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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 15, 2008 9:24 am) Actually, using the '09 Escape, since they are putting in the 6-speed in both 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder versions for the '09 model year, is a good evaulation vehicle for just how much efficiency we have now and what gains we hope to have in a couple of years. Vehicle A: '09 Escape 4-cylinder, 171 hp, 6-speed, 2wd: 20/28 MPG Vehicle B: '09 Escape 6-cylinder, 240 hp, 6-speed, 2wd: 18/26 MPG Ecoboost marketing strategy: For success, an Ecoboost 4-cylinder should equal the power of a 6 cylinder with a gain in MPG over the 6. We know that adding a turbo to a non-aspirated (NA) engine lowers MPG, lets say by 2 MPG hiway and 1 MPG city, assuming you have to drop the nominal compression ratio down to accomodate the turbo. Therefore, vehicle A becomes 19/26 MPG, almost the same as the V6 version vehicle B. But we're not done with the full Ecoboost treatment yet. Now add direct injection (ala Ecoboost strategy) and raise city and hiway by 1 MPG, as we have seen happen in the transition between '08 and '09 models of the Acadia as they add direct injection in those GM vehicles, the best example we have. Now, with direct injection and a turbo added to the 4 cylinder vehicle A, it becomes 20/27. Then, lets give Ford a little credit for adding a twin turbo arrangement in some sort of scheme to minimize energy losses in the turbo system, and also some credit for finding a way to run the Ecoboost on regular gas while raising the compression ratio just a bit. Therefore, add 1 MPG to the city and hiway for this "techno credit bag of tricks", and you have vehicle A getting 21/27 MPG. And finally, add another 1 MPG by simply adding variable valve timing to both intake and exhaust valves, another part of the Ecoboost strategy, and you arrive at 22/29, at around 230 HP in an Ecoboost 4-cylinder. Compared to the non-Ecoboost 6-cylinder, the Ecoboost 4-cylinder would then get 22/29 and the 6-cylinder is at (vehicle B above) 18/26 MPG, giving an increase of about 20%. I do think 20% is achievable, based on the incremental gains you can get. Much more and you run into compression ratio / octane trouble real fast, some physics walls more akin to HCCI stuff which Ford is not doing. Note that Ford might end up with closer to 10% gains (rather than the lofty 20%) if they can't raise compression ratio with clever engineering.
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 15, 2008 3:31 pm)  I still say this is a great strategy they came up with. You don't lose your V6 or V8 power and still get the FE of the smaller engine that everyone else is switching to. Take Toyota for example. They just announced that they will make an I4 available in next year's Highlander. Ford can trump them in a big way by putting an EB engine in their comparable CUVs IMO.
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 15, 2008 4:52 pm) One might argue that even the mighty Toyota got caught out by the changing gas prices and consumer attitudes. Back in its first generation, the Highlander came with the I4 with the v6 coming on the upper tier models or with the 3rd row. I was very surprised when the new model omitted an I4 option. Maybe the added weight of the new model changed their minds or maybe they had assumed that the public would go for the Rav if they wanted better FE. I'd take a Highlander with an I4. The hybrid had been tempting, but came with a significant price premium although some came back with the gov't rebates available. Our cold weather and driving habits would not have been able to get full advantage of the Hybrid which made us balk. An I4 should be cheaper and get better FE. It would likely be a little slow, but I'd be willing to bet it is still better than our first gen Pathfinder was and fine for our city driving needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: volkov (Aug 15, 2008 7:02 pm) As far as a four cylinder Highlander...Toyota heard you: PRESS RELEASE: August 14, 2008 - Torrance, CA - Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., announced today that the 2009 Highlander mid-size sport utility vehicle (SUV) will offer an all-new, powerful yet fuel-efficient 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine. When it arrives at dealerships in mid-to-late January, the new Highlander powerplant will be among the best mid-size SUVs in the areas of performance, fuel economy and value. The new 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine will generate an impressive 187 horsepower at 5,800 RPM and 186 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,100 RPM on regular 87 octane fuel. A dual exhaust manifold will help achieve exceptional low-end torque and maximize its power output. In addition to its performance output, the Highlander equipped with the new four-cylinder will be EPA-rated as an Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEVII) and is expected to be among the leaders in fuel efficiency in the gas mid-size SUV segment. Official EPA fuel efficiency ratings will be announced closer to launch. The rest of the press release is available on autoblog and Toyota's website. |
|
|
Replying to: volkov (Aug 15, 2008 7:02 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 16, 2008 3:22 pm)
|
|
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
