3.5L EB in 2010 Flex

[Pioneer]

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

 

 

Don't try to rationalise with the cheerleaders, Chuck. Ford can do no wring in their eyes, and facts roll off them like water on a freshly waxed car.

[NickF1011]

Don't try to rationalise with the cheerleaders, Chuck. Ford can do no wring in their eyes, and facts roll off them like water on a freshly waxed car.

 

Let's look back on when the EcoBoost program was first started.

 

Gas was still cheap.

 

Ford had little focus on cars.

 

People were demanding power.

 

Which avenue does Ford explore: A twin turbo V6 or a fuel-sipper Turbo 4?

 

 

Let's face it: If Ford launched the I-4 EcoBoost first, people would be here bitching about all of the powertrain options in Ford's cheap cars while vehicles like the MKS were stuck being saddled with nothing but an underpowered 3.7 liter N/A V6.

 

It's a no-win situation with some people.

 

And this isn't cheerleading, it's simply owning up to the reality of things: Ford can't do everything at once.

[Michael Reynolds]

Don't try to rationalise with the cheerleaders, Chuck. Ford can do no wring in their eyes, and facts roll off them like water on a freshly waxed car.

 

Can't leave well enough alone can you?

 

If you don't want it, don't buy it. That's the joy of options.

 

Seriously what type of efficiency are you expecting to see out of a vehicle this size? Because I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread post anything of the sort?

 

If the 3rd row of the Highlander is OK, it means it won't get a lot of use. Which means Ford will happily sell you an Escape 4 cylinder or Hybrid.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Michael Reynolds

[chucky2]

Don't try to rationalise with the cheerleaders, Chuck. Ford can do no wring in their eyes, and facts roll off them like water on a freshly waxed car.

 

Haha, yeah, I get that feeling sometimes. It's worrisome too because that's exactly what got us into this mess in the first place: People loyal to the Big 3 just accepting whatever they say/put out. /end to Pioneer

 

I'll be the first to admit that the Flex is a homerun of a vehicle...except for its MPG (and, somewhat, cost). But, for many many, it doesn't matter if no other vehicle can touch what it can do....22 MPG is 22 MPG.

 

I'll give you an example: My mom's '93 Sable is just hanging in there. She'd love to go buy a Flex. However, when she asked me what the MPG's were, and I told her, she initially thought I was mistaken. She just flat out didn't believe that the MPG's were that low. Her response, almost verbaitem, was "That's it?!?! We're not getting another gas guzzler like your father bought...I guess I'll just hang onto my Sable."

 

Had Ford went with the I-4 EB first, they'd have had another sale already...and given the high priority people are putting on high MPG offerings today, you can bank on it that there's many thousands of others feeling the same way.

 

It's OK, it's healthy...just say it with me now: Ford Leadership, again, screwed up.

 

There...don't you feel better now??

 

Chuck

[NickF1011]

Haha, yeah, I get that feeling sometimes. It's worrisome too because that's exactly what got us into this mess in the first place: People loyal to the Big 3 just accepting whatever they say/put out. /end to Pioneer

 

I'll be the first to admit that the Flex is a homerun of a vehicle...except for its MPG (and, somewhat, cost). But, for many many, it doesn't matter if no other vehicle can touch what it can do....22 MPG is 22 MPG.

 

I'll give you an example: My mom's '93 Sable is just hanging in there. She'd love to go buy a Flex. However, when she asked me what the MPG's were, and I told her, she initially thought I was mistaken. She just flat out didn't believe that the MPG's were that low. Her response, almost verbaitem, was "That's it?!?! We're not getting another gas guzzler like your father bought...I guess I'll just hang onto my Sable."

 

Had Ford went with the I-4 EB first, they'd have had another sale already...and given the high priority people are putting on high MPG offerings today, you can bank on it that there's many thousands of others feeling the same way.

 

It's OK, it's healthy...just say it with me now: Ford Leadership, again, screwed up.

 

There...don't you feel better now??

 

Chuck

 

Please tell us what the fuel economy of an I4 EcoBoost Flex is. What's that? You don't know? How do you know it would have been significant enough a jump over the 3.5 V6 to make your mom decide it was no longer a "guzzler"?

