Bronco reportedly getting 7 Speed matched with 2.7L Ecoboost

[jcartwright99]

3 minutes ago, Deanh said:

?....not a valid comparison....the 2.0 eco in the sedan is fine...the 3.7 in the MKx is fine...the 2.0 in the porky edge isn't, and the 2.3 in the overweight Explorer also isn't....you may be "qualified" but that comparison is mis-construed... 

Jus to add some perspective. I think 2.0 is fine in the Edge, especially a new one. 250hp with 275/torque is more than adequate for a base engine. I had a 2012 Edge with the older 2.0 and it did just fine for family duty. Fully loaded in the mountains, no problem. It did, once it hit 80mph, start to wheeze a bit. How often was I going in my family hauler that fast? Not very often. I can only think that the 8 speed will only help the cause.

[akirby]

4 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

Jus to add some perspective. I think 2.0 is fine in the Edge, especially a new one. 250hp with 275/torque is more than adequate for a base engine. I had a 2012 Edge with the older 2.0 and it did just fine for family duty. Fully loaded in the mountains, no problem. It did, once it hit 80mph, start to wheeze a bit. How often was I going in my family hauler that fast? Not very often. I can only think that the 8 speed will only help the cause.

 

My point exactly.  It’s a perfectly adequate (if not exciting) engine as is the 2.3L in the Explorer.

[Deanh]

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

My point exactly.  It’s a perfectly adequate (if not exciting) engine as is the 2.3L in the Explorer.

maybe that's where we differ.....adequate doesn't cut it for me, its a cop out...the 2.3 should have been in the Edge...maybe a de-tuned 2.7 in the Explorer or a bored 2.3....dunno….its along the lines of the 1.0 in the focus....I just think we are going a little overboard regarding mileage over performance, Im quite ok with losing a couple of MPGs if theres even the slightest of hints of enjoyment...

Edited January 2, 2019 by Deanh

[probowler]

I've known people who have driven rental fords with the base engine and laughed at how slow they were.... Does Ford want to be known as the slow guys?

[Sevensecondsuv]

I'm with Dean - the Ecos are great in the 1000-4000 rpm range but the powerband is limited because the turbo is so small (necessary to get the immediate response at low RPM). This shows up in the engine ratings where the turbo engine makes less hp but more torque than the atmo V6.  The engineers could spec a larger turbo and extend the powerband (and peak number), but then it'd get doggy at low RPM.

The other thing with the turbo engines is high speeds where you need a relatively large amount of continuous power (since power required to counter wind drag is proportional to the cube of velocity). Eventually you hit a speed (around 80mph apparently) where there's not enough displacement to make the requisite power without boost. That's fine, but boost requires extra enrichment which defeats the whole point of "eco" the first place. It also makes the engine feel "winded" because you've got to keep your foot in it.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Sevensecondsuv

[Deanh]

4 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

I'm with Dean - the Ecos are great in the 1000-4000 rpm range but the powerband is limited because the turbo is so small (necessary to get the immediate response at low RPM). This shows up in the engine ratings where the turbo engine makes less hp but more torque than the atmo V6.  The engineers could spec a larger turbo and extend the powerband (and peak number), but then it'd get doggy at low RPM.

The other thing with the turbo engines is high speeds where you need a relatively large amount of continuous power (since power required to counter wind drag is proportional to the cube of velocity). Eventually you hit a speed (around 80mph apparently) where there's not enough displacement to make the requisite power without boost. That's fine, but boost requires extra enrichment which defeats the whole point of "eco" the first place. It also makes the engine feel "winded" because you've got to keep your foot in it.

IMO they are putting the engines in the class above where they should be....the 1.5 should be in the eco-sport, the 2.0 in the Escape, the 2.3 in the Edge, the --- in the Explorer.....that's obviously an opinion, but would quell a LOT of the bad press regarding lethargic power....the weights just kill the performance....

[HotRunrGuy]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

Is it pickuptrucks.com?

That doesn't sound right, but I can't seem to find anything else.  I know what you're talking about though - they always have their tests on that big road that's like "the" test for trucks - can't remember what that's called either lol.

Pickuptrucks.com     Hardly an impartial source, eh?

HRG

[jcartwright99]

 

6 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

Pickuptrucks.com     Hardly an impartial source, eh?

HRG

Actually, if it is the same site that I'm thinking of, yes it's very impartial. I think he founded it but no longer is part of it now, since he got his position at Ford. They actually do a lot of towing tests between the makes, way more than you will see in regular auto mags. They are probably the most exhaustive tests I have seen with trucks.

