2.0 EB Explorer

[silvrsvt]

I ordered one today. $1K incentives now. 38.5K for ltd w/ 301a, w/ EB.

 

MT's review kind of sealed it for me.

 

Did you get A plan pricing? shit I've optioned out a XLT for more then that!

[Captainp4]

Compared to what?

The EB towed its load more capably than the 5.0, any meaningful comparison should have been done against the 6.2 V8.

 

I keep thinking there was a significant drop in mpgs when they were towing heavy in the mountains, in a way that made it almost not worth it if you're going to be towing all of the time. I could be completely wrong on that though, I will see if I can't find the article. I also made that same argument in one of the threads saying that it should be compared to the 6.2, not the 5.0 in the MPG department. I am willing to admit I am wrong if I can't find the facts to back it up, I just have it in my head that I read somewhere that it was a pretty significant drop. Which would also kind of prove a point that at some point a vehicle's weight will overcome the efficiency gained by a turbo setup, even if GTDi (plus all of the other EB tech).

 

 

You don't have to...

EB 2.0 has 270 lb ft between 1700 and 4500 rpm

where as the D35 maxes out at 255 lb ft at 4500 rpm....

 

Wow, I didn't realize it was that high of a tq number. I was thinking close to 240. I suppose it depends entirely upon how it is geared as to how it will feel/perform against 3.5, and that can also be made up with the 8 spd trans, as mentioned by others in this thread. We also have to take into consideration this motor is tuned for max mpg's which probably means it isn't geared optimally for performance. I've also read that the 3.5 has been considered just 'adequate' for the explorer, and the 2.0EB is closer to a 3.0 replacement, at least in HP numbers. I realize tq is important, but HP is a pretty decent measure of how it "feels" as well. And yes, I realize HP is derived from tq at X rpm. Again, back to gearing and how it feels. All this said, I haven't driven either one, so I really have no idea personally, just what I've read.

 

 

That was the early version of CX-7's 2.3 liter that Ford was investigating for North America,

those tests predated work on Ecoboost engines that had a lot of changes to improve reliability.

 

 

Gotcha, my mistake. Now, was that 2.3 related directly to the current 2.0 EB? I'm pretty sure the 2.0/2.3 mazda motors were the same block with different bore/stroke, and if Ford were to use that same block, maybe it just can't handle more displacement in forced induction applications??? There seem to be so many 4 cylinder engine families from Ford I can't keep them all straight.

[jpd80]

Gotcha, my mistake. Now, was that 2.3 related directly to the current 2.0 EB? I'm pretty sure the 2.0/2.3 mazda motors were the same block with different bore/stroke, and if Ford were to use that same block, maybe it just can't handle more displacement in forced induction applications??? There seem to be so many 4 cylinder engine families from Ford I can't keep them all straight.

Perhaps more along the lines of reliability in terms of avoiding detonation on variable quality fuels, something that Ecoboost does extremely well.

[LSFan00]

Very nice. What color?

 

Cinnamon met., stone interior. Hope it's pretty.

[TomServo92]

Cinnamon met., stone interior. Hope it's pretty.

 

Sounds nice! Remember to post pics when you get it.

[silvrsvt]

 

the Take rate of the 3.5 in the fusion is less than 5%, is it really needed?

 

 

Well it is shared with the MKZ and to be perfectly honest, the Sport model could use a bit more sport to it to separate it from the rest of the Fusion lineup.

 

 

[old_fairmont_wagon]

So long as the engine/turbo combination is capable of producing the neccessary amount of torque for the application, the only real advantage that you will see in increasing the displacement of the base engine and slightly downsizing the turbo is that the larger engine will exhibit slightly less turbo lag. That's about it. And, that's not as big of a deal anymore with the current drivetrains having 6 speed transmissions. They can get that first gear ratio higher to account for less torque coming from the engine in the first 1000 rpm. Another advantage to the EB is that the setup typically weighs less than the NA engine it replaces, the reduction in weight helps the preceived throttlel ag as well (though, again, its only a few tens of lbs). A third thing to realize with EB engines is that, since they have GDI, they can run a higher native cylinder compression than previous boosted engines. This gives more off boost power/torque as well, making the whole setup more flexible. So, with the reduced HP, the vehicle will run out of breath at the top of it's operating range (though, that's well above legal speeds), but given that most of these vehicles will not be hooned, the HP from the EB is more than the previous 4.0L and the torque is almost as good as the previous 4.6L V8 (and is actually greater for a significant portion of the RPM range). What remains to be seen is how efficient the whole package is in the real world.