 

Has your mom looked at other 7-passenger crossover vehicles as possible replacement for her Sable? If she thinks the Flex is fuel-thirsty, the answer to that question is probably 'no'. Heck, has she looked at ANY vehicles since she bought her Sable and compared fuel economies? Again, probably not, or she wouldn't have been so shocked by the Flex's fuel economy numbers. It's not 1993 anymore.

 

On the other hand, ask someone who is trading in a Honda Pilot or Toyota Highlander or Ford Explorer if the Flex's fuel economy is bad. I think you'll get a different answer than the one your mom gave you. Those are the Flex's customers, not people who likely haven't seen a window sticker on a new vehicle in well over a decade.

Edited January 12, 2009 by NickF1011

[StevenCaylor]

I'll give you an example: My mom's '93 Sable is just hanging in there. She'd love to go buy a Flex. However, when she asked me what the MPG's were, and I told her, she initially thought I was mistaken. She just flat out didn't believe that the MPG's were that low. Her response, almost verbaitem, was "That's it?!?! We're not getting another gas guzzler like your father bought...I guess I'll just hang onto my Sable."

 

Just for fun, I looked this up

 

1993 Sable 140 hp 3.8 V6 17/25

2009 Flex 263 hp 3.5 V6 17/24

[NickF1011]

Just for fun, I looked this up

 

1993 Sable 140 hp 3.8 V6 17/25

2009 Flex 263 hp 3.5 V6 17/24

 

Adjust for the updated EPA test cycle, and the Sable would probably fare worse.

 

At least the 3.0 Sable was 18/27. Still not what I would call "great" if you would consider the Flex's 24 to be a "guzzler".

Edited January 12, 2009 by NickF1011

[Michael Reynolds]

She must really hate the fuel economy in her Sable too, because it's not like the fuel economy ratings on it were that much better than the Flex's.

 

Edmunds has a long term Flex in their fleet and I think the beast has been averaging somewhere in the 20s.

[chucky2]

Both my mom's and brothers 3.8L based rides are getting good mpg's, both in town, and on the highway. Maybe it's because I Auto-RX's them, and they're running 0W-30 synthetic in them.....not sure. Even if they're only matching the Flex, they're paid off.

 

Please, again, read this: 22 MPG, on anything, is too low.

 

The first thing we (this does not just include me) do when looking at vehicles is look at the city and highway MPG numbers. If they don't fit in with what we're willing to cope with, the vehicle is not even an option. Period. It can haul 3453465456 people in full recliners, cook my dinner, and give me a BJ in private, all at the same time. If it gets 22 MPG, it's tough tata's, it's not going to be bought.

 

This inability to grasp this newish (in light of the effect the past $4+ gallon gas) fundemental truth is just amazing to me. It's going to take the average person 5 years to pay off that Flex. After making those high $$$ payments on it for 5 years, they're going to want some ROI time...likely anywhere from 2-5 years.

 

Do you all really think they're not going to be thinking, Gee, in the next 7-10 years, will gas stay at <= $2/gal???? People, that's going to be the first thing on their minds, right after they figure out if they can even afford a $40k Flex (because the Flex Limited is one awesome ride...and that's what they'll all want).

 

Chuck

[Michael Reynolds]

Both my mom's and brothers 3.8L based rides are getting good mpg's, both in town, and on the highway. Maybe it's because I Auto-RX's them, and they're running 0W-30 synthetic in them.....not sure. Even if they're only matching the Flex, they're paid off.

 

Please, again, read this: 22 MPG, on anything, is too low.

 

The first thing we (this does not just include me) do when looking at vehicles is look at the city and highway MPG numbers. If they don't fit in with what we're willing to cope with, the vehicle is not even an option. Period. It can haul 3453465456 people in full recliners, cook my dinner, and give me a BJ in private, all at the same time. If it gets 22 MPG, it's tough tata's, it's not going to be bought.

 

This inability to grasp this newish (in light of the effect the past $4+ gallon gas) fundemental truth is just amazing to me. It's going to take the average person 5 years to pay off that Flex. After making those high $$$ payments on it for 5 years, they're going to want some ROI time...likely anywhere from 2-5 years.

 

Do you all really think they're not going to be thinking, Gee, in the next 7-10 years, will gas stay at <= $2/gal???? People, that's going to be the first thing on their minds, right after they figure out if they can even afford a $40k Flex (because the Flex Limited is one awesome ride...and that's what they'll all want).

