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
7127 messages, Last post on Nov 28, 2009 at 8:31 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Dec 16, 2008 9:31 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 16, 2008 1:35 pm) Exactly, and that's why they never guaranteed 20% across the board. They did a blanket statement for the tech as a whole stating that 20% gains were possible but when you actually read the literature they tell you that the gains will be a good bit less in some applications. I'm guessing that going from a 5.4L V8 to an EB 3.5L V6 will net larger gains than going from the 4.6L V8 to the EB 3.5L V6 for the F150 for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Dec 17, 2008 10:43 am) One point that should be made. Ecoboost tech doesn't deserve the full 20% on any application. As was pointed out earlier, Ford was holding up their upcoming Ford Explorer and then comparing it to the current Explorer. Only problem is the new Explorer will have a unit body, 6-speed tranny, and will be lighter, all good for about a 5%-10% fuel economy gain without adding Ecoboost. That means the Ecoboost part is good for about a 10% gain. Not bad, but the marketing hype for it is misleading. As I've said before, you need alcohol injection to get a 20% increase in fuel economy in a direct injection turbo application.
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 17, 2008 5:53 pm) You might want to hold off on making statements like that until we all learn of the applications first. There is talk of an EB I4 in the F150 in 2010 or 2011 probably to replace the base 2V 4.6L V8. Since you would be going from a V8 to an I4 in that case the gains very well might be 20% without any other mods to the model as in the case of the Explorer. But we don't know any of this for sure yet so I'll believe their claim until all of the planned applications are announced and tested.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Dec 18, 2008 10:39 am) For the comparison to be valid, the power from the new EB I4 you mentioned needs to be equal (or nearly equal) to the 4.6L V8. I own an '05 F150 with the 4.6L, and it is rated at 231 HP and 293 ft-lbs. OK, you could get to that power level with an EB 4 cylinder of about 2.2L, but you would either need A) add a 6-speed tranny, or B) add alcohol injection, to get a 20% gain. Ecoboost alone won't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 18, 2008 11:37 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 18, 2008 11:43 am) Let's get back to Acura vs. Toyota. RDX owners do complain about gas mileage so the concerns expressed above are valid. Plus you should use premium fuel. Toyota's 2GR V6 is plenty powerful, efficient, and runs on regular fuel. But we're only looking at the engine. I found the interior a bit lacking, and the swinging rear door opens the wrong way, blocking curb side loading. So I prefer the RAV4's powertrain, it's a shame the rest of vehicle isn't as good as the engine. To be honest the CX7 and Forester XT are more comparable to the RAV4, especially when it comes to pricing. |
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 14, 2008 6:48 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aggie10 (Jan 12, 2009 1:44 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aggie10 (Jan 12, 2009 1:44 pm) Just a thought. 
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 GMC Acadia
2010 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009 Ford Taurus X
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Nissan Rogue
2010 Honda Accord Crosstour
2010 Dodge Journey
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
