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: 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)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: volkov (Aug 16, 2008 4:07 pm) For those saying they think Ecoboost would have been great in the Freestyle/TaurusX, remember you would have to put up with a noisy, thrashy, hot-turbo 4-banger under the hood instead of a smoothe V6. I hope Ford at least uses the advanced denser engine castings for greater durability out of a blown compact high-output 4-cylinder that the Mazda CX-7 (and Mazda3) uses. That would help. It would also be nice if the exhaust valves are sodium-filled like the GM boosted 4-cylinder (Cobalt SS, Sky, Solstice) uses. We'll see what the "wonderfull world of Ecoboost" will do for durability. The crank bearings and turbo bearings on an Ecoboost will go through hell compared to our Freestyle/TaurusX V6, stretching the limits of durability engineering. Ford better mandate the Acura HTO-06 motor oil spec for the new Ecoboost universe. Meeting quality and customer satisfaction goals is going to be tough over the next few years. |
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 16, 2008 4:28 pm) So how did you get to drive one? How was the rest of the drive? Did it accelerate well? Was there turbo lag? Yes, I know you didn't drive one. But you sure made it sound like you did! Toyota will still sell Tundras and Sequoias, just not in very high numbers. Still with a profit. Its easy to make a profit off body-on-frame vehicles. I think you missed the point. Neither of those sold well to begin with and now it will be even worse for them. They built that new plant expecting to sell tons more of both trucks which shows even the mighty Toyota missed the market collapse to an extent. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 16, 2008 4:28 pm) Misconception #1: Turbo charged engines get worse fuel economy than equivalent normally aspirated (n/a) ones. False: For many years Saab produced both turbo charged and n/a versions of the same 2.0l 4-cyl engines. Their cars could be had with either engine. It is well known that the Saab turbo charged cars got BETTER gas mileage. Typically, the n/a ones got about 26mpg highway while the same exact car with the same engine but turbo-charged would get 30mpg. The reason is the turbo recycles exhaust energy that previously was wasted thus increasing efficiency. As long as the boost level is mild to moderate the fuel economy can be enhanced. Where this misconception probably lies is typically most turbo charged vehicles (including the Mazda CX-7) are tuned for ultimate performance. Had Mazda backed off the high levels of boost which also require increased fuel flow, they could have had a 200hp vehicle that got 30mpg on the highway rather than a 225hp vehicle that gets 24mpg. Now that everyone is focusing on fuel economy I trust Ford will do the latter with Ecoboost. Another misconception is that four cylinder turbo motors are somehow thrashy or not smooth. This also is likely due to most modern turbo charged motors being tuned for performance so there are issues like turbo lag, and then when boost comes on it means the power isn't as linear. This can lead to thinking all turbo motors are this way, but once again if tuned for economy rather than ultimate performance there is no reason a turbo charged motor should be any less smooth than a V6. Plus some people think 4-cyl motors in general are thrashy. This may be the case with a n/a engine since you have to wind it up to get much power, but a turbo charged version offers torque down low in the RPM range so you don't have to wind them up. They are much more sedate. Lastly, there are accusations that turbo charged motors aren't durable. I beg to differ. My previous turbo charged Saab was a '97 9000 Aero. I sold it with 180,000 miles on it and it still ran like new. It never had a single engine problem. My current turbo charged Saab is an '01 9-5 wagon. It's a baby with only 163,000 miles on it and like the other never has had an engine problem. I fully intend to keep this car well beyond 200,000 miles. Let's give Ford the benefit of the doubt that they can learn from manufacturers like Saab and pull off an Ecoboost engine that is durable, refined, and highly fuel efficient. - Chad
|
|
|
Replying to: saabturboid (Aug 18, 2008 10:35 am) |
|
|
Replying to: saabturboid (Aug 18, 2008 10:35 am) Did you mean the former maybe? I think you are exactly right. For example, Ford has stated that the 3.5L EB can make up to about 420 HP with similar torque. Since the first vehicles to get it are only going to output 340 HP it seems they are holding back on peak performance in the name of fuel efficiency. Or at least reaching a happy medium anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 18, 2008 5:03 pm) About the Saab turbos getting better MPG than the non-aspirated versions, thats just not true. Take a look at the '94 Saab 9000 turbo and non-turbo, and subject them to the same fuel economy tests to control the variables in order to get the emotions and old wives tales out of the picture, and see the turbo gets 26 MPG on the highway and the non-turbo gets 27 MPG. Close, though. Still, for the modest HP gains Saab got in the turbo 4, that 1 MPG loss could have been achieved with a V6 at similar power (like the Freestyle's V6, which gets better MPG in a much heavier vehicle than the Saab 9000). Also remember with turbos and Ecoboost that you must find a way to keep the compression ratio above 10:1 and have it use regular gas, which is very difficult. Thats why the MazdaCX7 has a compression ratio of 9.5:1, not good for gas mileage, and the Mazda engine still requires premium gas. Turbos also increase exhaust back pressure, further reducing MPG. When all is said and done, the added torque you get from the turbo is more than paid for by high back pressure and low compression ratio, so you don't really get something for nothing. The solution for Ecoboost is to maintain a high compression ratio through use of VVT and direct injection, with the lower internal engine friction of a 4-cylinder helping, too. I don't see how they are going to do it without using some of MIT's alcohol boosting tricks to make Ecoboost actually deliver 20%+ fuel economy gains. See Alcohol boosting of half-sized turbo direct injection engines for fuel economy..click here |
|
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