 

Chuck

 

And that's why consumers as a whole have to re-evaluate their priorities. Too many people for too long have bought bigger vehicles for the wrong reasons.

 

IF YOU ARE NOT HAULING MORE THAN 5 PEOPLE CONSISTENTLY, THEN YOU DO NOT NEED A VEHICLE THE SIZE OF THE FLEX!!!

 

It amazes me that people have such lofty fuel economy expectations out of a vehicle that is so large. It absolutely floors me how unrealstic people are. You want the space, but you don't want to pay the penalty.

 

At the end of the day, it's not like Ford would lose the sale because there's nothing else out there that is going to meet your high expectations.

[NickF1011]

Both my mom's and brothers 3.8L based rides are getting good mpg's, both in town, and on the highway. Maybe it's because I Auto-RX's them, and they're running 0W-30 synthetic in them.....not sure. Even if they're only matching the Flex, they're paid off.

 

Please, again, read this: 22 MPG, on anything, is too low.

 

The first thing we (this does not just include me) do when looking at vehicles is look at the city and highway MPG numbers. If they don't fit in with what we're willing to cope with, the vehicle is not even an option. Period. It can haul 3453465456 people in full recliners, cook my dinner, and give me a BJ in private, all at the same time. If it gets 22 MPG, it's tough tata's, it's not going to be bought.

 

This inability to grasp this newish (in light of the effect the past $4+ gallon gas) fundemental truth is just amazing to me. It's going to take the average person 5 years to pay off that Flex. After making those high $$$ payments on it for 5 years, they're going to want some ROI time...likely anywhere from 2-5 years.

 

Do you all really think they're not going to be thinking, Gee, in the next 7-10 years, will gas stay at <= $2/gal???? People, that's going to be the first thing on their minds, right after they figure out if they can even afford a $40k Flex (because the Flex Limited is one awesome ride...and that's what they'll all want).

 

Chuck

 

Here's a fundamental truth for YOU to accept then: You're not going to own a fullsize crossover, SUV, or truck anytime in the near future, because NOBODY is doing it better than this right now. What YOU accept as good fuel economy will vastly differ from someone who NEEDS a large crossover, SUV, or truck. So sorry that Ford (and nobody else keep in mind) makes a fullsize vehicle that gets fuel economy that is as good as a Focus. Maybe in your land of make-believe you can also find a 1/2 ton pickup that gets 30 mpg.

 

It's not like Ford ISN'T working on a solution for this. Heck, there will probably be I4 EcoBoost AND hybrid versions of the Flex in the next few years. Sorry that Ford decided to replace its thirstiest engines (V8's) with EcoBoost engines before it went after replacing its BRAND NEW already-pretty-darn-fuel-efficient-for-the-power-it-makes 3.5 V6. Which will be more important for Ford and which will make a higher impact to CAFE? A Flex that gets 26 mpg instead of 24 because of an I4 EcoBoost, or an F-150 that gets 23 mpg instead of 21 because of a V6 EcoBoost?

[Ron W.]

The first thing we (this does not just include me) do when looking at vehicles is look at the city and highway MPG numbers.

Chuck

 

Not everyone does that.

While it would be nice to get 30mpg or so out of a LARGE vehicle I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[NickF1011]

Not everyone does that.

While it would be nice to get 30mpg or so out of a LARGE vehicle I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

I don't know ANYONE who does that. The first thing people do when deciding on a vehicle is to ask themselves "What kind of vehicle do we need?" not "What fuel economy ceiling do we have, regardless of the type of vehicle we need?" :rolleyes:

[Deanh]

Both my mom's and brothers 3.8L based rides are getting good mpg's, both in town, and on the highway. Maybe it's because I Auto-RX's them, and they're running 0W-30 synthetic in them.....not sure. Even if they're only matching the Flex, they're paid off.

 

Please, again, read this: 22 MPG, on anything, is too low.

 

The first thing we (this does not just include me) do when looking at vehicles is look at the city and highway MPG numbers. If they don't fit in with what we're willing to cope with, the vehicle is not even an option. Period. It can haul 3453465456 people in full recliners, cook my dinner, and give me a BJ in private, all at the same time. If it gets 22 MPG, it's tough tata's, it's not going to be bought.

