Ask the Car People.SM


2010 Ford Flex With EcoBoost First Drive

24 messages,  Last post on Jul 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM

You are in the Ford Flex Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Flex, Wagon

Messages Page 2 of 3

#4 of 24 Re: Article Comments - 2010 Ford Flex With EcoBoost First Drive [thegraduate] by wwest

Jul 20, 2009 (11:04 am)

Replying to: thegraduate (Jul 20, 2009 8:44 am)
"..Ford did what it needed to do with the EcoBoost series..."
 
NO, Ford did what it thought at the time it needed to do with the TWINFORCE series. Even Cadillac has now abandoned the V8 and Ford knew it had to follow suite. So "now" they had a gas guzzling "TwinForce" V6 engine with V8 POWER that with gas at $4.00 could only be sold to the few "boy-racers" and turboheads out there in the US populace.
 
SFI 3.5L V6 engines are currently producing 250-290 HP. So I would think a 3.0L engine with DFI could do much the same.
 
"...Prius technology isn't cheap..."
 
Ford itself has helped to make it obvious that the gasoline engine, ICE, is not what "makes" a hybrid. Simply retooling the intake system of the Escape's I4 to detune it for use with the Atkinson cycle, 1800's technology, was clearly sufficient enough.
 
No, other than DFI, Ford's TwinForce "technology" is simply a rehashing of "ancient" design techniques existing since the "stone" age. And, clearly, DFI capability can be put to BETTER use.
 
While all of us might wish turbocharging were compatible with the new era of expensive (rare..??) fossil fuels that we are now entering it currently seems improbable. First, there is the catalyst that MUST be kept at highly elevated operational temperatures, and the additional fuel economy, and resulting loss of "waste" exhaust energy, of the Atkinson cycle concept simply cannot be ignored. The problem is that the use of the Atkinson cycle and the catalyst requirements pretty much negates the viability of turbocharging.
 
So lets forget that old obsolete "turbocharging is free" and follow Mazda's Miller cycle lead.
 
"..Since when are you expecting stellar economy from a 2.5 ton vehicle.."
 
Stellar, in a relative sense, relative to the FE the public expected 5 years ago vs today. IMMHO the best thing our government could do is outlaw 0-60 mph advertising.
 
My '01 F/awd RX300 gets ~22MPG hwy with a 3.0L V6 and has a more than satisfactory rate of acceleration. I have little doubt that with a 2.0L 4 cylinder using DFI and extended VVT-i to transition the engine from/through Otto/Atkinson/Miller cycle modes would also suffice.
 
Ford itself has now proven the viability of DFI, and extended VVT-i (Otto to Atkinson mode transition) is now in current use in the Prius and RX450, likely to be soon adopted by Ford for the Escape/Mariner/Tribute hybrids.
 
New technology = Variable speed positive displacement SuperCharging.
 
But then break that down into sub-components.
 
A. Variable speed via CVT drive SC technique used by Studebaker in the mid-fifties.
 
B. Miller cycle used in the Mazda Millennia S.
 
C. E/cvt drive currently in use Prius, HL, RX, Escape, etc.
 
D. Variable frequency AC inverter drive, Toyota HSD A/C compressor drive.
 
Did I miss something...??

#5 of 24 Yet another thought. by wwest

Jul 20, 2009 (12:32 pm)

We had an '85 Jeep Cherokee Limited, Chevy V6 of unknown HP, followed by a '92 Jeep Cherokee Limited, straight 6 of 190 HP. Both with RWD/4WD/4X4 drive modes and I would guess very close to your 2.5 ton weight.
 
Lots of miles on both, winter and summer, throughout the NW, Wa, ID, Or, Mt, lived in a remote "wildness" area some of the time. Never, to my knowledge, used the low range 4X4 mode and never "suffered" from a lack of get up and go. The '92 was "retired" to a cattle and wheat ranch in north central MT, Missouri breaks area, and is still doing stellar duty, often in the back country in 4X4 low mode.
 
~200HP is clearly more than adequate for 98% of the driving public and for serious utility use even in such a vehicle as that. Think about how many Ford explorers have been sold over the years with HP in that very same HP range.
 
Yes, the US buying public always wants "more" for their money and while "more" once applied to HP that is now changing to MORE fuel economy.

