2015 Ford Edge Concept Introduced

[papilgee4evaeva]

Only by a few tenths, according to a few sources I pulled up (Autoblog, TTAC). On the other hand, Automobile says that Ford clocks the V6 at 7.3 and the 2.0EB at 8.8 (!!!!!!), so either somebody was lying or somebody wasn't trying.

 

Most every reviewer agrees that the V6 is much better at accelerating at highway speeds, which you have to expect.

[Kris Kolman]

I like the styling direction... Along the lines that I was proposing months ago. First off avoid the temptation to put in a useless 3rd Row. Secondly keep the existing "chunky" body lines, but evolve them to emphasis "sport" over "utility". All to be able to differentiate it from the utilitarian Escape and family focused Explorer. Was a bit worried about the grill getting too generic, but I've got to say this is a nice surprise. It balances the steeper raked front end, assuring it still looks like a SUV.

 

I haven't found the dimensions, but I would guess the footprint is similar to the existing model's 184" length and 87" width. This would further differentiate the Edge from the Escape in person, ~6" difference in both length and width. And for what it matters while the side profile is arguably similar to the MKC it will once again be bigger, by ~4 inches, which foretells the upcoming MKX comparison.

 

I agree that an all 4-cylinder EB lineup seems to be likely... Ford seems all in with EcoBoost, and might leave the V6 for the MKX as they did with the Fusion/MKZ. That being said the 2.0EB and 2.3EB combined with a slight reduction in weight should be a nice mix. With the carry-over 2.0EB would be able to add AWD, and the 2,3EB would match the 3.5NA performance. Add on that the 1.6EB for international markets along with a couple diesels.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Kris Kolman

[rmc523]

I like the styling direction... Along the lines that I was proposing months ago. First off avoid the temptation to put in a useless 3rd Row. Secondly keep the existing "chunky" body lines, but evolve them to emphasis "sport" over "utility". All to be able to differentiate it from the utilitarian Escape and family focused Explorer. Was a bit worried about the grill getting too generic, but I've got to say this is a nice surprise. It balances the steeper raked front end, assuring it still looks like a SUV.

 

I haven't found the dimensions, but I would guess the footprint is similar to the existing model's 184" length and 87" width. This would further differentiate the Edge from the Escape in person, ~6" difference in both length and width. And for what it matters while the side profile is arguably similar to the MKC it will once again be bigger, by ~4 inches, which foretells the upcoming MKX comparison.

 

I agree that an all 4-cylinder EB lineup seems to be likely... Ford seems all in with EcoBoost, and might leave the V6 for the MKX as they did with the Fusion/MKZ. That being said the 2.0EB and 2.3EB combined with a slight reduction in weight should be a nice mix. With the carry-over 2.0EB would be able to add AWD, and the 2,3EB would match the 3.5NA performance. Add on that the 1.6EB for international markets along with a couple diesels.

 

Yeah, I'm glad they didn't try to stuff a 3rd row into it as well. I think with the Explorer around, there was no need for Ford to do that. Hyundai, for example, doesn't have a vehicle above the Santa Fe size-wise, so it makes sense they have a 3rd row option (though now the 3-row version is on a lengthened wheelbase, IIRC, splitting it into Santa Fe Sport and Santa Fe as the Veracruz replacement).

 

I can't see a reason the dimensions would change all that much - Edge has been well received the way it is, why mess with it too much (and again, Explorer is above it).

 

I agree with those that've said we'll see an all 4-cyl EB lineup, with perhaps the exception of a Sport model with a V6.......and then the MKX will likely receive one of the Edge's more powerful 4-cyl EB to go along with an available V6 (a la MKZ). Makes sense to me anyway.

[akirby]

No reason not to continue with the 3.5L V6 at least as an option. Lincoln can continue with the 3.7L. Similarly I'd expect it to continue with the 2.0L and leave the 2.3L for the MKC/MKX.

[RichardJensen]

It's worth remembering that the EB2.0 isn't available with AWD in the Edge and Explorer.

[fordmantpw]

2.7L Nano?

[silvrsvt]

.I haven't found the dimensions, but I would guess the footprint is similar to the existing model's 184" length and 87" width. This would further differentiate the Edge from the Escape in person, ~6" difference in both length and width. And for what it matters while the side profile is arguably similar to the MKC it will once again be bigger, by ~4 inches, which foretells the upcoming MKX comparison.

 

Its on the PDF that is linked in the first post

 

Length ....................184.6 inches

(4,689 mm)

Width ...........................86 inches

(2,119 mm)

Height .......................66.9 inches

(1,699.4 mm)

Wheelbase ...............112.1 inches

(2,848.8 mm)

Front track ...............66.1 inches

(1,681.4 mm)

Rear track ............. 65.8 inches

(1,673.4 mm)

[bzcat]

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.

