aneekr Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Citation needed. Consumer Reports, September 2012 issue, p. 59: "...this [Ford Edge SEL] has Ford's EcoBoost 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine instead of the base 3.5L V6. The EcoBoost is designed to provide V6-like power with four-cylinder-like fuel economy. And the $995 option delivers in the Edge. The little engine moves this not-so-little SUV with plenty of power. There's less engine noise, too: The four-cylinder turbo actually sounds more refined than the V6." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Sorry. That's not an empirical observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Sorry. That's not an empirical observation. why don't you get off your duff and test drive the I4 and the V6 and add something more "empirical" to the discussion. It is hard to take your opinion seriously if you have zero experience with what aneekr is talking about. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) Sorry. That's not an empirical observation. aneekr's own test drive confirms what CR wrote. If this empirical observation is still insufficient, follow Biker16's recommendation with any automobile equipped with the 2.0L Ecoboost engine. Edited January 8, 2013 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Sorry. That's not an empirical observation. I agree. Mine is from putting approx. 15,000 miles on a 2011 AWD 3.5 Taurus. Glassy-smooth engine matched the 6-speed delightfully well.I haven't driven a 3.7 MKZ, but it's hard to imagine the engine being anything but smooth. As to the EB 2.0's smoothness, that's a tribute to Ford for exorcising the 4-cylinder "throb" when hooked up to torque converters, even in today's imports. The 3.5 is a delight at idle, for silent smoothness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 We've got 42,000 miles on our 2011 Edge. The V6 is extremely smooth. I'm sorry, but anyone that calls that engine coarse or unrefined is just wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) why don't you get off your duff and test drive the I4 and the V6 and add something more "empirical" to the discussion. It is hard to take your opinion seriously if you have zero experience with what aneekr is talking about. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the term 'empirical'. Edited January 8, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Apparently you are unfamiliar with the term 'empirical'. maybe. but you can't ask someone for a citation and when he obliges, complain about especially sense he and CR have more experience with the subject than you do. it just makes you appear unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 maybe. but you can't ask someone for a citation and when he obliges, complain about especially sense he and CR have more experience with the subject than you do. it just makes you appear unreasonable. You can when the citation is nothing more than a subjective opinion. When you make an objective statement and are asked to provide a citation then you should provide objective data to support your objective statement (such as decibel levels, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 he and CR have more experience Again, you do not understand what 'empirical' means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) Again, you do not understand what 'empirical' means. What objective, empirical measurement exists to measure "refined-ness" of an engine? Or do you just like making people chase their tails when they tout meaningless observations? Edited January 9, 2013 by Noah Harbinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Apparently you are unfamiliar with the term 'empirical'. like measuring the cabin noise in dB at different throttle/speed conditions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) do you just like making people chase their tails when they tout meaningless observations? Yeah, I guess you could say that. Edited January 9, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Again, you do not understand what 'empirical' means. I do now but how can you define Refinement? is your definition the same as mine or anyone else? this Is the problem if there isn't a standardized definition for Refinement how can any measurement of Refinement not be "subjective opinion." The only true Test is to compare the refinement of the I4 and the V6 using the same Standard, to determine which is more refined According to what the tester determines what refinement is. Example: Richard Jensen says the Powershift DCT is unrefined Biker16 says it is and has driven multiple cars with the transmission multiple times Richard Jensen has not. Richard Jensen uses Car and Driver as a citation of It's lack of refinement. Biker16 says Car and Driver is not empirical evidence and they cannot be trusted. Richard Jensen says I'm right biker16 says your wrong. Etc, etc, etc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) There are no independent standards for aesthetic judgments. You may judge one engine more refined than another, but that conclusion is not superior to any other conclusion on the subject. Something (e.g. NVH) may be measured by certain empirical measurements (i.e. overall sound and sound at various frequencies, measurement of vibration of various things within the cabin at various speeds, etc.) These measurements form standards (or benchmarks). One should be careful, however, in making a categorical statement such as, "Engine X is quieter than Engine Y" unless one has a broad base of data from which to make that conclusion. One would have to rule out the inclusion of additional sound deadening measures, the engineer's aesthetic decision to perhaps enhance the sound of one engine (in its installed use) to meet the expectations or preferences of customers, and the noise at a variety of engine speeds and throttle openings. Edited January 9, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Why? Why would I prefer a V6 to a boosted I4? More horsepower and better NVH characteristics, although the 2.0L EB is hardly a slouch. That engine is