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

Pickuptrucks.com     Hardly an impartial source, eh?

HRG

 

He created it but walked away in 2011.  So yes, pickuptrucks.com is as impartial as any other source.   Also I never said anything about results, just that they do the kinds of testing that someone else mentioned should be done.

[akirby]

29 minutes ago, Deanh said:

IMO they are putting the engines in the class above where they should be....the 1.5 should be in the eco-sport, the 2.0 in the Escape, the 2.3 in the Edge, the --- in the Explorer.....that's obviously an opinion, but would quell a LOT of the bad press regarding lethargic power....the weights just kill the performance....

I defy you to find more than one source that calls a 2016+ Edge 2.0 or Explorer 2.3 lethargic.

[Deanh]

39 minutes ago, akirby said:

I defy you to find more than one source that calls a 2016+ Edge 2.0 or Explorer 2.3 lethargic.

that's my own seat of the pants...but its also something , in the few articles Ive read, and specifically mid-range, not 0 -60 which has importance to absolutely no-one barring kids thinking they are driving hellcats.....

[92merc]

Ford Edge 2.0 torque 280 ftlbs

Nissan Murano 240 ftlbs

 

[Deanh]

I think several forums ( actual owners ) echo my opinion...Im not sold...I would NOT buy a 2.0 Edge or a 2.3 Explorer if I was in the market for either....not impressed at all....and in all likelihood its to do with excessive curb weights...

[Deanh]

2 minutes ago, 92merc said:

Ford Edge 2.0 torque 280 ftlbs

Nissan Murano 240 ftlbs

 

wouldn't catch me dead in anything Nissan...CVT's...uh uh

[jcartwright99]

1 minute ago, Deanh said:

I think several forums ( actual owners ) echo my opinion...Im not sold...I would NOT buy a 2.0 Edge or a 2.3 Explorer if I was in the market for either....not impressed at all....and in all likelihood its to do with excessive curb weights...

 

Dean,  I think you are like a decent amount on here (we are on a auto forum) and like the extra power. I get that, but most people don't floor their cars at all or even 3/4 of the way down. In my opinion, the base engine are more than enough for 75% of the buyers of the Edge.  Now for towing and maximum performance there is the 2.7. And yes, there are a lot of folks who gladly give up that extra power for more MPG. The take away here, is that we aren't the norm.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I'm hopeful we'll see the 2.7 in the 2020 Explorer. I think we'd have it already but the D4 explorer was a dead man walking by the time the 2.7 came out so Ford didn't bother.

[92merc]

Got a call and left that post short.  But as far as base engines, here's a list.  I've left a few off because I don't consider them the same size as Edge.  Some shorter, some longer.  So I'd consider these the closest.

GMC Acadia  2.5 NA 198 ft lbs

Santa Fe 252 ftlbs, and that's out of a 3.3 NA V6

Honda Pilot 3.5 NA only 262 ftlbs

Sorento 2.4 I4  only 178 ftlbs

Murano 3.5 NA V6 240 ftlbs

Toyota Highlander 2.7 I4 184 ftlbs

SO the Edge with "new" 2.0 beats all the other base engines.  Fine by me.  But I admit I have no skin in the game either...

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Deanh said:

I think several forums ( actual owners ) echo my opinion...Im not sold...I would NOT buy a 2.0 Edge or a 2.3 Explorer if I was in the market for either....not impressed at all....and in all likelihood its to do with excessive curb weights...

2.3 Ecoboost Ranger just smoked Tacoma V6 in a straight line drag, 0-60 mph 7.34 seconds at altitude.

When I think of 2.0 EB Edge, I'm also reminded that Chevrolet  Blazer will have 2.5 I-4 and 3.5 V6 as option

[RPF]

1 hour ago, jcartwright99 said:

 

Dean,  I think you are like a decent amount on here (we are on a auto forum) and like the extra power. I get that, but most people don't floor their cars at all or even 3/4 of the way down. In my opinion, the base engine are more than enough for 75% of the buyers of the Edge.  Now for towing and maximum performance there is the 2.7. And yes, there are a lot of folks who gladly give up that extra power for more MPG. The take away here, is that we aren't the norm.

