- #2191 of 2770
-
Re: Ecoboost [brucelinc]
by datagen
-
Oct 21, 2008 (10:49 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (Oct 16, 2008 5:22 am)
I think there is something a little misleading here. So far I have not seen anywhere that the ecoboost engine will provide better fuel economy that the 3.7 ltr base engine. I have read that it will provide better fuel economy to other V-8's but not so much on similar V-6 engines out there.
Currently I have a MKS with AWD and it is running between 18.3 and 18.6 in the city. I can see an ecoboost 3.5 doing about 19-21 tops if that.
|
- #2192 of 2770
-
Re: Finally [carolinabob]
by datagen
-
Oct 21, 2008 (11:19 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: carolinabob (Oct 21, 2008 7:00 am)
In truth, the MKS is short for the Mark S
|
- #2193 of 2770
-
Re: Ecoboost [datagen]
by brucelinc
-
Oct 21, 2008 (11:31 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: datagen (Oct 21, 2008 10:49 am)
The link that I posted was the first time I have seen reference to the 25 MPG highway estimate. I agree that they have always talked about the power of a 4.6 V8 but with better mileage than the V8.
Direct Injection should help FE somewhat and the fact that the Ecoboost is slightly smaller in displacement could also help. I would not be shocked to see EPA ratings better on the Ecoboost 3.5 than on the base 3.7. I guess we wait and see.
|
- #2194 of 2770
-
Re: Ecoboost [datagen]
by gregg_vw
-
Oct 21, 2008 (12:39 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: datagen (Oct 21, 2008 10:49 am)
That is what is being said now. The Ecoboost won't just best V8s with similar power. It will apparently get better mileage than the base engine as well.
|
- #2195 of 2770
-
Re: Finally [akirby]
by datagen
-
Oct 21, 2008 (10:18 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Oct 21, 2008 10:20 am)
I would have to admit that I like the names as well. I guess that is why I like the uniqueness of the Zephyr name. I believe if they named the MKS with the Mark S or Mark X (standing for 10) on the car itself, then my tastes buds in the name area would have been satisfied. 
|
- #2196 of 2770
-
Re: Ecoboost [gregg_vw]
by akirby
-
Oct 22, 2008 (5:01 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: gregg_vw (Oct 21, 2008 12:39 pm)
There was a recent direct quote from a Ford rep saying that the 3.5L EB would get better fuel mileage than the base 3.7L, but I don't have the link.
|
- #2197 of 2770
-
Re: Ecoboost [akirby]
by cowbell
-
Oct 22, 2008 (5:19 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Oct 22, 2008 5:01 am)
Here's a post from kickingtires that mentions the ecoboost will get better fuel economy than the 3.7. 25 mpg highway for AWD. As ecoboost will only be available on the AWD models.
"Estimated fuel economy for the MKS with an Ecoboost engine is 25 mpg on the highway. This is only 2 mpg better than the current 3.7-liter V-6 with all-wheel drive, but there is also an extra 67 horsepower under the hood. An all-wheel drive STS with a V-8 is rated at 22 mpg on the highway, and the all-wheel drive Infiniti M45 is rated at 20 mpg. "
kickingtires blog entry
|
- #2198 of 2770
-
Re: Finally [datagen]
by carolinabob
-
Oct 23, 2008 (10:07 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: datagen (Oct 21, 2008 11:19 am)
And the MKK is short for Mark K, MKT is short for Mark T, MKZ is short for Mark Z? Regardless, 99% of people out there do not know that - I didn't and I have test driven one and have brochures and other information on the MKS.
Interesting when you call or visit a dealer and ask about MKS, you have to repeat it a couple of times so they do not think you are talking about one of the other MK's.
Still, I like the car better than I do it's competitors even if it is underpowered in some circumstances.
|
- #2199 of 2770
-
Re: Finally [carolinabob]
by datagen
-
Oct 23, 2008 (11:56 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: carolinabob (Oct 23, 2008 10:07 am)
Where do you feel it is underpowered? I know everyone is different because some are satisfied to be able to merge in traffic, while others are happy only when they are pushed back in there seats like the commercial of the startship. Myself I have yet to find this under power. I have had to put myself in check as going down the highway. Mine seems to drift away from me faster than I anticipate at time.
|
- #2200 of 2770
-
Re: Finally [datagen]
by brucelinc
-
Oct 24, 2008 (7:07 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: datagen (Oct 23, 2008 11:56 am)
Bob hasn't answered yet but I will jump in here. I decided to wait for the Ecoboost because I found the base engine to be not quite competitive in this class and less responsive in mid range and higher speeds than my current car. Up to 50 MPH, the MKS feels pretty decent but after that it is a bit flat.
Drive the MKS back to back with an STS, RL, or ES350 and it just feels lethargic in comparison. There is also a bit more of a labored sound to the engine than I find acceptable in this class. For those who don't care about that, the MKS base engine is fine.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
