By on July 26, 2010

Last week, the big news coming out of Ford was that the new Lincoln MKZ would be available with a hybrid drivetrain as a no-cost option. With Mercury on its way out, and Lincoln struggling to carve out a niche in the luxury space, that move made a certain amount of sense at the time. What we didn’t know until today is that the “free” hybrid option on the MKZ was only Ford’s opening salvo on the status quo of automotive drivetrain option pricing. Today, with the 2011 Explorer dominating the news cycle, Ford has announced its latest head-scratcher: making the four-cylinder “Ecoboost” engine option more expensive than the more powerful standard V6. Yes, really.

The 2011 Explorer’s base engine is a 290 HP, 255 lb-ft, 3.5 liter Duratec V6, essentially an un-turbocharged version of the Ecoboost V6 found in the Taurus SHO. Ford hasn’t released EPA numbers for either version of the Explorer, but says that the base model should get better fuel economy than the Honda Pilot, which gets 17/23 in 2WD trim, and 16/22 in 4wd trim. Ford hasn’t released pricing for the new Explorer, but it’s telling Automotive News [sub] that the optional engine, a 2.0 liter Ecoboost-branded turbocharged four-cylinder will be more expensive.

And what do you get for more money? To put it simply: less. Less power, for one thing. The Ecoboost engine offers 237 hp (down 53 hp to the V6), and 250 lb-ft, a mere 5 lb-ft reduction. The Ecoboost also offers less need to rev, with peak torque arriving as low as 1,700 RPM. But the most important area in which the Ecoboost engine delivers less, is in fuel consumption. According to Ford, the Ecoboost two-liter Explorer will return similar fuel economy to a V6 Toyota Camry, which means fuel economy should improve to around 19/26 [Ford PDF on both engines here]. Those numbers are, in a nutshell, why Ford has decided to take the barely-precedented step of charging more for an optional four-cylinder than the standard V6.

But how much more will Ford charge for the extra several miles per gallon? There’s no official word yet, but Ford charges a $3,000 to $6,000 premium for Ecoboost-equipped versions of its Flex CUV [UPDATE: Ford has released pricing for non-Ecoboost Explorer here]. On the other hand, those vehicles offer more horsepower from their turbocharged V6 than their corresponding base models, so that premium makes some sense. Also, in yet another break from past engine-option practice, Ford will not require AWD on Ecoboost-equipped Explorers. These factors should conspire to keep the Ecoboost premium lower for the Explorer than the Flex, although there could be a non-financial cost to choosing the Ecoboost four on a new Explorer: towing. Ford says the standard Explorer will tow 5,500 lbs “when properly equipped.” The Ecoboost version has not yet been tow-rated, and though it’s down only 5 lb-ft of torque, it could well receive a lower rating than the standard Explorer.

All of which leads to a pretty crucial question: who buys a vehicle like the Explorer if they’re willing to pay more and potentially give up capability for improved fuel economy? Ford refuses to take the question head-on, preferring to make the Ecoboost option about rehabilitating the Explorer nameplate after its front-and-center role in the excesses of the SUV era. Ford’s Chief Engineer Jim Holland tells AN [sub]:

We really want to make a statement that the old baggage on fuel economy with the Explorer is gone. To get great fuel economy it takes technology, and it’s our view that people will pay for that… The impact of rising gas prices has really stuck with people. People now buy more expensive light bulbs to be more efficient. We’re moving to a point where people make the choice to be more responsible

Lightbulbs are one thing, cars are another. Sure, we can see that America is downsizing, but consumers still have yet to be asked to pay more for a non-hybrid but more fuel-efficient drivetrain, when more power is available in the same vehicle for cheaper. If Ford can get consumers to understand and accept the notion that downsized and turbocharged engines are worth a modest premium, they’ll steal yet another march on their competitors. If not, and Americans ignore the Ecoboost Explorer in favor of its cheaper, more-powerful cousin, Ford may well retreat from the Ecoboost premium altogether, and offer the V6 and Turbo-Four at the same price.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

98 Comments on “Ford Exploring Counterintuitive Engine Pricing...”


  • avatar
    dwford

    The Ecoboost is going to need to be better than 19/26 to justify any sort of price premium.

    I see this as a test case. If Ford were really confident that this motor could replace a V6 in this size a vehicle, they would have made it as the standard motor or even as the only motor.

    The day is coming for that, with the new CAFE rules only a few years away.

    • 0 avatar
      SupaMan

      +1

      With supposed EPA numbers like that, I doubt people opting for the base V6 will miss much of the mileage boost (no pun) that the Ecoboost engine gives.

      It’s going to have to a lot better to justify a premium (Spanish manufacturing notwithstanding).

  • avatar

    I should have blogged the MKZ BS. The hybrid is a four, while the base engine is a V6. In the Fusion, the 3.0 V6 costs $1,600. Figure another $1,000 for the 3.5, and they’re essentially charging $2,600 for the hybrid bits.

    With the Explorer, the premium for the EcoBoost won’t be nearly $3,000 for the same reason. If we figure $2,600 for the 3.5 vs. the base four, then $3,000 for the EcoBoost treatment, we’d have an option price around $400. But, frankly, this should not be necessary. The EcoBoost four has one turbo rather than two, and is generally less complex than the turbo V6. So, in my mind, a $2,000 premium would be more appropriate. This would put it about $600 under the V6.

    • 0 avatar

      I may contribute some information to True Delta on the Lincoln MKS Ecoboost Mike.

      My uncle bought his FULLY LOADED and BRAND NEW, just a couple of months ago.

      It ended up in the shop two weeks ago and Ford worked on it for about a week while he tooled around in a loaner Dodge Avenger.

      I bet the reason the Ecoboost is more expensive is because the V6 is an older model and easier to produce while the Ecoboost is higher maintenance and more parts.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Mike,
      You more thank likely know of my MKS, so you know I love the car, love the engine.
      I was soooo looking forward to this new vehicle but am let down.
      Z the troll has been throwing his feces around, but he might actually have hit something with his post in the earlier Explorer news…that is what is this thing?
      It has parts of all the Ford line up, including the Taurus and TaurusX’s roof line.

      I mean it is EXPENSIVE and underpowered for the same chassis as the MKS, Taurus or Flex.
      These are all heavy hunks and to limit this one to a single turbo and then make it so it can’t tow is dumb.

      WHY buy this over the Flex w/ecoboost? It comes to nearly the same money, only less power, size and capability!

      I am very confused.

  • avatar
    carguy

    We can only speculate on the price difference until Ford releases the official prices. The 2 liter turbo makes a lot of sense since most Explorers are urban runabouts but I would have expected that it would be the entry level engine or a no-cost option.

  • avatar
    jj99

    Left this comment in another article, but this looks like the correct place for my concern about the 4 cylinder pricing vs. the Highlander.

    Car looks good. 2 major problems:

    1) PRICING – Toyota Highlander that seats 7 with a 4 cylinder can be purchased in the high 24,000s on the east coast. That vehicle scores 27 MPG on the highway, and 20 in the city. Explorer price starts higher than this, and the 4 cylinder option makes the price even higher. Explorer pricing is many thousands too high to get the same mileage as the Highlander.

    2) RELIABILITY – In the latest Consumer Reports used car guide available now at your local bookstore, Ford Flex and Edge rank poorly. Highlander and Pilot get top grades. Since Flex is the same as Explorer, it is hard to imagine someone paying a higher price for an Explorer over Highlander and Pilot since Ford has not proven long term reliability and durability. Ford products only seem to do well until 3 years if the data I see is correct.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Jj –

      The Highlander has a NA 4 that makes quite a bit less power and torque than the Ford EB 4 cylinder. I can see people paying extra for more power with the same mileage. The problem is going to be the EB 4 vs the V6 – will people pay more for less power and better mileage. They already do with hybrids, but will Ford be able to get the message to enough people that high technology fuel efficient engines that aren’t hybrid are just a cool and ‘green’ and worth spending the extra money on?

      As far a reliability goes, CR is a pile of crap. The Flex has been a very reliable vehicle with no major issues. The first of the ‘new’ Fords, the ’06 Fusion, is still tracking very well with reliability now in its 5th year, and the original Edges are doing well too. The message is effectively getting out that current Ford products are just a reliable long term as Honda or Toyota.

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      NM, I hear people say that Ford is as good as Toyota and Honda. I hear this all the time in sales pitches. But, there is no data available that proves this. Consumer Reports is the only data I have seen showing how vehicles hold up in the long term, like between 5 and 10 years. All the other reports seem to end at 3 years. I find this to be a problem for Ford. If Ford actually had the Toyota/Honda like reliability in the 5 to 10 year range, I would expect Ford to run out and pay a firm to collect the data in order to counter the Consumer Reports data. But, Ford never does that. Instead, they keep showing the world reliability reports that end at 3 years. Makes all of us on the east coast wonder about Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      NM, one more comment. On the east coast, I can not remember the last time someone who purchased a Toyota or Honda knew what the horsepower was. No one cares about such things. What people care about is reliability, durability, and low cost of ownership which means high gas mileage.

      Only gear heads, and there are not many of those on the east coast, care about horsepower.

    • 0 avatar
      drivebywire

      The Highlander is a “Camry on stilts”.
      The Pilot is an Odyssey, full-stop.

      Also the phrase “7 passenger Highlander” is hilarious to anyone who attempts to fit their arse in the 2nd row center seat. It’s a 6 passenger. My 5-year-old couldn’t fit there.

      These vehicles just aren’t an apples-to-apples comparison with the Explorer.

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      drivebywire, I think the Explorer is a direct compare to Highlander and Pilot.

      I also think if it was priced correctly, it might pick off some Toyota and Honda loyalists.

      However, at the excessive Explorer price tag, Explorer will still sell, however the main buyer will be Toyota/Honda haters that are willing to overpay for a vehicle because they would never buy a Toyota or Honda. If Ford really wants to be a player on the world stage, like Toyota, they need to move beyond that by pricing their vehicles correctly.

      If Ford’s overhead is too high to price these vehicles lower, Mr Mullay has a serious problem.

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      @NulloModo: Consumer Reports isn’t “a pile of crap” however much enthusiasts may want that to be so.

      But the Flex and Edge didn’t rank “poorly” by any means, so I don’t know what “Consumer Reports” you’re looking at jj99. The Edge did middling in road testing, granted, but it’s scored consistently well reliability-wise. The Flex rated higher than the Pilot in CR’s road test and only 4pts lower than the Highlander, and has also been ranked average (not poor) in reliability. The EcoBoost ranked higher than both but is also much more expensive.

      As for used rankings, the Flex has “average” used reliability and the Edge is “very good” for FWD, as well as “fair” from 2007-08 and “very good” in 2009 for AWD. So apart from some earlier problems with the Edge’s AWD system, both cars seem to be doing well, not “poorly”.

      Ford’s long-term durability is not as proven as Toyota’s and Honda’s, but it’s become common knowledge that they’ve made huge strides in the last few years and are now pretty solid buys. Witness the large increases in Fusion and Taurus sales of late. Additionally Toyota’s stumbles, whether actually mechanical in nature or not, have undoubtedly tarnished their reputation for peerless quality and make cross-shopping a Highlander and Explorer less outrageous than you make it seem.

      Pricing is another matter; Explorer and Highlander V6 prices are about $400 apart (4-cylinder Highlanders start at $26,000, by the way; who knows what discounts on the Explorer will be like so let’s just leave the “best deal prices” out). If the Ecoboost really is more expensive than the V6, then I think Ford is smoking something, but as it is the price and reliability differences are nowhere near as great as you make it seem.

      It should also be pointed out that the Explorer is a larger and thus roomier vehicle than either the Highlander or Pilot, with a similar price and similar fuel economy. Whatever the average customer thinks of horsepower or reputation, that value for money will make the Explorer an attractive proposition for many people.

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      SV, I disagree. Neither the Flex nor Edge was recommended as a used car by consumer reports. In my mind, if Consumer Reports will not recommend one of those used, then it is something I do not want because Flex and Edge owners reported too many reilability problems to Consumer Reports. Pilot sports a CR Recommended rating, while Highlander has the same rating. Note, the highlander rating was removed for a while when the recall stupidity was in full force.

      On to pricing. It appears that the list price of Explorer starts 3000 higher than Highlander. Standard in the Highlander is the highest mileage version with bullet proof reliability. On the Explorer price tag, you need to add some number of thousands to get the same mileage as the highlander. So, I guess a 4000 to 5000 difference in price in order to get a 4 cylinder in each vehicle.

      4000 to 5000 dollars is a lot of money to most people that struggle with massive east coast style house payments. This is a big difference.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      SV –

      If I’m going to buy a washing machine, I’ll glance at consumer reports, but for a car, their ratings system seems completey arbitrary and back-asswards.

