By on July 6, 2012

 

Once upon a time, in a country known as America, SUVs roamed the land with large-displacement inline 6s, optional V8s, and locking axles. Nobody had heard of a “cute ute.” Of course, gasoline was also under a buck a gallon. Today the landscape is different. While the last energy crisis caused entire vehicles to downsize, the response to the latest energy “crisis” (and government pressure) has been to downsize engines while leaving the rest of the vehicle intact. Case in point? The Ford Edge EcoBoost. No, this isn’t the 3.5L fire-breathing twin-turbo you’ve heard about before, this is the all-new 2.0L engine that puts the Eco in EcoBoost.

YouTube Preview Image

Exterior

In 2007 Ford sold over 130,000 Edge CUVs, but sales slid slowly as the financial meltdown and high gasoline costs put shopper on notice. In order to keep things fresh, Ford face-lifted the Edge for 2011. While the proportions remain the same—a wide stance, slab sides, stubby schnozz and a raked windshield—Ford seems to have ditched their attempt at styling the Edge to look smaller. To that end, the formerly demure three-bar “Gillette” grill has been replaced with an Audi-esque billy-the-big-mouth-bass affair covered in all the chrome bling you could wish for. While some were offended by the large expanses of chrome-effect plastic, I think a bold front end is exactly what Ford needs to differentiate the Edge from the plethora of me-too CUVs on the road. That being said, the Jeep Grand Cherokee is still more visually exciting.

Interior

Our Edge tester was a “Limited” trim model. Starting at $34,940 and bringing standard goodies like dual-zone climate control, leather, 10-way power seats, an up-level Sony audio system and Ford’s MyFord Touch infotainment system, the  Limited sits at the top of the Edge food chain. If these goodies don’t piqué your interest, the Edge SEL crosses the infotainment upgrades off the equipment list for $31,400 and the base Edge SE EcoBoost starts at $28,845 with cloth seats and manual HVAC knobs. Regardless of trim level, the Edge’s parts quality and fit-and-finish are easily the best in its class. Even the Limited’s faux-wood trim is plausible in terms of realistic texture and tasteful distribution. The Edge seems to represent Ford’s continuing march toward premium interiors at premium price points. While this is no doubt a good direction for the brand, if you’re looking for a cheap, rough-and-tumble CUV replacement for your old Bronco II, this isn’t it. Strangely, the only real problem I have with the Edge’s interior is that it’s nice enough that I see little reason (aside from some real-wood) to upgrade to the Lincoln MKX. Thanks to the generous, corn-fed proportions, the cargo capacity of the Edge is a large 32 cubic feet expanding to 69 cubic feet with the rear seats folded.

Infotainment

Like the Android vs iPhone debate, infotainment systems spark fierce controversy. No system since iDrive has received as much bad press mixed with forum fan-boy rave reviews as MyFord Touch. Let’s cut to the chase. The 2012 Edge benefits from major software update designed to make the system more responsive and easier to use. During a previous week with the 2011 system, we experienced frequent freezing, random crashes, periodic reboots and the ever-so-popular “blue screen of death.” The 2012 version performed reliably. That’s not to say MyFord Touch is now perfect. The system is still dreadfully slow when compared to iDrive, UConnect 8.4 and Cadillac’s new CUE system. If slow interfaces bother you, just buy an Edge SEL, select every option except the Ford MyTouch system and you’ll essentially have a Limited without MyFord Touch. By doing so you can still get the backup camera and the voice activated SYNC system which work flawlessly. The downside? You won’t get the snazzy 4.2-inch LCDs on either side of the speedometer. Despite the sloth, my opinion is that MyFord Touch is one of the best systems on the market (after iDrive) in terms of functionality, aesthetics and ease of use. Yes the system is painfully slow at times, but I’d rather have a sluggish system that did everything MyFord Touch does than a snappy system that only covered the basics.

Drivetrain

Ah, the section you’ve all be waiting for. Aside from the revised MyFord Touch system, the reason we’re looking at the Edge is the new EcoBoost engine. No, this isn’t the fire-breathing 3.5L twin-turbo monster that Ford is jamming under as many hoods as possible, this is the engine that puts the “eco” in EcoBoost. Ford started out with a 2.0L four cylinder aluminum block, added twin cams with independent variable valve timing, bolted on a Borg Warner (KKK) K03 turbocharger and lathered on the direct-injection sauce. The K03 is good for 16psi of boost which yields 240HP, 270lb-ft of torque and a “claimed” 30MPG on the highway.The observant in the crowd will note that while this is a 45HP decrease from the 3.5L V6, there is an extra 17lb-ft of torque-on tap. Speaking of torque, all 270lb-ft come to the boil at 1750RPM and stay strong to 4,500RPM while the 3.5L V6 peaks at 4,000. As long as the turbos are spooled up, the engine produces more torque at a given RPM than the V6. It’s this broad torque curve that allows the EcooBoost Edge to scoot to 60 only 0.4 seconds slower than the 3.5L V6 despite the drop in HP and the slight delay in off-the-line acceleration. The cost for this gem? $995. Power is sent to the front wheels via Ford’s 6-speed automatic transmission. Why there is no AWD option for this engine is anyone’s guess. The EcoBoost engine idles as smoothly as BMW’s 2.0L DI turbo – in other words, it sounds like a quiet diesel engine.