a marvel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Why would I prefer a V6 to a boosted I4? More horsepower and better NVH characteristics, although the 2.0L EB is hardly a slouch. That engine is a marvel. Agree, For example, if a DI 2.7 V6 was offered instead of the base 2.5 I-4, then I'd say there would be a lot of takers even though the 1.6 EB is a nice engine. Maybe this is a possible route that Ford is exploring, the smoothness of a clean revving V6 coupled with top end horsepower that the 1.6 EB can't match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 with top end horsepower that the 1.6 EB can't match. Is top end horsepower really a characteristic that should really matter to anybody in a midsize family sedan though? You could probably count on one hand the number of times the average driver exceed 5000 RPM in their car in a given year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Is top end horsepower really a characteristic that should really matter to anybody in a midsize family sedan though? You could probably count on one hand the number of times the average driver exceed 5000 RPM in their car in a given year. I don't understand why people are so hung up on horsepower when it's low end torque that really matters in everyday driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I don't understand why people are so hung up on horsepower when it's low end torque that really matters in everyday driving. Probably just a long-term effect of marketing. Horsepower is the number manufacturers have pushed for decades (why, I'm not really sure -- maybe because it's just often a bigger number ooo ahhh?) so that's the number consumers set their eyes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 There are no independent standards for aesthetic judgments. You may judge one engine more refined than another, but that conclusion is not superior to any other conclusion on the subject. Something (e.g. NVH) may be measured by certain empirical measurements (i.e. overall sound and sound at various frequencies, measurement of vibration of various things within the cabin at various speeds, etc.) These measurements form standards (or benchmarks). One should be careful, however, in making a categorical statement such as, "Engine X is quieter than Engine Y" unless one has a broad base of data from which to make that conclusion. One would have to rule out the inclusion of additional sound deadening measures, the engineer's aesthetic decision to perhaps enhance the sound of one engine (in its installed use) to meet the expectations or preferences of customers, and the noise at a variety of engine speeds and throttle openings. I agree which is why it is silly to ask for empirical evidence on a forum. Why would I prefer a V6 to a boosted I4? More horsepower and better NVH characteristics, although the 2.0L EB is hardly a slouch. That engine is a marvel. the I4 will never be as smooth as a good V6, keep in mind AFAIK the 2.0 does not use a balance shaft like the 2.5 does. the next gen 2.3 won't have a balance shaft either. as to the power look at this dyno. it not certainty that V6s will remain more powerful than I4s. I've been testing with the Focus ST ECU ever since SCT released the software to us, which was before SEMA. I've tried a lot of things within the ECU and have run a ton of dynos on different cars that we've had here at FSWerks. At this point I'm ready to start selling our FSWerks programming in our SCT X3 and LiveWire flashers for the Focus ST ecoboost models to the general public. I wrapped up my evaluation and tests yesterday. I do have other things that I'd like to experiment with, but I'm going to wait until SCT gets a few things worked out with LiveLink. I ended up making ZERO changes to my test file for CA 91 octane programming for stock cars ( I have a few test cars running the same file since I wanted to get some miles and time logged ) and here are the results: Agree,For example, if a DI 2.7 V6 was offered instead of the base 2.5 I-4, then I'd say there would be a lot of takers even though the 1.6 EB is a nice engine. Maybe this is a possible route that Ford is exploring, the smoothness of a clean revving V6 coupled with top end horsepower that the 1.6 EB can't match. reviews of the 1.6 complain of issues of noise under load not smoothness. I imagine the noise and vibration isn't from out of order piston movement but from engine lugging, I.E. high load lower RPM. the traditional Solution is to lower gearing and program the transmission to avoid the low RPM lugging, which misses opportunities for maximum fuel savings. the next gen engine will use advanced engine mounts, and a redesigned torque converter and other techniques to lower the lugging limits, while maintaining refinement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I agree which is why it is silly to ask for empirical evidence on a forum. <graph showing empirical evidence> I find the irony in your post hilarious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I find the irony in your post hilarious. HA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 reviews of the 1.6 complain of issues of noise under load not smoothness. I imagine the noise and vibration isn't from out of order piston movement but from engine lugging, I.E. high load lower RPM. the traditional Solution is to lower gearing and program the transmission to avoid the low RPM lugging, which misses opportunities for maximum fuel savings. the next gen engine will use advanced engine mounts, and a redesigned torque converter and other techniques to lower the lugging limits, while maintaining refinement. It could also be that the latest Ford vehicles are much quieter bodies than previous Fords, making the engine seem louder. I saw a Carandriver test (?) from late last year with cabin noise checks, the dB rating on the 1.6 EB were same or better than the competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkarlo Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Anyone have China/Asia Europe 2012 figures? 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.