      JJ –

      I never sold cars up in the northeast, but Plenty of people down here on the gulf coast still care about hp.

      CR requires a model to be around for a certain period of time before it can appear in the usedcsr guide, I know the Flex hasn’t been around long enough, I’m not see about the Edge. I trust MK’s data a lot more than the idiot editors over at CR though, and it shows the Edge and Flex doing very well. A lot of Ford’s quality progress has been over the last several years. It’s going to be another several years before there is any long term data on current models, but te early data is all promising.

      The Edge is the natural competitor to the Highlander anyway, not the Explorer.

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      jj99 – I will agree that Ford’s reliability isn’t quite up to the level of Toyota and Honda – yet. But as far as I know, CR Recommended ratings only apply to new cars; the closest thing CR does for used cars is their “Best and Worst” list, which only includes the two extremes of the spectrum by definition. Ford’s overall reliability right now is more in the upper-middle area of the bell curve, and improving. As it is it’s good enough for most people to take the plunge. (And for what it’s worth, both the Edge and Flex ARE recommended by CR)

      As for pricing, your $4000-5000 difference is baseless speculation and nothing more. The Highlander starts at $26,000, the Explorer starts at $28,000. However, that’s the Highlander 4-cylinder versus the Explorer V6, with a more than 100 horsepower difference (and whether or not most people care about the numbers, they will notice the huge difference in pickup/throttle response). We don’t know what the EcoBoost’s pricing will be, so it’s useless to compare it to the Highlander I4 at this point. As it is, comparing the most similar Highlander and Explorer models (that’s base, V6), you’re left with a price difference of less than $500, similar fuel economy, and a probably notable difference in interior space in favor of the Explorer.

      I’d also like to add that the United States doesn’t just consist of the east coast.

      NM – Agree to disagree, I guess. I consider CR a good place to start from, if not the end-all-be-all. A test drive is always required to determine which car suits you best.

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      SV, Consumer Reports does award a CR Recommended rating for used cars. These ratings are based on the number of problems reported by consumers. Flex and Edge vehicles failed to get a CR Recommended rating for used vehicles, while Pilot and Highlander were awarded CR Recommended rating. Since you are not aware of this, here is the link so you can order the publication. If my memory serves me correct, only two fords were rated as good used cars, and that was the mustang and fusion … but you best check this out yourself. It has been a month since I saw this guide at the bookstore.

      It is called Used Car Buying Guide for 2010 from Consumer Reports.

      http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/book-store/products-by-category/cars/index.htm

      On pricing, it appears the Highlander starts at 2500 less then the Explorer. My 3000 estimate was off by 500. And if you want to get an explorer that gets the same mileage as the 4 cylinder highlander, you need to pay more for the explorer, so my new estimate is the 4 cylinder highlander is around 3500 to 4500 less expensive than the 4 cylinder explorer.

      FYI, it is possible to purchase a 4 cylinder highlander from dealers on the east coast for the high 24s before plates and taxes. I think the sticker is a few thousand higher. The deals have been better ever since the recall nonsense.

      Most people I know do not know or care about the horsepower or number of cylinders. We care about the price, reliability, durability, mileage, and cost of ownership. No one cares except for gear heads from long ago. I think Detroit makes a big mistake thinking we care about the number of cylinders, horsepower, or turbo chargers. Perhaps in Detroit, this is the case, but not here.

      On looks, I think the Explorer looks as good as the Highlander, and the interior appears to be as nice.

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      Like I said, they may not care about the actual number, but the 100 horsepower difference between the 4-cyl Highlander and V6 Explorer will be very noticeable when driving it. The EcoBoost will have similar pickup to the V6 I imagine (similar torque rating).

      Your speculation about the 4-cyl Highlander being 3500-4500 cheaper than the EcoBoost Explorer is still baseless as we don’t know how much the EcoBoost Explorer will cost. I think the EB4 will have at most a $1000 premium over the FWD V6, but the difference may be as small as a few hundred bucks. Either way, I do think the 4-cylinder should be cheaper, but that’s Ford’s loss, I guess.

      I subscribe to CR and check their website regularly, but the used cars book isn’t part of the subscription so I haven’t seen it. I’ll check it out next time I’m at the bookstore. Even so, I think most buyers (“east coast” or not) look at CR’s new car ratings when shopping for a new car, and if we’re talking about that then the Edge and Flex are both recommended as I expect the Explorer will be. Also, the Edge features on CR’s “Best used vehicles under $20,000″ list on their website, which seems like a pretty solid recommendation to me.

      Your east coast market is only one part of the US, a big part but still far from the entire American market.

    • 0 avatar
      The Walking Eye

      jj99 -

      Re: hp, reliability, etc.

      Go away from the (north)east coast and you’ll definitely find that people care about hp and engines just as much as reliability and whatnot. That’s why the companies tout their hp numbers in their ads, especially trucks. Nissan has for years heavily advertised the Maxima’s numbers.

      Toyota’s known for their reliability, and they use that in their ads for cars. Someone buys a Toyota because they want an appliance to drive around that’s comfortable, reliable, and won’t cost them an arm and a leg at the pump while paying a premium for the name. The rest of us buy what we think looks good and suits our needs and wants, and that’s quite a few people who are not simply buying an appliance.

    • 0 avatar
      Norma

      First year products from the Chicago plant have lots of reliability issues including transmission, fuel supply, suspension and brakes, power accessories, wind noises and water leaks.

      The 2007 Edge was first classified as better than average in reliabilty by CR in 2008. In 2009, it became avarge in reliabilty. In 2010, it (together with 2008 Edge) falls to below average in reliabilty. Do I see a trend here?

    • 0 avatar
      Norma

      “The Highlander is a “Camry on stilts”.
      The Pilot is an Odyssey”

      DBW – the new Explorer is simply a Taurus pretending to be a truck. Fullstop.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Norma –

      Working with these cars every day, I have yet to hear of any widespread transmission, fuel system, electrical system, or water leaks on Chicago Assembly vehicles.

      Looking at Truedelta it does look like there has been a spike in Edge issues with the 2010 model (and the Edge isn’t even built in Chicago), but reading the reports it is all minor stuff like weather stripping, or things that aren’t really manufacturer related like dings in the paint (or bumper damage from being rear ended that one guy claimed, how is that a manufacturer’s problem? ).

      Chicago did have some teething issues with some of the 2009 vehicles, and there were some loose trim bits and other minor annoyances that were easily fixed under warranty early on. I haven’t seem these same issues popping up in 2010 or 2011 models.

      The current 2010 Flex (also not a Chicago car, but whatever) is showing less problems than the Honda Pilot, and a statistically negligible deviation from the Toyota Highlander.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      You can argue as to whether CR’s data is as good as something like True Delta or not; you could make a case (of sorts) either way. But when it comes to their suggestions and what is important or not, they are totally out of their element. I am not talking about compiling safety records; a monkey can do that. When a tester considers how many bags sit in the trunk and the nice soft ride, well that speaks for itself. Ask any hobbyist if they consider CR for their (Bikes, cameras, computers, pick whatever) and they will laugh in your face. There’s a reason for that. Cars are no different.

    • 0 avatar
      jimmyy

      consumerreports.org collects data from owners, tabulates them, then reports the data. unless the owners are all lying about their cars, the procedure seems sound.

      in my own experience, i started purchasing asian cars about 7 years ago when i was fed up with repair bills on my domestic cars … transmissions, lower ball joints, rusted brake lines, the list goes on and on. i switched to asian because of consumerreports.org.

      i have 2 toyota and 1 honda. only tires, oil changes, and brake pads. nothing else. nothing. not a single warraty claim. one toyota ( camry ) is at 180,000 miles and going strong.

      i would switch back to a domestic, but if i do, i will buy the extended warranty. otherwise, i would be worried.

      results speak for themselves.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      The current 2010 Flex (also not a Chicago car, but whatever) is showing less problems than the Honda Pilot, and a statistically negligible deviation from the Toyota Highlander.

      How are the Pilot sales for this year. I bet they are not nearly as horrid as the Flex sales.

      Less sales = less complaints.

    • 0 avatar
      Norma

      NM -

      Where did I say Ford Flex is produced in Chicago?
      Go read my post again and don’t jump to conclusion and put word in my mouth.

    • 0 avatar
      Len_A

      jj99, your pricing comparison with the Highlander is somewhat invalid at this point because I don’t think 2011 Highlander pricing is out yet. Edmunds doesn’t have it, NADA doesn’t have it.

      That said, 2011 Explorer competes very well against Highlander.

      Explorer has more front headroom than Highlander, with or without a moonroof. Highlander not only has less headroom, but loses even more with a moonroof. Explorer beats Highlander in rear headroom as well.

      Explorer has more Front and second row shoulder and hip room as well. Highlander only beats Explorer in third row shoulder and hip room.

      Explorer beats Highlander in leg room, hands down. All rows.

      Highlander has more cargo room with the second and third row folded down, but Explorer has a lot more cargo room behind the second row, and if both vehicles have six or seven passengers, Explorer still has a full-size-car-like 21 cubic feet of cargo room, while Highlander barely has over 10 cubic feet with all three rows occupied.

      Then Ford’s Sync and their navigation is generations ahead of anything Toyota, or any other automaker, has.

      Then we get to reliability. You keep harping on Consumer Reports. Well, sport, CR recommends the Ford Taurus. Guess what? The 2011 Explorer is a) based on the Taurus platform and b) built in the same assembly plant as Taurus, in Chicago.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Norma –

      Where did I say that you said it?

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Well, the trick here will be whether or not Ford is able to deliver on the “performance” for the price premium, whatever it is. Under traditional pricing of optional engines (for more horsepower and/or torque), 5 minutes’ of driving with the optional engine will reveal the benefits of what you’re paying for. Not so, if the added performance is fuel economy.

    What’s worse is that some turboed fours in SUV/CUV vehicles (think Acura RDX) reportedly greatly underperform their EPA numbers in real-world driving situations. The RDX is not a big seller for Acura, even though its low-rent Honda CRV cousin is doing pretty well.

    It’s been pretty well established that people will pay a premium for hybrid powertrains, when they produce dramatic fuel economy improvements. But, in the US at least, even diesel engines — with their similar dramatic fuel economy improvements — are a tough sell. Just ask BMW how many 335d’s they’ve sold in the US, even with $4,500 on the hood. But a premium for a gas engine that produces 2-3 mpg of EPA-rated mileage improvement doesn’t sound like an attractive proposition to me.

    • 0 avatar
      thebeelzebubtrigger

      DC Bruce: “What’s worse is that some turboed fours in SUV/CUV vehicles (think Acura RDX) reportedly greatly underperform their EPA numbers in real-world driving situations.”

      +1
      It’s a myth that less displacement automatically means better mileage. Thrashing a small engine at the limit of its ability makes for piss poor mileage. Once I owned a ’64 Cadillac Coupe de Ville with the 429 c.i. V8 and it got amazingly good mileage on the highway — over 20 MPG — but only when cruising at 70 MPH or higher. At a steady 85 MPH I got around 23 MPG.

      Maybe the EB4 will work for people who drive like they’ve had a lobotomy (most people, here in the Atlanta area), but for an enthusiastic driver it’s likely the V6 will give better mileage.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    I’m noticing a car based people mover in the above photo that has been very carefully parked to avoid both dirt mounds and rocks from ripping away the undercarriage.

    These soft roaders get softer with each new generation. I know the Toyota Venza is low to the row – but I wonder if the Highlander is this low to ground as well?

    • 0 avatar
      thebeelzebubtrigger

      Well, yeah — “CUV” just means station wagon AFAICT. For some stupid reason most people don’t want the image of a station wagon, so they make it look it look like a truck and that sells. But I remember when the Wagoneer and the Travelall were the only “SUVs”, and back then we just called ‘em station wagons (because that’s really what they are).

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    The EB 4 is going to be a hard sell here unless the
    mileage is amazing. If the prices were equal, it would make more sense. Hopefully the Explorer gets the 3.5 EB quickly.

    Ford has said they want to aim these EB engines as premium options, and even plan on having the 3.5 EB be a added cost option on the F150 over a V8. Maybe this announcement with the Explorer is a way to test the waters to see how people will react.

  • avatar
    TEXN3

    I believe it’s either to help meet CAFE regs on highway economy, or just a marketing ploy to prove that consumers will not purchase the smaller, more efficient motor. Then automakers can show that a smaller, more efficient motor is not worth selling and the regulations are BS. With all of that said, this motor should be in the Fusion.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      +1 TEXN3. I think Ford is trying to smoke out the buyers (vs. talkers) who claim to value fuel economy over power. Ford can now claim to offer a more efficient, high tech engine with a small price premium. If people buy, Ford is on the cutting edge. If people don’t, they can say “we tried, the public didn’t buy” and perhaps argue that the new CAFE standards don’t match what the public really desires and is willing to pay for.

      Smart politics and smart marketing.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Well, this is hard to figure either way. With CAFE headed for tougher numbers, you would think that the engine with the worse numbers would cost more. As a source of data to support the proposition that folks don’t want to buy slugs . . . well, there’s already plenty of data to support, and the people pushing for higher CAFE numbers don’t care about what folks want to buy. They know what’s good for the public, even if the public doesn’t.

      The smaller displacement engine will use less fuel idling and, if the ECM is programmed for aggressive upshifts, the engine may spend a lot of time closer to WOT at low RPMs, modulating turbo boost to affect power delivery in response to driver input. This reducing pumping losses as compared to running at smaller throttle openings and higher rpms to get the same engine output. My Saab turbo (auto) spins at less than 2,000 rpm at 60 mph. If I use more go-pedal, the boost just kicks up (Saab has a cool little gauge) unless I’m really insistent (or I’m running in “sport mode”), in which case the tranny shifts down. By contrast, my normally aspirated 3.5 liter Pilot runs about the same engine rpm at the same speed, but drops a gear very quickly if I ask for any acceleration. The turbo 4 in the Saab is rated at 10 HP more than the 3.5 liter V-6 in the Pilot. On a very good day, I can get 22 mpg on the highway in the AWD Pilot; under the same conditions I can easily do 30 mpg in the Saab. Of course the Pilot is more or less an aerodynamic brick and weighs some 800 lbs. more than the Saab.

      But certainly, regardless of the engine, if the additional performance is there and the driver elects to use it, then fuel economy isn’t going to be great.

  • avatar
    Orangutan

    Pricing has been released on the Ford website:

    http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorer/2011/pricing/

    Base: $28,190
    XLT: $31,190
    Limited: $37,190

    Those prices are for FWD, V6 versions. If you Build Your Own you can find out the AWD prices -

    Base: $30,190
    XLT: $33,190
    Limited: $39,190

    They also give you pricing on a variety of options and packages, but not on the 2.0T engine. They tell you it’s available on all trims as an option but don’t let you build it.

    It’s interesting that they’re saying the Ecoboost 2.0T is going to offer 19/26 with FWD, which would only make sense if those numbers are better than the V6. But the 2011 Edge was just EPA certified at 19/27 with FWD with the same 3.5 V6 (albeit in a different state of tune) as the Explorer. That tells me the V6 figures for the Explorer will be like the Flex: 17/24 FWD and 16/22 AWD. Once again the Edge trumps them both with numbers of 18/26 with AWD.

    Now, those numbers for the Edge are interesting because they vary depending on model. The Sport with the 3.7 naturally achieves lower figures of 18/25 and 17/23 but the SE with the 3.5 V6 is rated at 19/26 and 18/25. Only the SEL and Limited models earn the higher fuel economy numbers I listed above.

  • avatar
    mtr2car1

    Noted elsewhere…you can only get EB on front wheel drive, people that want fwd are probably not big into towing 5000 or 2000 or 7000 lbs anyway so you’re really talking about a (yet unknown) premium of the EB fwd vs. the 3.5 fwd.

    Why not? It’s a small slice to play with and Jim Holland might actually be right.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    I don’t know if many Americans will be willing to pay a near-grand premium for nothing more than improved fuel economy, and no AWD. Sounds like a tough sell (like the Energy Bill…)

    I wonder if they’re engineering the next Fusion and Escape as 4-cylinder only vehicles, as Hyundai has done with its Sonata and Tucson…thus retiring the ol’ Duratec V6.

    This EB4 sounds like a perfect base (or sole) engine choice for these smaller models.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m interested if Ford is looking into combining the Duratec 35 and 37 lines. There seems to be a lot of power overlap between the two these days.

    Also, are the Taurus and Fusion Sport going to receive the 290hp tune of the Duratec 35?

  • avatar

    I wonder if the Eddie Bauer option will carry on: then we can have four-banger Explorers that are EB x2. Or EB squared.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Eddie Bauer is dead as of 2011 models. There is no
      mention of it on the Explorer order guides, and for 2011 the Eddie Bauer trim on the Expedition has been renamed the XLT Premium Package.

      Mr. Bauer had a nice run with Ford, but now he must take his place with Cartier and Bill Blass in the hall of branding partners past.

    • 0 avatar
      Richard Chen

      IIRC Eddie Bauer is not exactly the best brand these days to hitch your wagon onto. The holding company ended up having to go Chapter 11 last year.

    • 0 avatar

      That is somewhat disappointing, but fair. I shall blame the EB Taurus X for Mr. Bauer’s financial woes: hitching onto that wagon (literally) wasn’t a very bright idea at all.

      I expect the King Ranch Explorer to take up the slack. And I’m only partially kidding, too.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I wouldn’t be surprised to see a King Ranch model at some point in the future. Personally, I like the King Ranch trim, although I liked it more before they reformulated the leather for the 2009 models.

      The 2008 and earlier King Ranch models had a very natural looking hide that showed age and developed a patina through wear. Unfortunately it had to be taken care of and conditioned to keep it from fading over time and exposure to the elements. The new King Ranch leather is supposed to retain its color and last for the life of the car without treatments, but it doesn’t have the same authentic feel and smell of the old stuff.

  • avatar
    Stingray

    Less car for more money is no go.

  • avatar

    I am surprised. I expected that CAFE would force automakers to make large displacement naturally aspirated engines more expensive, in fact way more expensive than more economical engines, so that the sales to people who do not care about the premium subsidized everyone else (and improved the average fleet mileage). But perhaps it’s going to happen only when the new rules strike.

  • avatar
    mjz

    I am surprized they are using the TRUCK model designation XLT, instead of CAR SEL, since it is no longer truck based.

  • avatar
    patman

    I wonder what the MPG numbers would look like for a Duratec V6 simply scaled back in displacement (not much point in detuning a motor these days with VVT, etc.) until it made the same 237HP as the EcoBoost 2.0? Somewhere in the range of 3.0L probably, given the HP/L of the 3.5L and 3.7L. It give up a little torque to the turbo-4 but I bet it would be a better all-around solution than the PR driven EcoBoost.

    I’m impressed neither by the power output or the economy of the turbo 2.0L.

  • avatar
    AaronH

    One of my favorite car lies:

    “Virtually no turbo lag!”

    What does this pig do from 600 rpm to 1700 rpm? Laugh at you?

  • avatar
    BDC06

    It may just be me but…

    Think about it, if you had to reinvent a profit pig like the explorer, and wanted it to pull down cash hand over fist again, how would you go about it?

    Turbo’s generally demand a price premium, so do more environmentally friendly engines, this is because of the added COST to produce the vehicle and the general value percieved by potential buyers. what if this engine isn’t costing Ford any more to produce then the V6 is? What if the V6 and EB 4 cost the same to install? someone buys the V6 and then has extra cash to spend on all the profit friendly extras… or they buy the EB 4, shell out the premium that is charged, and then start tacking on a few accessories just for the h3// of it. It’s Ford’s way of going to the well twice. Double dipping. They either make a good profit on a lot of vehicles or they make a great profit on a few less vehicles.

    This could be Ford’s way of saying “don’t buy the EB 4, we make more money off the V6 anyways” Manufacturing has come a long ways… complexity of a vehicle has limited impact on the complexity of the build itself. especially in a vehicle that shares it’s underpinnings with another vehicle. EB 4 Taurus anyone?

  • avatar
    rudiger

    Anyone remember the Mustang GT V8 versus the better handling and better fuel mileage (but more expensive) Mustang SVO Turbo 4? Suddenly, it’s 1984!

    Ford has always been the most European of the Detroit 2.5. So, they’ve always been the one to try and introduce smaller, higher fuel mileage engines in the hope they’ll sell better than equivalent horsepower (but cheaper) larger engines.

    So far, it hasn’t worked. Unless oil prices spike, well, my guess is that the more expensive Ecoboost 4 will suffer the same fate as the old SVO Turbo 4. But you have to admire Ford’s tenacity to keep trying.

    • 0 avatar

      In addition to the above, the writer appears to have forgotten that the 1984 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was more expensive than the more powerful Thunderbird V8, and the 1991 Thunderbird SuperCoupe was more expensive than the V8 of that year as well…
      …so this more expensive EcoBoost Explorer is not exactly new ground for Ford.

  • avatar
    DIYer

    A guy at our office had a 2005 Ford Explorer with about 150K. It had a noise in the front end, and he spent about $1500 into at the dealer and it didn’t solve the problem, and he was not happy with Ford. He has a 120 mile round trip commuting distance, and says he was getting around 18 mpg.

    He replaced the Explorer with a new 2010 Subaru Outback, with a non-turbo 4 cylinder motor. He says this vehicle gets 28 mpg. He does not tow anything, so this vehicle works for him.

  • avatar
    0menu0

    The old “if oil prices spike” idea is a non-starter here. The smaller turbo motor will more than likely get the same real world mpg as the 6cyl, despite what the EPA numbers say.

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      “The old “if oil prices spike” idea is a non-starter here.”It might be a non-starter here but should there be a dramatic increase in the price of a gallon of gas (say a buck or two) over a very short period of time, The Great Unwashed will react quite irrationally and pay the premium for those smaller, higher fuel mileage engines in droves, regardless of how miniscule the mpg improvement might be over a larger, better performing engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Mirko Reinhardt

      In European applications the 2.0 Ecoboost replaces 2.5L turbo 5-cylinders in the Mondeo, Galaxy and S-Max. Despite much better economy ratings, these engines get pretty much the same (terrible) real-world economy as their predecessors, while introducing massive turbo lag. All the magazine reviews recommend buying a diesel Mondeo/S-Max/Galaxy instead.
      See here: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/einzeltests/ford-s-max-im-test-ford-van-fuer-sportliche-familienoberhaeupter-1912689.html
      Scroll down to the pros/cons table: “strained performance, lukewarm willingness to rev, high fuel consumption”

      This should become interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      @Mirko, how does the VW corporate 2.0T engine do in similar tests in Germany (AMS or otherwise)? I’m curious as to whether the high real-world fuel consumption experience is turbo engines in general or specific to the Ford design.

    • 0 avatar
      Mirko Reinhardt

      Don’t think I’ve ever read a review of a 2.0T Passat (nobody buys Passats that way), and they have never used that engine in a minivan. (The upcoming new Sharan will be available with a 2.0T) Auto Bild had a long-term Tiguan 2.0T tester they criticized heavily for the fuel economy.

  • avatar
    srogers

    While the turbo engines might burn as much fuel as bigger ones when driven “spiritedly’, they do offer better fuel efficiency when driven more conservatively. At least then if the fuel prices spike you have the option of burning significantly less fuel by modifying your driving habits.

  • avatar
    Power6

    This still doesn’t make sense. With autos, you pay more money for less compromise in general. You like handling? Miata. Want handling with more speed and a nice interior as well? How about a BMW Z4.

    Its gonna be tough to ask more money for better economy but trade that for less power. The customer probably doesn’t care about what it costs to make the turbo motor.

  • avatar
    jj99

    I just read on another site that this Explorer weighs in at just under 5000 lbs. OMG. 5000 lbs. This is so much heavier than the Pilot and Highlander. I can’t imagine the handling.

    If I was Ford, I would have kept it in engineering a little longer and cut the weight down by at least 500 lbs. It is easy to engineer an overweight car. It takes a lot more time and RD to cut the weight out.

    The 4 cylinder highlander is just under 4000 lbs. That is a big difference. The pilot is more like 4400 lbs ( I think for the FWD ).

    No wonder why Ford has the big V6 standard, and the I4 can only push this vehicle with a turbo … it is too heavy. I wonder what real world gas mileage will be … the Camry compare by Ford might be a dream. We will see.

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      Dunno what site you were reading, but Ford says the V6 Explorer will weigh 100lbs less than the old V8 4WD model, which puts the new car at about 4600lbs. Not clear whether that’s for the FWD or 4WD, and the EcoBoost will undoubtedly be less heavy.

      A Highlander V6 AWD (the proper car to compare with the Explorer V6 4WD for obvious reasons) weighs 4175lbs. So still a big difference, but not as big; the new Explorer is alot bigger than the Highlander anyway (8.7in longer, 2.3in taller, 3.7in wider). The Pilot V6 AWD weighs 4506lbs, so considering the Explorer is quite a bit bigger than the Pilot as well an only 100lb gain isn’t bad. The Explorer also employed weight-saving measures like an aluminum hood and ultra-high-strength steel in the structure, so I think Ford tried to keep the weight down as much as they could.

    • 0 avatar
      jimmyy

      caranddriver.com puts the weight at 4950 which is 50 under the jj99 number. for ford’s sake, i hope caranddriver.com is wrong. if highlander is really in the lower 4000, it may outperform the explorer. we need a matchup ASAP.

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      I was using the official curb weight of the 2010 Explorer and Ford’s statement that the 2011 will be 100lbs lighter – C&D says the last explorer they tested was a bit over 5000lbs on their own scale, hence the 4950 figure. Ford’s official figure for the 2010 Explorer V8 4WD is 4716lbs, so the 2011′s official figure should be around 4600. For some reason official curb weights tend to be lighter than weights by magazines, blogs etc.

    • 0 avatar
      Len_A

      It’s also roomier than either the Pilot or the Highlander.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Has anyone considered actually waiting to find out the economy, pricing and driveability of the EcoBoost 4 before we hang it?

    Personally, I would gladly pay an extra $1,000 for a vehicle with similar performance, better handling (due to lower weight in the front end) and that saves me $200/year in gas money. Am I the only one?

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      If the EcoBoost’s premium over the V6 is small enough ($1000 or less), it would be my pick of the range. More low-end torque + better fuel economy = win in my book. But plenty of people will want an AWD SUV (the EB is supposed to be FWD-only I think) and will also balk at the idea of paying more for a 4-cylinder than a V6, I’m afraid, unless Ford pulls off a minor marketing miracle.

    • 0 avatar
      jimmyy

      people will avoid the 4 cyl option. why? because they will fear repair bills on the turbo engine. turbo engine options usually include a big repair bill in the later years. if the 4 cyl option did not have a turbo, my bet is it would sell.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    the camry i mentioned above with 180,000 miles and going strong will be traded in soon. my next vehicle is picked and i am waiting for a few monts. what is it? accura TSX station wagon. this is the car i want. 4 cylinder engine. perfect. problem is dealers will want full price. sorry ford, you have no station wagon in this size range. almost went for the 4 cylinder venza, but saw the accura picture, and was sold. mine will be white.

  • avatar
    Dr Strangelove

    Now I finally understand why the Taurus’ grille was framed by these sultry, puffed-up lips – it needed the princess to kiss it so that it could burst out of its cocoon and turn into a nice Explorer.

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Well…another bonehead decision by Ford…but anything related to this useless vehicle is a bonehead decision…considering Ford already sells (well…tries to) a seven seat, D3 crossover.

    Pricing the 4-banger more than the V6 is senseless. We will see soon enough of Ford continues the lie that Ecoboost would cost $700.00. It will probably be an overpriced gimmick like it is on the other D3 failures.

    Ford is so incompetent these days…once their lies catch up with them, America will really see what a misguided, poorly run company they really are.

  • avatar
    Jaywalker

    Where’s the law that reads, “Bigger = Better?” They don’t have to be the same thing, as much as some people want to believe in the equation.

    Personally, I believe “More Maintainable = Better,” and most straight 4, or 5, or 6 cylinder engines have it all over V-configurations – easier to get to, less complex exhaust, etc. I’d like it to be “Reliable” also, but in the pinch give me something that can be fixed some place other than the dealership with an expensive $100k diagnostic computer.

    Theoretically, I’d pay extra for that capability, but I don’t know that I’d buy the subject Explorer, though, given Ford’s history of hiding spark plugs where I can’t reach them…

  • avatar
    joe_thousandaire

    If the price difference is low enough, and if Ford can push the EcoBoost on its dealers, this it might work. Any AWD model is likely to be more expensive than the 4cyl, so if your lot is stacked up with AWD V6 and EcoBoost models, the EB will still be the cheaper of two. The 2WD V6 could end up being the odd-man out; ending up mostly on fleet lots.

  • avatar
    Brock_Landers

    For one the V6 will be lot smoother, more appropriate for larger SUV. Even with great gearing 4cyl will be more jerky at lower gears and have a restless nature at higher gears. But direct injected turbocharged gasoline 4cyl can be very economical, VW-Audi has proved it with their TSI engines. Only thing needed is a good modern gearbox with proper gearing. What autobox will the new Explorer use?

  • avatar
    thornmark

    A few nuggets from Edmunds:

    …the new Explorer offers the least amount of space among its primary competition.

    Curb weight has not yet been officially announced, but a Ford engineer confirms the new V6 Explorer is just 100 pounds lighter than the old V8 4WD model. Not exactly a major reduction when the V8 SUV weighs over 4,700 pounds…
    http://www.insideline.com/ford/explorer/2011/2011-ford-explorer-first-look.html

    Larger and overweight but not as much room. Plus vastly overpriced to boot, the new Explorer looks to duplicate the smashing success of the Taurus and Flex. Expect fleet sales and huge discounts as Ford decontents. Ford’s Volvo mess keeps paying negative dividends.

  • avatar
    cpmanx

    Of course, that refers to the amount of *cargo* space with the 2nd and 3rd row seats folded (81 cubic feet in the Explorer vs 87 in the Pilot). What about with the seats up? I haven’t seen those stats anywhere. What about passenger space? I haven’t seen those either. Impossible to make a smart evaluation without that information.

    The Explorer’s curb weight, as previously noted, seems to be very close to the Pilot’s.

    The Honda Pilot starts at $28,045 for a FWD V6, very close to the price of the Ford.

    So what exactly are you talking about?

    • 0 avatar
      Monty

      From the manufacturers specifications (all 2010 models):

      Explorer – 4905 lbs 193″L 74″W 73″H

      Traverse – 4975 lbs 205″H 75″W 70″H

      Jeep Commander – 5245 lbs 189″L 75″W 72″H

      Highlander – 4490 lbs 188″L 75″W 69″H

      Pilot – 4510 lbs 191″L 79″W 73″H

      The Explorer is next only to the Traverse in overall size (length, width and height) is second only to the Commander in towing capacity and had the best weight distribution (52/48) amongst all five vehicles – it’s not alone in it’s porkiness; all of the above vehicles weigh considerably more than two tons.

      Of course, you can buy a Land Cruiser or Suburban and get 3 tons of weight, but that’s an entire class above these vehicles.

      I think all vehicles have increased in weight – all the added safety equipment alone adds more weight and mass. Unless we all want to spend a lot more money for cars and trucks made from unobtanium, we get the extra bulk.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      The real telling point will be useful interior space. The Traverse, despite it’s size, is relatively cramped inside. The Highlander is even smaller, especially in the rear two rows. The Flex, by comparison, has quite a bit of useful space for people, if not for cargo.

      Then you get into the minivans, which weigh about the same and offer far, far more space: certainly more than any crossover and, if we’re talking people-space, more than most of the body-on-frame monsters, too.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    This thread needs to be re-named “Lies I decided to make up about Ford because I just don’t like them.”

  • avatar
    shaker

    Save the Focus, Fusion and Escape, most of Ford’s lineup is quite overweight — I was liking the Edge until I saw 4500lbs!.

    Too much pork – even for “Ecoboost” marketing to overcome.

    Ford needs a new, lightweight platform, and fast.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      The Edge is just a hair over 4,000 lbs in SEL FWD trim, which seems to be the most common way people buy it.

      Actually, comparing the Edge, Murano, Sante Fe, Venza, and Journey in mid-level FWD V6 trim, they are all virtually identical in weight, with the Venza coming in about 100lbs less than the others, but it’s also shorter and a tad smaller.

      The Edge isn’t abnormally heavy for its class, cars have just gotten heavier all around.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      Similar wheelbase, overall length, V6 AWD S(C)UV’s

      Curb weight, according to Consumer Reports:

      Santa Fe: 4070lbs
      Edge: 4540lbs
      Highlander: 4490lbs
      Equinox: 4185lbs
      CX7: 4025lbs

      The Edge is slightly wider than most, and has more back seat legroom than the Santa Fe (but less cargo volume).

      The Equinox is a weird duck – one of the longest, longest wheelbase (by far, 113 in), but is 3in narrower – so it’s pretty heavy for its footprint as well.

      Still, most of the full-size minivans are in the 4500lb range as well.

      Amazing weight gains all around.

      I’m more in the Tucson camp (3300lbs) if I were to go CUV – the hills in PA would kill MPG in anything over 4000lbs, modern turbo/DI or not.

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      I see people quoting Highlander weight at nearly 4500 lbs. However, this is for the hybrid. The V6 AWD version is around 4350 lbs which is much lighter than the comparable Explorer. The Highlander with the 4 is 3850 lbs., and the V6 FWD highlander is right around 4000.

    • 0 avatar
      klossfam

      jj99 is correct…The Highlander is a lightweight in today’s world…I’m not in love with it or anything…but with our 2008 HL Ltd, I tow 4500 lbs+ with it and return 15 mpg (23 mpg real world when the 22 ft Glastron ain’t hanging off the back)…

      Light is important for mpg…period. Also why you can win an occasional stop light drag with the HL…Toyota does build a sweet 3.5L V6…

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      For 2010 models Fwd V6 -

      Edge – 4078
      Highlander – 4110
      Murano – 4096
      Santa Fe – 3902

      The Equinox is a size smaller than these, so not included.

  • avatar
    TR4

    Is that “road hugging weight” like the Pinto had?

  • avatar
    mountainman_66

    ford guy here, and a serious outdoorsman as well. we have an 05 explorer , v6 / 4wd hi/lo ranges and the tow pkg (~5000 pounds approx)

    to the point, this ‘new’ explorer will not be on our list of must sees when we decide to shop for a new (used) one to replace the one we have. unlike most of the explorer soccer moms seen carting 90 pound girls to cheerleading camp, we dont use it as an urban runabout. true 4wd is a necessity for our hunting, camping and boating trips (yes , we launch our boat on unimproved ramps…read mud and rocks). im sure ford’s typical buyer doesnt do such things EVER, but we will prob. make do with a crew cab f150 with a cap next time around. im guessing thats where ford figures their more traditional explorer/bronco buyers will migrate to.

  • avatar
    klossfam

    It looks cool and all that but it is going to take some HEAVY discounting…and not sure I want a 2 ton+ nearly 200 inch vehicle with a 2.0L turbo…Regardless of how good it might be…Don’t get me wrong…I like 2.0L Turbos – in a GTI, A4 or Genesis Coupe…

    Just for giggles I priced what I would ‘need’ as a comparison to our 2008 Highlander Ltd (all options except nav and rear entertain)…Approx $3-4K more comparatively equipped for the Explorer. It really competes more (due to 197+ inch length) with the GM Lambdas and the Mazda CX9…The HL, Pilot and upcoming Jeep GC are all in the 190 in range…

    Good luck to Ford, regardless…They’ll need it unless real world pricing is dealer invoice minus $2-$3K…

  • avatar
    threeer

    $29k and I get 17″ steelies with plastic covers? Seriously?

  • avatar
    klossfam

    I think they’re serious…and crazy! The new Fiesta better be a BIG mover for Ford…because I don’t think well-equipped Explorers with a 2.0L Turbo at $35K are going to be ‘volume sellers’…

  • avatar
    rpn453

    According to Ford, the Ecoboost two-liter Explorer will return similar fuel economy to a V6 Toyota Camry, which means fuel economy should improve to around 19/26. Those numbers are, in a nutshell, why Ford has decided to take the barely-precedented step of charging more for an optional four-cylinder than the standard V6.

    Are you sure that it isn’t just more expensive to produce the Ecoboost engine? It makes sense to me that they’d charge more for a more expensive engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Mirko Reinhardt

      Obviously a four-cylinder with
      -high pressure fuel pump
      -common rail system plus precision injectors
      -turbocharger
      -intercooler

      is more expensive to make than a naturally aspirated V6 with port injection

    • 0 avatar
      Stingray

      1) Does common rail apply to direct injection gasoline engines? AFAIK this is a gas engine.

      2) Also AFAIK, the V6 has direct injection. I may be wrong.

      In any case, I’d take the V6 over the 4 banger for various simple reasons:

      1) Less expensive car(I don’t know about the options available on both)
      2) Less maintenance. A turbo engine requires more care than a N/A one
      3) Less stressed engine.
      4) Proven engine.

      The advantage in mpg numbers doesn’t justify going with a much more complex motor with less power.

    • 0 avatar
      Mirko Reinhardt

      1) All modern DI gas engines have a common rail system. The 2.0 Ecoboost is no exception. It’s state-of-the-art for engines like that.

      2) The V6 could be DI – hard to tell, can’t find a lot of information about it.

    • 0 avatar
      Len_A

      Miko, you can find specs on the engines right here: http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorer/2011/specifications/engine/

      sequential port fuel injection on the V-6. 290 HP @ 6500 RPM, 255 lb.-ft @ 4000 RPM torque, 10.8: 1 compression ratio


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India