Drive

Thanks to extensive sound insulation, the only way you would know the 2.0L turbo lurks under the hood is by the way the Edge drives and gulps gasoline. Unlike the fuel-efficient engine choices of the last century, I prefer the way the 2.0L turbo drives to V6. Why? It’s all in the way the power is delivered. With all that twist arriving at low RPMs, the fact that the transmission is programmed to be recalcitrant to shift (for fuel economy) is not only a non-issue, it makes maintaining speed on a mountain grade a smoother affair than the V6 Edge which constantly hunts for the right gear. As you would expect with 270lb-ft on tap, torque steer and one-wheel burnouts are a mere throttle stab away. If I hadn’t driven an EcoBoost and V6 Edge back-t0-back I would have thought the turbo was the faster vehicle to 60 which arrived in just under 7.6 seconds.

The suspension in the Edge is tuned toward the softer side of CUVs, delivering a ride that is compliant and composed over all the broken pavement we could throw at it. This is thanks to the tall 60-series tires standard on the Edge as well as the wide 65-inch track. While I wouldn’t ever call a two-ton crossover a “corner carver,” the Edge is in many ways a grossly overweight Mazda 6 and handles as such. Remind you of a CX-7? It should. On windy mountain roads it can pull up its support hose and feign some dance moves, but it is unlikely the average buyer will ever try.

If you’re shopping for a two wheel drive crossover and need the generous capacity the Edge offers, the EcoBoost model is hand-down Ford’s best offering. If however you’re looking for fuel efficiency in a 5-seat crossover the Edge EcoBoost becomes a less exciting proposition. During our 734-mile week with the Edge we averaged 24.2MPG with conservative driving and plenty of highway miles. While this does represent a nearly 5MPG improvement over the 3.5L V6 Edge on the same driving cycle and a break-even point of around 4 years for the $995 engine option, city dwellers and those with lead feet will find themselves averaging 19-20MPG. Despite the active shutters and a cool, A/C-free coastal California drive, the Edge struggled to average 29MPG with the cruise control set to 65MPH. Despite not living up to its EPA numbers, the EcoBoost delivered a superior driving experience and a true 20-25% improvement in fuel economy meaning. There is just one problem: the all-new Ford Escape. Despite being rated a very similar 22/30MPG, our short stint with the 2.0L EcoBoost Escape proves that its real world average is around 27MPG. While the Escape is smaller than the Edge, it’s also more nimble, handles better, lighter, faster, cheaper and AWD is an option.

 

Not a fan of our Facebook page? Too bad, if you liked us on Facebook you’d know what we have on the front burner. Get on, get social and tell us what you want to see. 

Ford provided the vehicle, one tank of gas, and insurance for this review

Specifications as tested

0-30: 2.73 Seconds

0-60: 7.59 Seconds

1/4 Mile: 15.95 Seconds @ 84.7 MPH

Average Fuel Economy: 24.2 MPG over 734 miles

 

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

113 Comments on “Review: 2012 Ford Edge Limited EcoBoost...”


  • avatar
    BlanketSlayer

    This at least seems to a better application for the Ecoboost 2.0 than the heavier Explorer.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      I’m still not sold on using boosted I4s for these types of vehicles, but I expect they will continue to get better over the next few years.

      • 0 avatar
        ExPatBrit

        Audi and VW seem to have done well with the DI 2.0T motors in CUVs.

        See a lot of Q5s and Tiguans here in the PacNW.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Don’t doubt pulling a large mass with a turbo-4. The lighter mass 4-cylinder will rev faster in lower gears out run the boost pressure until higher gears where the turbo has a chance to boost the charge pipes and intercooler.

        My 2000 Saab 9-5 had no problem towing 3700 lbs 9-5 wagon and 500 lbs car dolly through the hills of TN and MA in 90 degree temperatures getting 23.5 mpg over 400 miles.

      • 0 avatar
        Nutella

        Same, here two Saabs ecopower, the older one with a vintage Ecopower 94 engine. Funny how Saab was so ahead of the curve and how strong these engines were, especially for towing in altitude or climbing.

      • 0 avatar
        Idemmu

        Saab was vilified for using small turbo engines in big or luxury cars..apparently the swedes were on to something.