 

This inability to grasp this newish (in light of the effect the past $4+ gallon gas) fundemental truth is just amazing to me. It's going to take the average person 5 years to pay off that Flex. After making those high $$$ payments on it for 5 years, they're going to want some ROI time...likely anywhere from 2-5 years.

 

Do you all really think they're not going to be thinking, Gee, in the next 7-10 years, will gas stay at <= $2/gal???? People, that's going to be the first thing on their minds, right after they figure out if they can even afford a $40k Flex (because the Flex Limited is one awesome ride...and that's what they'll all want).

 

Chuck

keep something in mind Chuck, this will be probably a limited production, or at least a small % to appese those that bleat about lack of power, NO mileage penalty from a regular Flex but 100hp morwe...case closed i will say, only complaint will be the price bump, and just for $hits and giggles, name ONE vehicle that can seat 7 passengers in COMFORT, has the get up and go and gets similar mileage....just one, please......

[Pioneer]

Can't leave well enough alone can you?

 

 

None of my comments have been aimed at you, so yes. I can leave well enough alone. Seems you can't. And, all Chuck does is bolster my point. Seems there are TWO people now that want better fuel economy and not a 1/4 mile drag car. :lol:

 

And, you can drop the Highlander crap. I hate them as much as the Flex. I only gave it as an example of a three row vehicle that gives better fuel economy.

[Pioneer]

Sorry that Ford decided to replace its thirstiest engines (V8's) with EcoBoost engines before it went after replacing its BRAND NEW already-pretty-darn-fuel-efficient-for-the-power-it-makes 3.5 V6.

 

The Flex doesn't have a V8, so if that was the case, the 3.5 EB would have debuted in the F-150.

[NickF1011]

The Flex doesn't have a V8, so if that was the case, the 3.5 EB would have debuted in the F-150.

 

The 3.5 EcoBoost is debuting in vehicles that would have gotten V8's if the EcoBoost did not exist: mainly the MKS and Taurus. The Flex was likely an after thought for EcoBoost, since all of the engineering was done for it already -- why not?

[Deanh]

None of my comments have been aimed at you, so yes. I can leave well enough alone. Seems you can't. And, all Chuck does is bolster my point. Seems there are TWO people now that want better fuel economy and not a 1/4 mile drag car. :lol:

 

And, you can drop the Highlander crap. I hate them as much as the Flex. I only gave it as an example of a three row vehicle that gives better fuel economy.

quick answer...then don'y buy one. I would guess a 4 cyl eco is in the works....so wait. Simple, hell i for one can't wait to drive this monster....YEHAH!....and hey...it may tempt those driving 6.0 Escalades and the like due to SOME people propensity for oooomph. ( and Pioneer, Chuckys on crack, step back from the ledge, don;t be a follower, next up Hors doeuvres at Guesswhoscomings house....)

[Pioneer]

Well, I can only hope that Ford gets serious about mileage in their people movers in the next couple of years. It would have been nice to replace the Explorer this year with a Flex type vehicle, but I'm not going to do it with the current mileage.

[NickF1011]

Well, I can only hope that Ford gets serious about mileage in their people movers in the next couple of years. It would have been nice to replace the Explorer this year with a Flex type vehicle, but I'm not going to do it with the current mileage.

 

So what vehicle from a "serious" competitor are you (not you directly, I know you want a Ford) going to buy instead to replace it that does get super-awesome-golly-gee fuel economy? Seems nobody else is being "serious" about this problem either, huh?

Edited January 12, 2009 by NickF1011

[Deanh]

Well, I can only hope that Ford gets serious about mileage in their people movers in the next couple of years. It would have been nice to replace the Explorer this year with a Flex type vehicle, but I'm not going to do it with the current mileage.

it'll come...but all this leads credeence to my thoughts regarding fuel mileage...i do NOT think people will forget the $4.50 a gallon debaucle, i seriously think the scar is there for good, and about time, the gas Co's have gotten away with WAY too much over time...so people will revolt and find ways to use less...ie, this Eco at 22mpgs may be on the shopping list of drivers of 7 pass vehicles currently LUCKY to get 12-15.....

[chucky2]

So what vehicle from a "serious" competitor are you (not you directly, I know you want a Ford) going to buy instead to replace it that does get super-awesome-golly-gee fuel economy? Seems nobody else is being "serious" about this problem either, huh?

