Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Ford Freestyle Ford Freestyle - Taurus X
7456 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
You are in the Ford Freestyle Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: bdyment (Aug 12, 2008 6:08 am) About the "promise" of Eco-boost: I don't see how you can get 20% greater efficiency out of the Ecoboost concept. The current Mazda CX-7 uses an engine that is very, very similar to Ecoboost right now (smaller 4-cylinder, direct injection, turbo) and it gets terrible MPG!!! If the CX-7 engine was maybe at 1.9L instead of the present 2.3L, you might be able to get about 10% greater MPG, which is about the displacement that Ford will do for Ecoboost in a vehicle that size. But not 20%.
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 13, 2008 9:27 am) There are some airing and I've even seen a billboard or two for the Flex. However, they have not released a full-on media blitz yet. Wait 2 or 3 weeks and you'll be sick of seeing them. 
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 13, 2008 9:41 am) True about the CX-7 FE. Same goes for the Acura RDX, similar engine, terrible FE. However there is one big difference in the EB engines. They have 2 turbos, not one, and they don't work in a traditional TT fashion from what I've gathered. This seems to be something brand new. Here's a video describing the technology. I still haven't seen a good description of how it will save so much fuel, but this is about as good as I've seen so far.
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 13, 2008 6:11 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 13, 2008 6:20 pm) One has to wonder if those two aren't cases of too small an engine trying to push a heavy vehicle and then making it worse by using gearing to improve performance, not FE. The Mazda5 might be guilty of that too.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: volkov (Aug 13, 2008 6:55 pm) Actually the Ecoboost concept would put an even smaller 4-banger in there than the CX-7's 2.3L. Maybe a 1.9L, and a twin turbo, and of course with direct injection as is now. There was one very funny piece of news in this week's print Automotive News magazine: Anti-Ecoboost here all the way! Mazda is reporting they are getting so many complaints about the CX-7 MPG from owners and potential buyers that they now say they will drop the turbocharger so they can raise the nominal compression ratio in the engine, thereby increasing its fuel efficiency! (The Freestyle has a 10.1 compression ratio, high enough for good fuel efficiency, while the current boosted Ecoboost-like CX-7 has a 9.5 ratio because the turbos are present.) Get rid of the turbos, and you can raise the compression ratio to get better MPG, as Mazda will now do. I wonder if Ecoboost will somehow manage to keep the compression ratio high while adding the twin turbos, avoiding knock (detonation) all the while using some trick. I don't see how, at least not without going to something like GM's HCCI diesel-like combustion cycles; not likely. Thats why I just don't understand the whole Ecoboost strategy, since simply by raising the compression ratio a bit, and adding direct injection, into the current Freestyle 3.0L or TaurusX 3.5L V6s which are low-friction, aluminum block lightweight, harmonically balanced 60 degree bank angle V6s for smoothness, you get get a gain of about 15% MPG right there, sans turbo. Does anyone know if the Taurus and TaurusX will survive to see Ecoboost (small direct injected 4-cylinder with twin turbos, maybe 1.9L or so)? If so, then I'll be comparing the MPG to my '05 Freestyle, and possibly equaling Ecoboost MPG, all with the current 203 ft-lbs and 204 hp I have now.
|
|
|
|
|
With the Flex now available, I don't see any reason for Ford to keep the Taurus X in the lineup; in fact, the Flex outsold the Taurus X in July by about 200 units. So I don't think the Taurus X will live long enough to see the EcoBoost engines. FWIW, I just took my new Taurus X on a 200 mile round trip, mostly highway with a lot of long hills, and averaged 28mpg (at least according to the trip computer). That was the true trip average; for about a 30 mile stretch, the trip computer displayed an eye-opening 33mpg - this was with the A/C on, two adults + two kids, and the cruise set at ~68mph. |
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 14, 2008 5:45 am) I've seen a couple of articles which came out within the past week stating that you will not. Nothing is official yet, but it seems the TX and the Mercury Sable are getting the axe after the 2009 MY. If they do survive another year and do get the EB I4 it would most likely be the 2.5L version (not the 1.9L version if that even exists because I thought it was actually 1.6L) which has been confirmed to make something like 250 HP and 240 ft-lbs. If the FE claims are true it would most likely get the same FE as your 3.0L CVT equipped FS while making a good deal more power. Keep in mind that Ford's claims are that a 2.5L EB motor will get 20% better FE than a comparably powered V6 and not the NA 2.5L I4.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 14, 2008 4:56 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 14, 2008 8:07 pm) The very small bump in FE for the new 3.0L is completely due to the 6-speed tranny in the '09 Escape. I'm betting that engine has worse FE than the 200 HP version but it was saddled with a 4-speed tranny so we can't really make an apples to apples comparo of the 2 versions of the engine unfortunately. In fact, if you go to fueleconomy.gov they list the 200 HP '08 Escape V6 4WD as doing 17/22 and the '09 240 HP version (with the 6-speed tranny) doing 17/24. So the improvement is only in the highway mileage. Take that 6-speed tranny away from the '09 and I bet you would see numbers more like 15 or 16 city and 21 or 22 highway. So that means an EB I4 would have to bump the FE up to 20/28 or 29. Seeing that the NA 2.5L I4 in the '09 Escape AWD gets 19/25 I don't see that being unreasonable or a "miracle". The DI alone on the EB engines should get it close to 20/28 I would think.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Ford Freestyle Ford Freestyle - Taurus X
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2007 Ford Freestyle
2009 Ford Taurus X
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