  • avatar
    tuffjuff

    If I read the last section of this review correctly – did you just complain that it “only” got 29 MPG highway when it’s rated at 30 MPG highway?

    You realize how fat and large this vehicle is, right? Seriously?

    I could see if it only managed 24 MPG on the highway and was rated at 30, but 29?

    • 0 avatar
      Alex L. Dykes

      I think the economy is good for a vehicle this size, the complaint was that we were unable to hit the claimed 30MPG mark driving on a flat highway with a warm engine, A/C off and cruise control set to 65MPH.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        I was going to say, to have a vehicle be heavier and I believe also larger than a Chevy Equinox be rated lower but get higher real-world gas mileage than said Equinox isn’t bad. ;)

        You make a great argument for how the EPA lies, though!

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        Doesn’t the EPA rate highway mileage at a lower speed, like 55? If so, with a big frontal area vehicle like this, there could be a significant difference.

        Considering that, on a very good day, my AWD Honda Pilot gets 24 mpg at similar speeds, with a moderate load and the a/c running, this is still pretty good, although not as good as the 31-32 that my Saab wagon gets under similar circumstances. Of course, the Saab has a smaller frontal area and carries a bit less, but the engine is slightly larger, rated for more hp (250) and doesn’t have all the latest tricks like VVT and GDI. It’s also 1/2 second faster to 60 and probably significantly faster in passing (e.g. 40-75).

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Tire pressures and wind would make up the couple mpg differences. Break-in miles might play a role also.

        Bruce your Saab 9-5 wagon beast the Edge in almost every objective category. Fuel economy, drives like a car, and more cargo capacity with seats down(73 vs 69 cu ft). Win-win for the wagon!

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        @Norm — That’s why I bought it! Too bad it’s now 10 years old and weeping oil from both ends of the engine . . . and Saab isn’t around any more to sell me a new one.

        That’s with the autobox, by the way.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        @Bruce, you’d be the first I’ve heard of as I’ve read through two Saab forums and it’s not a common issue let alone a crank seal leaking around the pulley side. Definitely get a second opinion and degrease the engine and search for the source(s).

        Just watch the motor oil level.

    • 0 avatar
      dbcoop

      In the video he says that even on with long stints on the highway they struggled to average better than 24mpg. If the EPA estimates are to be believed it should be doing more like 27mpg in that type of driving. IME, you should be able to best the EPA highway number at 65mph with the cruise control set. Still, it’s quite an improvement over the 6 cylinder CUV’s of similar size and weight.

    • 0 avatar
      Herm

      Over at cleanmpg.com the hypermilers were getting about 70mpg with the Flex, but that requires a lot of work and skill. This was not a properly instrumented vehicle but using the built-in mpg indicator, so its probably off.. it was a short review.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Whisper rumor that Ford’s ad agency is trial running a marketing slogan of “Have you driven a Ford lately? Don’t let the MSRP scare you, because we’re confident we can get you in any of our vehicles for at least a few grand less than a same category BMW. Hey, a few grand is a few grand.”

    I think it’s way too long and not at all catchy.

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      Seriously, this argument needs to die. Not only is it disingenuous it is simply wrong. A heavy optioned Ford is a few grands less than a BASE BMW, not really a fair comparison. Don’t want to pay that much for a Ford, then don’t and get a lower optioned model. However, if you want just a few of the features that a Ford can offer then you will pay WAAAAAAY more for the BMW than the loaded Ford. I know, I have made this comparison before and the BMW is ALWAYS much more expensive, as it should be because unlike you I realize it isn’t in the same class as the Ford.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Okay, how about:

        “At Ford, we’ll sell you a vehicle at a price that matches that uber-loaded Mini Clubman you had your eye on, or that nice 5 series/X5. So, let’s discuss your alleged need for power windows and AC, shall we?..”

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        Deadweight,
        I’m not so sure if You Have Driven A Ford Lately with that remark about A/C and power windows. If You Haven’t Looked At Ford Lately, Look Again. AC has been a standard feature. If you Drive One, you’ll also find that you can have leather and heated seats in a Fiesta. On your next comment, Push It To The Edge and maybe I’ll go Further and correct you so you can Feel The Difference.
        Bold Moves. They Happen Every Day.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        @Deadweight

        Except with the Mini you get much smaller car with less actual stuff. There’s a reason the Countryman starts about $5,500 than an Edge. It’s $5,500 less car. And when you option it up, you’re going to spend stupid amounts of money for little things.

        A few other examples:

        The Focus sedan is in line with the Cruze sedan (and both are comparably good). The Focus hatch is more expensive than the Elantra hatch (the Cruze hatch isn’t available in this country), it’s also a nicer car with a nicer interior and nicer NVH.