 

That is most definitely not the case.

 

2.0 Ecoboost (240hp version) replaced the 3.0 Duratec. ==> Fusion and Escape traded 2.0 Ecoboost for their 3.0 V6.

 

2.3 Ecoboost (275hp version) will likely replace the 3.5 Duratec in most applications.

 

3.7 Duratec will probably stick around as the base engine for Mustang and F-150 and Transit but don't expect to see it in many other vehicles (e.g. MKX, Taurus, Explorer etc), which will get the 2.7 Nano V6 as replacement when they are updated.

Edited November 21, 2013 by bzcat

[bzcat]

 

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.

 

And my opinion is based on CAFE reality. The 2017 standards will leave no room for such beast as a 3.5 V6 in a midsize CUV in a high volume trim level.

 

2.3 Ecoboost will most certainly have better EPA mpg rating than the 3.5 V6. If Ford offers an alternative big V6 in the Edge with worse EPA mpg they will only be shooting themselves in the foot. And frankly, no one else would either unless they are prepared to pay a big fine (e.g. someone like Mercedes so they can keep selling ML63).

 

I think the MKX will definitely have V6 option. Perhaps the 3.7 initially but replaced by 2.7 nano after a year or so when that engine is ready.

[Deanh]

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.

the 2.0 eco works in the Edge...but based on sales very few want to pony up the extra $1000 for trivial MPG improvements, and Ive said it once, and I will say it again, the same 2.0 eco in the Explorer is an utter failure...doesnt work.....weight is the ecos enemy in the Explorer.....now MAYBE the 2.3 would work in the Explorer, offset the additional poundage, and work similar to the 2.0 in the Edge...but I would still wager the take rate on the 6 to be significantly better....

Edited November 21, 2013 by Deanh

[jpd80]

the 2.0 eco works in the Edge...but based on sales very few want to pony up the extra $1000 for trivial MPG improvements, and Ive said it once, and I will say it again, the same 2.0 eco in the Explorer is an utter failure...doesnt work.....weight is the ecos enemy in the Explorer.....now MAYBE the 2.3 would work in the Explorer, offset the additional poundage, and work similar to the 2.0 in the Edge...but I would still wager the take rate on the 6 to be significantly better....

I'm betting that Taurus and Explorer both replace the 2.0 EB with the 2.3 EB with hardly any loss in economy but a lot more customer satisfaction.

Edited November 21, 2013 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

the 2.0 eco works in the Edge...but based on sales very few want to pony up the extra $1000 for trivial MPG improvements, and Ive said it once, and I will say it again, the same 2.0 eco in the Explorer is an utter failure...doesnt work.....weight is the ecos enemy in the Explorer.....now MAYBE the 2.3 would work in the Explorer, offset the additional poundage, and work similar to the 2.0 in the Edge...but I would still wager the take rate on the 6 to be significantly better....

 

For "failures" I sure see a lot of Ecoboost Explorers on the road. I wouldn't want one, but I see them a lot.

[akirby]

The 3.0 Duratec was 221 hp/ 208 lb/ft. The 2.0L EB is 240 hp/ 270 lb/ft. The 3.5L V6 is 285 hp/ 253 lb/ft. It's a lot closer to the 3.5L than the 3.0L with more torque than both.

 

I see the 2.0L remaining as the Ford replacement for the 3.5L and the 2.3L as the Lincoln replacement for the 3.7L (not counting mustang and f150) even if they're slightly down on 0-60 performance.

 

I don't see the 2.3L being used in Ford FWD applications outside of special applications (SVT/ST e.g.).

[akirby]

IF Ford gets the 2.3L across the board to replace the 2.0L - what does Lincoln use?

[Schpark]

They need to be able to keep the tow ratings and AWD capability before I would approve of an all I-4 lineup.

[NickF1011]

IF Ford gets the 2.3L across the board to replace the 2.0L - what does Lincoln use?

 

Nano V6. And it likely won't replace the 2.0 in all applications at all -- just those where the 2.0 is currently supplementing the 3.5 (Taurus, Explorer, Edge).

 

Where the 2.0 replaced the 3.0, it will likely remain (Escape, Fusion).

 

It's not like the 2.3 EB is some super expensive high tech engine to build compared to the other 4 cylinder EB's. Perhaps some are perceiving it that way because of where it first appeared?

Edited November 21, 2013 by NickF1011

[jpd80]

The 3.0 Duratec was 221 hp/ 208 lb/ft. The 2.0L EB is 240 hp/ 270 lb/ft. The 3.5L V6 is 285 hp/ 253 lb/ft. It's a lot closer to the 3.5L than the 3.0L with more torque than both.

 

I see the 2.0L remaining as the Ford replacement for the 3.5L and the 2.3L as the Lincoln replacement for the 3.7L (not counting mustang and f150) even if they're slightly down on 0-60 performance.

 

I don't see the 2.3L being used in Ford FWD applications outside of special applications (SVT/ST e.g.).

It's already in MKC s an exclusive feature but you can almost guarantee it will go int Fusion at the first chance.

2.3 EB is being developed as art of a new engine family that has broad application.

Ford is already saying that it gives 15% better economy than a comparable V6

 

Re 2.0 Ecobooost,

Ford and Kuzak touted it as the 3.0 V6 replacement in several presentations,

The arrival of the 2.3 EB gives Ford a marketing opportunity to correct any

perceived deficiencies associated with the 2.3 EB

 

 

Edited November 21, 2013 by jpd80

[akirby]

I'm not saying the 2.3L is expensive or couldn't be used by Ford versions. But I see Lincoln wanting to differentiate itself from Ford cousins as much as possible and letting Ford keep the 2.0L as the top engine.

 

If you use the 2.3L everywhere including Fusion, Escape, Edge, Explorer, etc. then you need some other exclusive engine for Lincoln.

 

I'm thinking you have this for Ford:

1.5L EB 2.0L EB 3.5L V6

 

And this for Lincoln:

2.0L EB 2.3L EB (MKC)

2.3L EB 3.7L V6 (MKZ)

 

Not sure where the 2.7L Nano fits in especially if it's NA.

 

It also sounded like the 2.3L was created for Lincoln specifically.

[NickF1011]

I'm not saying the 2.3L is expensive or couldn't be used by Ford versions. But I see Lincoln wanting to differentiate itself from Ford cousins as much as possible and letting Ford keep the 2.0L as the top engine.

 

If you use the 2.3L everywhere including Fusion, Escape, Edge, Explorer, etc. then you need some other exclusive engine for Lincoln.

 

I'm thinking you have this for Ford:

1.5L EB 2.0L EB 3.5L V6

 

And this for Lincoln:

2.0L EB 2.3L EB (MKC)

2.3L EB 3.7L V6 (MKZ)

 

not sure where the 2.7L Nano fits in especially if it's NA.

 

 

MKZ offers the 3.7, so the 2.3L being in the Fusion wouldn't be an issue.

 

MKX offers the 3.7 (or nano V6 as its replacement) so offering the 2.3 in the Edge wouldn't be an issue.

 

There isn't even a Lincoln version of the Explorer yet so no need to even address that currently, but it would be another good application for the nano V6.

 

That really only leaves the Escape. And does the Escape really need the 2.3? 2.0 EB Escape owners seem to think it has plenty of power, so leave it and then keep the 2.3 exclusive to the MKC.

 

 

It also sounded like the 2.3L was created for Lincoln specifically.

 

Seems almost confirmed at this point that it will at the very least show up soon in the Mustang.

[akirby]

It's already in MKC

 

But as the base engine, not as the top engine. 2.0L - top engine in Fusion and Escape, Base engine in MKC and MKZ.

[akirby]

I give up. Ford should just use the same engine everywhere. That will simplify things.

[NickF1011]

I give up. Ford should just use the same engine everywhere. That will simplify things.

 

 

I pretty clearly stated how they wouldn't be.

 

Two vehicles where I think they could run into issues with that though is the Expy/Navi and Mustang/Lincoln coupe (if there is one). Expy and Mustang buyers will demand to have the most powerful engines available in the platform and the Navi and Lincoln coupe lose luxury cred if they don't offer them. Those segments just operate differently.

Edited November 21, 2013 by NickF1011

[Deanh]

 

For "failures" I sure see a lot of Ecoboost Explorers on the road. I wouldn't want one, but I see them a lot.

then their sales person has done them an injustice.................

[92merc]

The 3.0 Duratec was 221 hp/ 208 lb/ft.

 

I believe that was the 3.0 PIP from the Fusion. I think my 2007 Mercury Montego was only 203 hp. Curb weight on my car is 3670 lbs. 0-60mph was about 7.9 seconds.

 

Just a FYI for everyone's comparison.

[Extreme4x4]

Just because the 2.3 is "exclusive" to the MKC, doesn't mean it will be exclusive to Lincoln.

 

Exclusivity will be class specific. Meaning, the Escape will not get that engine. Just like the 3.7L is exclusive to the Lincoln MKZ, because the Fusion doesn't get it.

 

Manufacturers that have different brands rarely have truly "exclusive" engines. Case in point, the Cadillac V-series LSA, which was then used in the Camaro ZL1. You can bet that the current GM TTV6 will show up in some performance application in another of their brands.