fordmantpw Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 White cars show dirt the least. You obviously don't have to drive gravel/dirt roads. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I have not washed my silver "station car" in about 5 years. It doesn't look dirty at all. It doesn't look shiny either, but definitely doesn't look dirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I have not washed my silver "station car" in about 5 years. It doesn't look dirty at all. It doesn't look shiny either, but definitely doesn't look dirty. Don't wash it now. Liable to take half the paint off along with it by this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 White cars show dirt the least. I've always thought that the opposite ends of the spectrum did a poor job of hiding dirt. Maybe that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 You obviously don't have to drive gravel/dirt roads. My wife's folks live down a dirt road. I have to consider such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Don't wash it now. Liable to take half the paint off along with it by this point. I'm not even sure it's paint anymore. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 No mention of possible powertrain choices but I assume it is going to be an all turbo line up? 1.5 Ecoboost 2.0 Ecoboost 2.3 Ecoboost 2.0 TDCi 2.2 TDCi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 No mention of possible powertrain choices but I assume it is going to be an all turbo line up? 1.5 Ecoboost 2.0 Ecoboost 2.3 Ecoboost 2.0 TDCi 2.2 TDCi Part of me doesn't believe that the Edge would lose the V6. It's still a healthy-sized vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTaurus Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) My initial impression! A bit surprise peolpe didn't see these. No wonder when MKC were previewed, people said MKC is not Escape rebadged. I am thinking may be the MKX will move to the Explorer platform!? Edge and MKC will be the same platfrom? Escape stands alone for now? Edited November 20, 2013 by LoveTaurus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTaurus Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) Not that I know much about of these vehicles. I just observed these similarity and mentioning it as a point for discussions. Edited November 20, 2013 by LoveTaurus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I'd go with Silver or Grey...which where my last two color choices with my cars prior to the SHO. meh, lets just paint all cars that Terrain color on the Raptor for the people allergic to suds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 My initial impression! A bit surprise peolpe didn't see these. Not wonder when MKC were previewed, people said MKC is not Escape rebadged. I am thinking may be the MKX will move to the Explorer platform!? FordEdgeConcept_03_HR a.jpg 2015-lincoln-mkc-9-1.jpg Nah, that wouldn't make any sense, and would be a step backward to put the MKX on a platform Ford is slowly phasing out, especially when it's stablemate (Edge) will be moving to the new CD4 platform. Now what we could see - and I won't be surprised if we do - is the MKX's dimensions stretched a bit (perhaps widened a bit a la the MKC vs Escape, etc) compared to the Edge to give the two a bit more differentiation. Then down the road, we'd see an Explorer-based product (at this point, it seems like that won't come until an Explorer redesign) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) My initial impression! A bit surprise peolpe didn't see these. No wonder when MKC were previewed, people said MKC is not Escape rebadged. I am thinking may be the MKX will move to the Explorer platform!? Edge and MKC will be the same platfrom? Escape stands alone for now? You're suggesting that the MKC is a rebadged 2015 Edge? Unless the 2015 Edge is getting a LOT smaller (and the point of that would be...?), then.... Edited November 21, 2013 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Nah, that wouldn't make any sense, and would be a step backward to put the MKX on a platform Ford is slowly phasing out, especially when it's stablemate (Edge) will be moving to the new CD4 platform. Now what we could see - and I won't be surprised if we do - is the MKX's dimensions stretched a bit (perhaps widened a bit a la the MKC vs Escape, etc) compared to the Edge to give the two a bit more differentiation. Then down the road, we'd see an Explorer-based product (at this point, it seems like that won't come until an Explorer redesign) It would also make zero sense that the MKC will be built alongside the Escape (in near-capacity Louisville) instead of alongside Edge (in under-capacity Oakville). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 For normal dirt and dust, light colors show it the least including white and silver. You can't see it on white unless you get up close. Whereas a dark color will show even the slightest bit of dust and dirt. It has to do with absorption of light versus reflection of light. Black absorbs light so you see the dust. White reflects it and the dust gets lost in the reflected light. You may even have to touch it to see the dust. Of course mud will show on anything especially white or silver, but I was talking about normal dust and dirt, not mud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) LoveTaurus. Thank you for posting that!!!! That's absolutely awesome. That points out exactly what's wrong with the 'not enough differentiation' crowd. Here you have two vehicles built on two different platforms (note the transition from the A pillar to the hood--that's a transition that involves multiple structural components and it's very different between the Edge and MKC), that--nonetheless--have a certain resemblance from some angles, with no scale applied. I could just see some individuals crying out about how poorly differentiated the MKC is from the Edge, only to discover that the Edge is about 5" bigger in every dimension. Edited November 21, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) Part of me doesn't believe that the Edge would lose the V6. It's still a healthy-sized vehicle. Right... just like how sales of Fusion collapsed without a V6... I could see MKX and Edge Sport (or Edge ST?) getting the 2.7 Nano V6 but I don't really see a need for "normal" Edge V6. 2.3 Ecoboost is the 3.5 V6 replacement 3.5 V6: 285hp / 253 lb-ft 2.3 Eco: 275hp / 300 lb-ft Forget the number of cylinders... if you saw the output and the flat torque curve of the 2.3 Ecoboost, you would probably think it is plenty powerful for the Edge. Edited November 21, 2013 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) Right... just like how sales of Fusion collapsed without a V6... I could see MKX and Edge Sport (or Edge ST?) getting the 2.7 Nano V6 but I don't really see a need for "normal" Edge V6. 2.3 Ecoboost is the 3.5 V6 replacement 3.5 V6: 285hp / 253 lb-ft 2.3 Eco: 275hp / 300 lb-ft Forget the number of cylinders... if you saw the output and the flat torque curve of the 2.3 Ecoboost, you would probably think it is plenty powerful for the Edge. The V6 may be replaced for the "volume" trims, but like you suggested we'll probably still see the nano V6 (or just carry over the 3.7 -- it's really not a slouch of an engine) at least available. I don't think Ford is going to be dumping the Duratec engines entirely anytime soon. There's still a lot of mileage left in them in terms of tech that hasn't been applied yet. They are all DI-capable, which currently isn't being used in the naturally aspirated applications. Edited November 21, 2013 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (note the transition from the A pillar to the hood--that's a transition that involves multiple structural components and it's very different between the Edge and MKC), Based on the side-by-side, it appears the angles of the B, C, and D pillars are ALL different between the two also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 The Edge is too heavy for anything less than a 2.0L EB. And the 2.0L EB is the 3.5L NA replacement, not the 2.3L EB. The 2.3L is the 3.7L equivalent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) The Edge is too heavy for anything less than a 2.0L EB. And the 2.0L EB is the 3.5L NA replacement, not the 2.3L EB. The 2.3L is the 3.7L equivalent. The 2.0 EB is short on power compared to the 3.5. Ditto the 2.3 compared to the 3.7. I think Ford wishes that was the case, but they've been called on it. Edited November 21, 2013 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Right... just like how sales of Fusion collapsed without a V6... I could see MKX and Edge Sport (or Edge ST?) getting the 2.7 Nano V6 but I don't really see a need for "normal" Edge V6. 2.3 Ecoboost is the 3.5 V6 replacement 3.5 V6: 285hp / 253 lb-ft 2.3 Eco: 275hp / 300 lb-ft Forget the number of cylinders... if you saw the output and the flat torque curve of the 2.3 Ecoboost, you would probably think it is plenty powerful for the Edge. My opinion has very little to do with sales and more to do with practicality. I maintain my reservations about a turbo-4 in a 4000-lb vehicle and actual benefits over a larger engine making comparable power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) My opinion has very little to do with sales and more to do with practicality. I maintain my reservations about a turbo-4 in a 4000-lb vehicle and actual benefits over a larger engine making comparable power.Are you forgetting the Edge (and Explorer even) already offer turbo 4's? Seem to be garnering a fair share of sales also. I don't see them (at least the 2.0 EB) as an outright V6 replacement, but simply another alternative for buyers. Edited November 21, 2013 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) Are you forgetting the Edge (and Explorer even) already offer turbo 4's? Seem to be garnering a fair share of sales also. I don't see them (at least the 2.0 EB) as an outright V6 replacement, but simply another alternative for buyers. I fully understand the purpose of the 2.0EB in the Edge and Explorer (and, for that matter, Taurus). And, in those vehicles, there are no fewer than two V6 options available. However, if bzcat's idea is true, the V6 would be indeed replaced in the Edge. That's what I don't want to see. ETA: I haven't driven one just yet (haven't had the time to get out to the dealer), but reviewers haven't quite managed the highway EPA estimates with the 2.0EB option, at least in the Taurus. That's important to me personally. Edited November 21, 2013 by papilgee4evaeva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 The EBs produce more torque at a lower RPM while the NA engines produce more HP. Is the 2.0EB in the Edge that much slower than the 3.5? 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.