 

Answer: He's not. He's going to wait like the other 4-5 people I know who'd like to buy the Flex for something, hopefully, to come along that's better. Hopefully for Ford, that means a I-4 EB Flex.

 

Tell me: When someone doesn't buy a vehicle from Ford, how much do they make?

 

Are you getting the picture now on why the V-6 EB over the I-4 EB was a collassal screw up by Ford Leadership?

 

No?

 

Then you're in the crowd that needs a Flex commercial driving through explosions, yee-hawing through some mud, maybe doing a panic stop in front of a cliff with a huge trailer on the back of it. Yeah!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe they let me do this!!!!!!!!!! YeeeeeHaawwwww!!!! Good for you...gas cost is the least important thing to consider when buying a vehicle. For the other huge amount of US buyers (hint: those are the ones in droves that stopped buying SUV's and Trucks and started buying sensible vehicles that got decent mileage), their gas costs are important to them. And they remember when gas was approaching $5/gal. Them, along with all those who were stuck with their SUV/Truck's and couldn't sell them...those same folks that are/will soon be paying off those vehicles. You think they're going to buy another low mileage option? Not if they can't help it....

 

Chuck

[Pioneer]

So what vehicle from a "serious" competitor are you (not you directly, I know you want a Ford) going to buy instead to replace it that does get super-awesome-golly-gee fuel economy? Seems nobody else is being "serious" about this problem either, huh?

 

 

I agree. Nobody is serious about it, that is why I was hoping that Ford would have taken the initiative and been the first.

 

We'll see what Ford has in a few years. New Focus this year and pay it off ASAP just in case the new Explorer is worth looking at.

[Deanh]

Answer: He's not. He's going to wait like the other 4-5 people I know who'd like to buy the Flex for something, hopefully, to come along that's better. Hopefully for Ford, that means a I-4 EB Flex.

 

Tell me: When someone doesn't buy a vehicle from Ford, how much do they make?

 

Are you getting the picture now on why the V-6 EB over the I-4 EB was a collassal screw up by Ford Leadership?

 

No?

 

Then you're in the crowd that needs a Flex commercial driving through explosions, yee-hawing through some mud, maybe doing a panic stop in front of a cliff with a huge trailer on the back of it. Yeah!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe they let me do this!!!!!!!!!! YeeeeeHaawwwww!!!! Good for you...gas cost is the least important thing to consider when buying a vehicle. For the other huge amount of US buyers (hint: those are the ones in droves that stopped buying SUV's and Trucks and started buying sensible vehicles that got decent mileage), their gas costs are important to them. And they remember when gas was approaching $5/gal. Them, along with all those who were stuck with their SUV/Truck's and couldn't sell them...those same folks that are/will soon be paying off those vehicles. You think they're going to buy another low mileage option? Not if they can't help it....

 

Chuck

Chucky, gut tells me there is a 2.5 or 2.0 eco in the Flexs future....hell, heres a question , if it can put out the same 265hp in a lighter package ( ? ) than the current normally aspirated 3.5 and get 5-6 mpgs better then what would actually be the need for the 3.5 at all, remember, things take time, personally i am with you on the need for the smaller displacement eco's, but also remember Americans love of the V8, this 3.5 is the first step, and was probably high on the list as its developement probably statrted ( actually it obviously did ) before STUPID gas gouging took place....so be patient, they ARE coming, they are NOT vaporware....

[NickF1011]

Answer: He's not. He's going to wait like the other 4-5 people I know who'd like to buy the Flex for something, hopefully, to come along that's better. Hopefully for Ford, that means a I-4 EB Flex.

 

Tell me: When someone doesn't buy a vehicle from Ford, how much do they make?

 

Are you getting the picture now on why the V-6 EB over the I-4 EB was a collassal screw up by Ford Leadership?

 

No?

 

Collossal screw up? I think you are blowing this just a WEE bit out of proportion. And look at the other side of the coin: How many people are not buying the MKS because there are other luxury vehicles on the market that offer far more power? Compare MKS sales to Flex sales for a moment now. Okay. Now tell me which vehicle you think might have a larger profit margin. Okay. Now tell me which one would have been a more collossal screw up.

 

Not EVERYTHING in the world revolves around your pie-in-the-sky fuel economy wishes. There is a significant contigent out there that still demands performance in their vehicles. Obviously it's not you, but they are out there, and many of them are on the MKS' radar.