[jpd80]

Well it is shared with the MKZ and to be perfectly honest, the Sport model could use a bit more sport to it to separate it from the rest of the Fusion lineup.

 

 

 

The other thing to remember is that Ford has to watch the ever increasing CAFE level, especially with volume sellers like Fusion

and if they can give buyers better city highway mileage with an Ecoboost 2.0 verses a 3.5 V6 then all the better.

 

That attitude however has to be tinged with market perception and expectations, MKZ buyers may insist on the smoother V6

while extreme Fusion buyers may like an SHO package with EB V6 and AWD....

Edited September 1, 2011 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

The other thing to remember is that Ford has to watch the ever increasing CAFE level, especially with volume sellers like Fusion

and if they can give buyers better city highway mileage with an Ecoboost 2.0 verses a 3.5 V6 then all the better.

 

Well if the 3.5L Fusion is only 5% of sales, it won't impact CAFE #s

 

 

That attitude however has to be tinged with market perception and expectations, MKZ buyers may insist on the smoother V6

while extreme Fusion buyers may like an SHO package with EB V6 and AWD....

 

 

Who wouldn't want a Performance MKZ to go along with the Fusion ST or SHO ?

 

 

 

 

[jpd80]

Well if the 3.5L Fusion is only 5% of sales, it won't impact CAFE #s

Addi n the 3.0 V6 and the combined V6 figure is around 20% of sales and similar for the AWD option.

You could replace aall of those V6s with Ecoboost and lift fuel economy even further....

 

 

 

 

 

Who wouldn't want a Performance MKZ to go along with the Fusion ST or SHO ?

Precisely, a 2.7 EB or 3.5 EB AWD MKZ or Fusion would be a mighty impressive car....

[silvrsvt]

Addi n the 3.0 V6 and the combined V6 figure is around 20% of sales and similar for the AWD option.

You could replace aall of those V6s with Ecoboost and lift fuel economy even further....

 

 

I have no problem replacing the 3L V6 in the Fusion, but until they can come out with a unit that can put out 275+ HP, the 3.5L should be an option

 

 

 

 

[LSFan00]

If the Lincoln gets a higher output (next gen) ecoboost, there is no reason on earth to none the less keep a naturally aspirated 3.0 or 3.5 in a Fusion/Mondeo size car. 275hp is irrelevant; it is the torque and mpg that matters. I actually think ford should build more marketing on that point to educate consumers; torque+MPG=ecoboost.

 

A 275 HP V6 in a Fusion is a downgrade, vs. even a 2.0 EB now. Start with a 2.0, offer a larger one (not up to the Lincoln standard), and offer a hybrid (and plug in). Personally, I still love the diesel option too but the natural V6 is overkill in the option menu.

[GT-Keith]

Ford has the parts bin to make all of their V6 and V8's irrelevant in their respective segments. A 2.5-3L EB would make the Duratec twins irrelevant....

[Deanh]

Ford has the parts bin to make all of their V6 and V8's irrelevant in their respective segments. A 2.5-3L EB would make the Duratec twins irrelevant....

juicy is all i can say when thinking of future drivetrains. Based on the eco 2.0 getting basically 250 ( and I hear theres not much potential for more out of that engine if regs need to met ) that correlates to the 2.7 getting approx 340 hp and the 3.0 getting 380 ish...and I would have to think those figures are conservative.....as for the all important torque 380ftlbs out of a 3.0....sounds tasty.