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 Crossover SUV Comparison
6743 messages, Last post on Aug 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 8:47 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: elizabeth15 (Aug 29, 2008 9:10 am) Since the V6 only gives up about 1 mpg, I'd actually recommend that engine. You'll be happy to have the extra power when you have a full load. The Rogue's CVT doesn't use fixed ratios, so some even say it has infinite ratios. In truth it varies over a range, from a minimum to a maximum overdrive ratio. In order of performance, I'd say it's RAV4 V6 1st, then Rogue, then RAV4 4 cyl.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 8:37 am) Right. I'm assuming that concept version was maxed out give or take several horses. Since this one might go in the Fusion, Escape, etc. I'd bet it will be de-tuned to around 230-250 HP which is what the new updated 3.0L DT makes. |
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 29, 2008 10:23 am) Here's why - to run on 87 octane the compression ratio has to be lowered, and one way to lower the effective compression ratio is to decrease boost. The catch is you sacrifice power in order to do that. Let's look at corporate partner, Mazda. The CX-7 makes 244 hp but can run on 87 octane. The specific output is a still good 106 hp/liter. The same engine in the MazdaSpeed 3 makes 263hp but requires premium fuel. Specific output is bumped up to 114 hp/liter, not a lot higher but enough that they had to up the fuel octane. So by that math it looks like a 2.0l could make 212 hp or so and still run on regular, but by the time you tune it to make 228hp Ford/Mazda engineers would put a premium fuel requirement on that bad boy. I'd love to be wrong, but I think 230-250hp from 2.0l would require more expensive premium fuel.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 10:29 am) They do say the 3.5L EB will have 340 HP in the MKS and run on 87 octane. So that does fall in line with your numbers because that is 97 HP per liter. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 10:29 am) Whatever happens with Ecoboost in the next couple of years, Ford may go for high MPG instead of all out acceleration capability. That would mean you could equal the performance of a Freestyle (a 4000 lb vehicle) with its 8.5 seconds 0-60 performance level, by using an Ecoboost 1.9L displacement engine, and expect to gain about 2 or 3 MPG over the '05-'07 Freestyle. I don't believe Ford's claim of gaining a full 20% greater MPG with equal power going from a non-aspirated 3.0L Duratec V6 to an equal power 4-cylinder Ecoboost. One way to get around the high-octane requirements of a turbo engine with decent compression ratio for fuel economy and power, is to run a small ethanol tank (2 gallons) next to your 19 gallon gasoline tank, and directly inject ethanol into the engine only when under high load conditions, preventing knock, enabling a high compression ratio for good fuel economy to be designed in. See Ecoboost plus ethanol injection - click here. One nice thing about that concept is that when the ethanol tank runs dry, like it will once in a while, your engine just runs at 3/4 power, but still gets you around until you can find 2 more gallons of ethanol to refill it.
|
|
|
|
| The Lambda clones did great in the www.iihs.org crash tests. In addition to that, their 4,800 lb weight should obliterate almost anything else it hits. In truth, though, the unit body construction with crumple zones should be less harsh on other vehicles than the skewering effects of a low set of frame rails slicing another car in two from body-on-frame SUVs such as the Expedition or Suburban. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 10:21 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 29, 2008 2:11 pm) CR just tested the Cobalt SS and they averaged 22mpg on premium fuel, not terrible but not exactly anything to write home about, and this is an under 3000 lb car. Imagine a 4000+ lb crossover. Their Caliber actually managed 25mpg on regular fuel, so more mileage on cheaper fuel. Hmm, a Dodge Journey SS, anyone? |
|
|
Replying to: tigerlily3 (Aug 29, 2008 5:17 pm) It has a little bit more power than the CR-V, plus it weighs less. The Forester PZEV models make 175hp and it's among the lightest crossovers, so it performs adequately. It's a IIHS Safest Pick, and won 2 comparos in Motor Trend, and earned Consumer Reports highest rating, so the media seems to like it, too. Other strengths include excellent visibility. Weaknesses? The passenger seat is set low, for some reason, and the cup holders are square (why is beyond me). The base engine is not fast - but you can get the turbo XT model, just be ready to pay more and they recommend (not required, but still) premium fuel. |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 GMC Acadia
2008 Mitsubishi Outlander
2009 Subaru Forester
2008 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009 Ford Taurus X
2009 Toyota RAV4
2009 Nissan Rogue
2009 Saturn VUE
2009 Dodge Journey
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
