Big SUVs that realise that the Flex can tow up to 4,500lbs and see the MPG of the Flex as much better than their Big SUV. Maybe the ones with HUGE boats or toy haulers will stay with a Big SUV, but I am sure that many will find the Flex as an acceptable vehicle for thieir towing and/or people hauler needs. Espscially when they can un-hitch the flex and get good mileage when not towing. Plus, think of this. The Flex with EB has the potential to get Better mileage than the 3.5 NA. First, turbos use energy from hot exhaust gasses, that is normally wasted. Turbos harness some of that energey to make more power. Thus the more HP will have less of a chance of causing less MPG. Next direct injection allows more efficient fuel burning, since you can meter more precisely the gas sent into the combustion chamber and spray the fuel into the combustion chamber at the highest cylinder pressure yet still not pre-detonate the fuel, making it ALMOST like a diesel. Am I wrong about any of this??? Edited January 11, 2009 by DUCKRACER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 So then how do we know that a turbo-4 would actually be more efficient? We don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Am I wrong about any of this??? Nope. Your right. Everybody else is right. I must be wrong. I forgot where I was. Sorry I didn't bring my pom-pom's. :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Nope. Your right. Everybody else is right. I must be wrong. I forgot where I was. Sorry I didn't bring my pom-pom's. :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: Read this and see.... http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29653 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Thanks. I had no idea what turbocharging and direct injection were and what they do to fuel economy. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Nope. Your right. Everybody else is right. I must be wrong. I forgot where I was. Sorry I didn't bring my pom-pom's. :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: No you are just failing to ignore an infinite amount of variables. You're pom pom nonsense is a lame cop out. In the case of your Highlander 4 cylinder, essentially what you have argued is that consumers are willing to trade a few MPG for a drastic decrease in performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You're pom pom nonsense is a lame cop out. Sorry. Your cheerleading inspired me. It's not a cop out. I give up. You're right, I'm wrong. Egoboost is for hopping up all Ford's vehicles. Nobody cares about fuel economy. I got it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Sorry. Your cheerleading inspired me. It's not a cop out. I give up. You're right, I'm wrong. Egoboost is for hopping up all Ford's vehicles. Nobody cares about fuel economy. I got it now. What am I cheerleading exactly? Where did I state that no one cared about fuel economy? Was it me disagreeing with ONE person stating that they would buy a 4 cylinder Flex? We don't even know what type of fuel economy a 4 cylinder Flex would return to make it even worth downsizing. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Does anybody know what type of towing capacity the EB 3.5 model will have, or will it be the same (limited by the frame/platform)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I, and many in my family (mom/dad, 3 aunts/uncles), are with you Pioneer. Half of my family is looking to get into a Flex (Base through Limited) but will not buy a vehicle with such low mpg - regardless of what it brings to the table. People buying a Flex, minus those towing (a fairly small % of people), are going to need 300+HP...but for d@mn sure, when gas hits $4/gal. again, will be wanting high MPG's in their $27k-$40k ride they're looking to get long term value out of. Long term value means you have it a while. Having it a while means you're subjected to gas prices for the next 10 years. WhoTF wants to be stuck with a (great) vehicle that gets lousy MPG??? No one. Ford screwed up big time doing the 3.5L EB first...they absolutely should have done the I-4. As someone said early, can't change the past...certainly for those that don't care about high mpg or fuel costs, or value power over those two concerns, this will make the Flex a basically unbeatable product. And it certainly is. But for a highway crusier and/or an in town grocery getter/soccer mom hauler...frankly, those mpg numbers suk. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I, and many in my family (mom/dad, 3 aunts/uncles), are with you Pioneer. Half of my family is looking to get into a Flex (Base through Limited) but will not buy a vehicle with such low mpg - regardless of what it brings to the table. People buying a Flex, minus those towing (a fairly small % of people), are going to need 300+HP...but for d@mn sure, when gas hits $4/gal. again, will be wanting high MPG's in their $27k-$40k ride they're looking to get long term value out of. Long term value means you have it a while. Having it a while means you're subjected to gas prices for the next 10 years. WhoTF wants to be stuck with a (great) vehicle that gets lousy MPG??? No one. Ford screwed up big time doing the 3.5L EB first...they absolutely should have done the I-4. As someone said early, can't change the past...certainly for those that don't care about high mpg or fuel costs, or value power over those two concerns, this will make the Flex a basically unbeatable product. And it certainly is. But for a highway crusier and/or an in town grocery getter/soccer mom hauler...frankly, those mpg numbers suk. Chuck The N/A V6 Flex gets class-leading fuel economy, the Ecoboost version gets 2 mpg less. I don't really see how that "sucks" on any level. If you want nothing BUT fuel economy yeah, it's not for you, so don't check off the box on the order form. It's nice to have the CHOICE though, isn't it? For years people complained about Ford being outpowered by everyone. Ford offers more power and it seems like those same people complain now that it doesn't get good enough fuel economy. I mean really, what gives? We have no evidence that a 4 cylinder EcoBoost would offer any better fuel economy in the Flex than the N/A 3.5 V6 already does anyway, so to assume that right off the bat isn't fair. People are just attracted to the hatefest that is the Flex, the scapegoat for all things that are still wrong at Ford. "Why another D3?" "Why no sliders?" "Why so pricey?" "Why no 2.5 EcoBoost?" :blah: :blah: :blah: Just ignore that it's Ford's highest conquest vehicle and has garnered some of the best reviews of any Ford product in the past 3 decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Maybe you misunderstood: We all love the Flex. Did you get that bolded? It doesn't get good mpg. I'm sorry, I know that hurts, I know it's a great vehicle in every other respect, but, when it comes down to it: The mpg isn't high. Take a deep breath and chill out...the competition can't beat it on anything else, so for anyone in the market that has to buy, I'm sure the Flex will be right up there at the top on options considered. But, the fact remains: The gas mileage isn't high. Now, close your eyes and imagine this: A Flex. With high mpg. Got that image? That's a Flex with a I-4 EB. That's a Ranger with an I-4 EB. That's an Explorer with I-4 EB. That's an F-150 with I-4 EB. That's a Taurus with I-4 EB. You see where I'm going here. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It doesn't get good mpg. Maybe you misunderstood. Yes it does. Nothing gets better mileage in its size class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Maybe you misunderstood: We all love the Flex. Did you get that bolded? It doesn't get good mpg. I'm sorry, I know that hurts, I know it's a great vehicle in every other respect, but, when it comes down to it: The mpg isn't high. Take a deep breath and chill out...the competition can't beat it on anything else, so for anyone in the market that has to buy, I'm sure the Flex will be right up there at the top on options considered. But, the fact remains: The gas mileage isn't high. Now, close your eyes and imagine this: A Flex. With high mpg. Got that image? That's a Flex with a I-4 EB. That's a Ranger with an I-4 EB. That's an Explorer with I-4 EB. That's an F-150 with I-4 EB. That's a Taurus with I-4 EB. You see where I'm going here. Chuck So you are expecting a 7-passenger vehicle to get the fuel economy of a Focus? For its size, it DOES get good mpg. It's all relative. If you want the capacity, you accept the trade-off in fuel economy. It's a given. People shopping in this class understand that. And again, we have no evidence to show that a 4 cyl EcoBoost would really improve fuel economy significantly in a vehicle the size of the Flex. If it can, great! I hope we see it soon. It will give a vehicle with pretty good fuel economy for its size even better fuel economy. And for the love of all things sacred, please stop talking about anything with the US Ranger. It's not getting any changes at all. No new engines. Hell, they won't even redesign the floor mats before it gets cancelled/replaced. Edited January 12, 2009 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 ]b]And again, we have no evidence to show that a 4 cyl EcoBoost would really improve fuel economy significantly in a vehicle the size of the Flex.[/b] This should be pinned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Aren't we being a bit illogical here??? We are taking a powertrain that we haven't a clue about, and drawing conclusions based upon what? The fact that it is a 4 cylinder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I guess I'm missing something here: Ford has stated ad nausem that the combination of DI and turbo, i.e. EB, works very well together. They've stated that it makes V-6's produce V-8 power with V-6 like FE. Obviously, with power numbers like the twin turbo 3.5L EB puts out, they weren't lying - and the FE is very good also. So here's what I'm missing: Tell me again, given the non-EB 3.5L V-6 mpg and power numbers, why a I-4 that was targeted to develop the same power would not produce I-4 like FE??? I realize it's not going to be 243534456456 MPG...Yes, I understand that. Neither would it be 22 MPG. I get the vehicle is bigger and all that...that didn't escape me. Thanks. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 http://www.toyota.com/highlander/features.html That car does not put real people in the 3rd row. The 3rd row in the highlander is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The real issue, from a customer perspective, is how much will the EcoBoost V6 option cost along with the mandatory AWD ! I'm betting that the cost will keep the "take rate" low, like under 30% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And again, we have no evidence to show that a 4 cyl EcoBoost would really improve fuel economy significantly in a vehicle the size of the Flex. If it can, great! I hope we see it soon. It will give a vehicle with pretty good fuel economy for its size even better fuel economy. Yes we do, Jim Farley introducing the Explorer American concept with the Ecoboost 2.0 I-4 30% better fuel economy than a 4.0 liter V6: Ford Explorer America concept-Detroit Auto Show Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The real issue, from a customer perspective, is how much will the EcoBoost V6 option cost along with the mandatory AWD ! I'm betting that the cost will keep the "take rate" low, like under 30% I think a take rate anywhere even close to 30% would be far exceeding Ford's expectations for it. I'm guessing they are betting on closer to 10% in the Flex. Perhaps a bit higher in vehicles like the MKS and Taurus though. Yes we do, Jim Farley introducing the Explorer American concept with the Ecoboost 2.0 I-430% better fuel economy than a 4.0 liter V6: Ford Explorer America concept-Detroit Auto Show Concept vs Reality. I'm guessing the EcoBoost 4 cyl will end up being more fuel-efficient than the 3.5 V6, but only in certain applications and probably by nowhere near as much as 30%. Heck, the 3.5 V6 probably gets close to 30% better fuel economy than the 4.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Yes we do, Jim Farley introducing the Explorer American concept with the Ecoboost 2.0 I-430% better fuel economy than a 4.0 liter V6: Ford Explorer America concept-Detroit Auto Show You are correct about the potentially better mileage from the I4 EB. We don't have proof, but... Yesterday Derek K announced that there would be 4 cylinder EB engines available in every car and crossover Ford makes. Ford wouldn't make the trip if the mileage didn't justify it. I can state with some certainty that Ford is pushing aggressively to get the Explorer certified for over 30 mpg highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You are correct about the potentially better mileage from the I4 EB. We don't have proof, but... Yesterday Derek K announced that there would be 4 cylinder EB engines available in every car and crossover Ford makes. Ford wouldn't make the trip if the mileage didn't justify it. I can state with some certainty that Ford is pushing aggressively to get the Explorer certified for over 30 mpg highway. That's not the only car under study........ I take Ford at their word when they say 25-30% fuel economy improvement over a 4.0 V6. They've said it so many times it must be true.... That's not "Gobeling" is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I take Ford at their word when they say 25-30% fuel economy improvement over a 4.0 V6. The 4.0 V6 is, by and large, though, an inefficient pig of a V6. The 3.5 V6 also sees significant fuel economy improvements compared to the 4.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.