#6 of 24 Ford IDIOTS...!! by wwest

Jul 20, 2009 (5:54 pm)

2010 Ford Flex specifications:
 
3.5L 262HP 6-speed AWD, 16/22 city/hwy $33,120.00
 
3.5L 355HP 6-speed AWD, TWINFORCE 16/22 city/hwy $40,120.00
 
So for ~$7000.00 extra you get 93 more horses and absolutely NO extra environmental consciousness.
 

#7 of 24 Re: Article Comments - 2010 Ford Flex With EcoBoost First Drive [thegraduate] by wwest

Jul 20, 2009 (9:56 pm)

Replying to: thegraduate (Jul 20, 2009 8:44 am)
"...the Flex Turbo is a luxury vehicle..."
 
Methinks not even Ford would make that claim...!!
 
They probably wouldn't even dare put a Mercury marque on a "flex" let alone a lincoln one.
 
"...(power being a luxury)..."
 
Not "power" alone, NEVER...!!
 
Or do you mean it's a luxury to be able to afford to fuel a GAS GUZZLER...??
 
And think about this: Ford could have downsized the 3.5L to a 3.0L w/DFI and likely maintained the HP of the 3.5L but with much improved FE.
 
EcoBoost my FOOT...!!

#9 of 24 The END or CAFE...!! by wwest

Jul 25, 2009 (3:43 pm)

First, substantially raise the federal tax on public roadway use fuels. Then advise ALL manufacturers that they must provide a custom engine firmware control REFLASH at the request of the owner/buyer.
 
The reflash would be designed to LIMIT the 0-60MPH time to something reasonable considering the weight of the vehicle. The heavier the vehicle the longer it would take to accelerate from a stop to 60MPH, regardless of actual engine HP. Passing HP, say from 35MPH and up, and subsequent to a period of cruise, would NOT be throttled.
 
Many modern FWD or F/awd vehicles are already doing this, limiting engine torque in the low gear ranges, as a safety matter.
 
A rebate program would reward those who volunteerily had the reflash done by the dealer.
 
Vehicles that already met the new 0-60MPH standard would automatically be eligble for the rebate program. My '93 Ford Ranger PU w/I4/stick for instance.

#10 of 24 Be real by aohurst

Aug 22, 2009 (4:16 pm)

I don't know who you are, wwest, but the majority of Americans don't give a dam* about saving the environment...they want to pay less for filling the tank AND have as much torque and HP as possible...Ford did this with Ecoboost.

#11 of 24 Re: Be real [aohurst] by wwest

Sep 01, 2009 (8:06 am)

Replying to: aohurst (Aug 22, 2009 4:16 pm)
"....the majority of Americans..." "as much torque and HP as possible"
 
Then why would the CLEAR majority of vehicles sold today be FWD or F/awd....???
 
With FWD or F/awd the engine must be dethrottled the INSTANT there is even the slightest indication that TOO MUCH torque or HP is being applied. In point of fact many of these FWD with extraordinary torque/HP levels automatically detune/derate the engine in the lower gear ranges in order to increase their operational safety factor.
 
No, it's only those with the "boy-racer" mentality that want as much torque/HP as possible.

#12 of 24 Ford is in business... by stevedebi

Sep 11, 2009 (6:04 pm)

WITHOUT government bailouts, to supply what the public wants. If they don't want Ecoboost, then they won't buy it and the technology won't proceed.
 
The Flex is designed as a multipurpose vehicle, including towing capabilities, that require torque and HP. I think Ford is doing fine by providing more of both with a smaller engine. The proper comparison is with a larger engine that would provide similar performance.
 
I can't believe some of these posts got by, they are so far off topic, and they don't really provide any discussion of EcoTech at all, just criticisms.

#13 of 24 Re: Ford is in business... [stevedebi] by wwest

Sep 12, 2009 (10:16 am)

Replying to: stevedebi (Sep 11, 2009 6:04 pm)
The point of embarrassment for Ford, IMMHO, is the fact that they didn't bother to adapt the standard V6 ("..smaller engine..") to DFI. But then to have done so would have put the lie to the entire EcoBoost (TwinForce) SHAM marketing program.
 
It should be pretty clear that with the "standard" V6 adapted to DFI it's EPA FE ratings would exceed (20%..??) the DFI/Turbocharged TwinForce 355HP engine.
 
Notice the S..H..O, is now the "sho(w)". No mention is made of "Super High Output" as was done with the original, not exactly PC these days. Stealth marketing of GAS GUZZLERS.

Messages Page 2 of 3

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement