ANTAUS Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 http://www.autoblog.com/2014/11/04/2015-ford-edge-pricing-28100/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-Edge#/Models/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Man, a nicely loaded SEL with most options is $41K! I have to try a Ti model and see if there is any difference in price, I hope this isn't another Escape situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinx8402 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-Edge#/Models/ According to this, the Sport is not $500 more than the base model like it says in the article the OP linked to. Which, made no sense any ways. EDIT: Looks like Autoblog updated their article with the right pricing that the '15 sport is $500 more than the '14 sport, not the base model (like akirby mentions below). Edited November 5, 2014 by jinx8402 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 The 2015 Sport is $500 more than the 2014 Sport. Not sure if Edmunds screwed up or Autoblog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-Edge#/Models/ Configurator does not show 2.3 EB... I thought that was going to be available? 2.0 EB FWD SE, SEL, Titanium 2.0 EB AWD SE, SEL, Titanium 3.5 V6 FWD SE, SEL, Titanium 3.5 V6 AWD SE, SEL, Titanium 2.7 EB FWD Sport 2.7 EB AWD Sport Edited November 5, 2014 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Configurator does not show 2.3 EB... I thought that was going to be available? 2.0 EB FWD SE, SEL, Titanium 2.0 EB AWD SE, SEL, Titanium 3.5 V6 FWD SE, SEL, Titanium 3.5 V6 AWD SE, SEL, Titanium 2.7 EB FWD Sport 2.7 EB AWD Sport nope, maybe Lincoln. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Not on the Edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 FWD 2.7EB? Is this going to be detuned from the F150 application? That would be a lot of power to put through the front wheels only, even for a largish CUV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 FWD 2.7EB? Is this going to be detuned from the F150 application? That would be a lot of power to put through the front wheels only, even for a largish CUV. Wow - I had to check the order guide to be sure that wasn't a misprint. It's not. I can't imagine that much power through just the front wheels. I'm sure there is a lot of torque management going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Wow - I had to check the order guide to be sure that wasn't a misprint. It's not. I can't imagine that much power through just the front wheels. I'm sure there is a lot of torque management going on. ? 3.7 Sport right NOW is avail FWd with 305....2.7 isnt that much more...and knowing Ford it will be torque / boost limited in the first two gears...even then I cant find anything pertaining to the 2.7s HP, Im speculating but would guess 325. Edited November 5, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 ? 3.7 Sport right NOW is avail FWd with 305....2.7 isnt that much more...and knowing Ford it will be torque / boost limited in the first two gears...even then I cant find anything pertaining to the 2.7s HP, Im speculating but would guess 325. Dammit - why does everyone keep quoting hp and not torque? 3.7L - 280 lb/ft at 4K rpm (mustang) 2.7L EB - 375 lb/ft at 3K rpm (F150) See a slight difference there Dean? Even detuned it has WAY WAY WAY more torque than the 3.7L and more torque than the previous torque limited 3.5L EB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Dammit - why does everyone keep quoting hp and not torque? 3.7L - 280 lb/ft at 4K rpm (mustang) 2.7L EB - 375 lb/ft at 3K rpm (F150) See a slight difference there Dean? Even detuned it has WAY WAY WAY more torque than the 3.7L and more torque than the previous torque limited 3.5L EB. tell you right now, it wont be 375 in the Edge, I doubt it will even hit 280 in 1st and second gear...sounds like fun though...but I will be curious when they release the CHOKED Edge figures...that damn engine flop or RWD cant come fast enough ( well at least for enthusiasts...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Why would they even use it if they're limiting it to 280 lb/ft? Just use the 3.7L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Why would they even use it if they're limiting it to 280 lb/ft? Just use the 3.7L. upper second gear through the rest of the trans...they torque limit all of their ecos in first and second in FWD configurations, take it from a pi$$ed off St owner ( soon to be rectified with a reflash courtesy of Cobb or Mountune ) Ford will still publish peak of course because they dont have to be gear specific...peak torque in first and/ or second in a FWD coule be pretty scary to the uninitiated... Edited November 5, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Why would they even use it if they're limiting it to 280 lb/ft? Just use the 3.7L. Presumably, as the case with all EB engine - to get better CAFE numbers. If I had to guess, I'd say 2.7 EB in transverse applications will be 300 hp / 300 lb-ft Edited November 5, 2014 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Presumably, as the case with all EB engine - to get better CAFE numbers. If I had to guess, I'd say 2.7 EB in transverse applications will be 300 hp / 300 lb-ft and to alleviate any sudden stress on the transaxles ( read implosion ), not to mention torque steer....even the 3.7 FWD has that if driven in a feisty manner.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Presumably, as the case with all EB engine - to get better CAFE numbers. If I had to guess, I'd say 2.7 EB in transverse applications will be 300 hp / 300 lb-ft That would be even more stupid since the 2.3L EB puts out 285/300. I'm sure it has some torque management but they must have figured out how to get more power to the front wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 First Look..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Way cool, can't wait to see what the 2.7L produces. I LOVED our 09 Edge, perfect vehicle that ran like a top and had zero issues. I traded it in to Deanh for the Fusion. I hope the new owners enjoy it much as we did. 1 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.