The 2.7EB is not available in a volume Edge model (like the Titanium), only the ST. If it had been, there would be no complaints. The issue is that all non-ST models are stuck only with the 2.0EB which is not well matched to a higher-end configuration like a Titanium AWD as the 3.5L that was previously available was. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by RPF

[RPF]

On 12/26/2018 at 3:09 PM, akirby said:

Even the 2.0 has more torque than the 3.5L NA.  And you can get the 2.7T which blows it away.   And neither one will kill the engine when the water pump dies.

 

On 12/26/2018 at 5:11 PM, Trader 10 said:

Amen. The 2.0 gives away nothing to the 3.5. Apparently the 3.5 will be discontinued when the Flex and Taurus die. 

 

The 3.5L has significantly more power, 40-50hp worth depending on which variants you are comparing. And far better NVH. And a much stronger transmission. A revised water pump has been installed basically since the introduction of the TiVCT variant which shouldn't dump coolant into the sump.

 

The results of the larger amount of horsepower is far better midrange and passing performance.

 

The 2.0EB was a replacement for the similarly powered 3.0L V6 and in applications where it replaced the latter resulted in better performance and economy. The same can't be said when the 2.0EB replaces a TiVCT Cyclone. The 2.3EB comes much closer to replacing it and should have been an option in the Edge, in particular the heavier AWD models.

Edited January 2, 2019 by RPF

[akirby]

43 minutes ago, RPF said:

The 2.7EB is not available in a volume Edge model (like the Titanium), only the ST. If it had been, there would be no complaints. The issue is that all non-ST models are stuck only with the 2.0EB which is not well matched to a higher-end configuration like a Titanium AWD as the 3.5L that was previously available was. 

 

I agree that the 2.7L (or at least the 2.3) should be available in the Titanium.  Even worse, Nautilus gets the exact same engines.

[akirby]

28 minutes ago, RPF said:

 

 

The 3.5L has significantly more power, 40-50hp worth depending on which variants you are comparing. And far better NVH. And a much stronger transmission. A revised water pump has been installed basically since the introduction of the TiVCT variant which shouldn't dump coolant into the sump.

 

The results of the larger amount of horsepower is far better midrange and passing performance.

 

The 2.0EB was a replacement for the similarly powered 3.0L V6 and in applications where it replaced the latter resulted in better performance and economy. The same can't be said when the 2.0EB replaces a TiVCT Cyclone. The 2.3EB comes much closer to replacing it and should have been an option in the Edge, in particular the heavier AWD models.

 

Power is not just horsepower - the EBs have far more torque off the line.  At higher RPM the NA 3.5L has an advantage but most folks don’t drive in a way that it’s noticeable, whereas the low end torque of the EB is used constantly in normal everyday driving.  I have to basically floor the MKX to get it going from a stop.  Never had to do that with my Fusion and certainly not with my truck.

 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Deanh said:

I think several forums ( actual owners ) echo my opinion...Im not sold...I would NOT buy a 2.0 Edge or a 2.3 Explorer if I was in the market for either....not impressed at all....and in all likelihood its to do with excessive curb weights...

 

That’s funny - I’ve been moderating fordedgeforum.com and the fordfusionforum.com for over 10 years and I’ve only heard a few people who think the 2.0 is inadequate compared to the 3.5L.   I also owned a 2008 Edge with the 3.5L.  

If you don’t like it that’s perfectly fine - no judgement there.  But to imply that everyone feels that way doesn’t jive with other information.

[02MustangGT]

I find it hard to believe that you have to “basically floor the MKX”.  The 3.7 has plenty of power in all applications whereas the 2.0EB not so much.  I have driven Ford vehicles with EB’s over the past several years, love the 2.7 in my the Fusion, but I can also appreciate the fact that the 3.5/3.7 is the best choice in vehicles like the Explorer/Edge/Taurus etc over the 2.0EB.  Just because you have a different opinion or press the accelerator in a different manner doesn’t make you correct.  

[Deanh]

10 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

That’s funny - I’ve been moderating fordedgeforum.com and the fordfusionforum.com for over 10 years and I’ve only heard a few people who think the 2.0 is inadequate compared to the 3.5L.   I also owned a 2008 Edge with the 3.5L.  

If you don’t like it that’s perfectly fine - no judgement there.  But to imply that everyone feels that way doesn’t jive with other information.

my issue is complete lack of mid-range....the 6 is fine, the ecos run out of gas it seems....and Ive been selling them since their intro....lol....the engines themselves are fine, I just think Ford designated thenm to one vehicle up the ladder more than they should have...and the 1.0...that was just a bloody disaster...and soldiers on in the Ecosport , which is being criticized hand over foot for lackadaisical performance...now put 4 adults in it............