        You don’t want something as nice? I’m sure you can buy a stripper Mini Countryman for only a few grand more than my 2012 Ford Focus hatch – and hey, it’s comparable, too, since it’s about the SIZE of my Focus. It’s a darn shame about that crappy ride quality, though.

      • 0 avatar
        Ubermensch

        “At Ford, we’ll sell you a vehicle at a price that matches that uber-loaded Mini Clubman you had your eye on, or that nice 5 series/X5.”
        What Ford is priced in the realm of a 5 series or X5? Certainly not this Edge. An X5 BASE MODEL starts at $47,500. A BASE 5 series is $46,900. Yeah, totally cross shopped by most buyers. Who cross shops a Mini Clubman with a Ford Edge? Seriously, give it a rest. It was cute for a while but now it’s just dumb.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        “Starting at $34,940″

        Those are Alex’s words, not mine, and I do believe he’s accurately relaying the price.

        So, 35 thousand dollars for a midsize CUV with a 2.0 liter 4 banger.

        Yes, it’s the top line model, but it can get over 40k if one is copious with the ‘even more’ options, and I’m still going to yell WTF….because it’s plain….and it’s a Ford…and there are at least as good vehicles (if not better) for significantly less (and I dare say significant is at least $12,000 less).

        In fact, a family member just purchased a straight up Cadillac SRX Luxury AWD for a shade over $33k. I bet it has features this reviewed Ford doesn’t, and it’s quieter, and it rides better, and its 308 horsepower 3.6 liter motor doesn’t sound like a diesel (Alex’s words, not mine).

        So, what’s getting old about pointing out the objective regarding Ford’s premium pricing?

        And the power windows/AC comment was made tongue-in-cheek, for the record, although it is nice of Ford to include those features as standard equipment.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        @DeadWeight

        You enjoy trolling, don’t you?

        The MSRP on the Edge Limited is $34,940. The Cadillac SRX has an MSRP of $35,985. These are from ford.com and cadillac.com, respectively. The Edge after destination is $35,765 and the Cadillac after destination is $36,860. This puts the SRX $1,100 or so above the Edge, and the standard equipment on both is pretty much identical – both have dual zone automatic climate control, both have “leather” seats, both have premium sound systems – Ford’s 10 speaker Sony to GM’s 8 speaker Bose. If there is a major feature difference between either of them, I’m not seeing it on either’s website in a quick 5 minute side-by-side comparison.

        So again, SRX is $1,100 more after destination.

        The 2.0 engine on the Edge is an OPTION. It’s a thousand dollar option, but it’s an option. Don’t want it? Get the 3.5l V6. You’ll get 3 MPG better, combined, compared to the SRX even with this “lesser” engine, according to FuelEconomy.gov. Clearly you don’t like the idea of a 4 cylinder engine, so thankfully you have the CHOICE to save a grand and not get one.

        Incentives – the SRX has no cash incentives in my ZIP code (54301, Green Bay, WI) as of 6:45pm CST on 07/06/2012. I won’t count 0% APR because that isn’t tangible. So the MSRP after destination, the price out the door if you don’t haggle if you will, is $36,860. The Edge has two incentives, equaling $2,000, available right now. If you don’t use Ford Motor Finance you’ll pay $34,765, out the door with no haggling. if you DO use FMF you’ll pay $33,765 out the door with no haggling.

        So – if you compare these two basically IDENTICAL vehicles, the Edge is $3,095 cheaper without haggling. Basically you’re saying “yay, my family member haggled” – good for them!

        So back to your argument. The Edge costs way more for less stuff. It’s actually cheaper by almost 10%, than the SRX you compared it to, has the same features from what a quick search shows(please feel free to correct me), gets better gas mileage and all it’s missing is the premium brand.

        Anyway, have a nice weekend!

        EDIT:

        Also, according to Wikipedia (the most unreliable website that is never fact-checked in the world!) the SRX sold 56,905 copies of itself in 2011, whereas the Edge sold 121,702. Perhaps that’s why your family member was able to haggle down the price of that SRX so much, huh? ;)

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        How is relaying a personal, factual experience trolling?

        The SRX she purchased had a MSRP of 43k and change. She essentially got it for 9.5k off MSRP.

        Maybe you would rather have a 2 liter ecobooster 4 banger Ford Edge than a quite loaded SRX, but I’ve driven both, and it’s my opinion that unless fuel economy is one’s sole priority, they’d be plum insane to buy the Edge at the same price, let alone anything close to the SRX.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        Deadweight: which OEM has the better bottom line? The OEM with a Mexican assembled, over marketed niche vehicle, or the Canadian assembled mass market vehicle with comparable transaction costs? You gave Ford huge kudos with your posts. It highlights what Ford has been doing right, in spite of it’s affinity to Canadian and US final assembly plants.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        TrueCar (which is often fairly close when it comes to actual transaction prices) shows that the SRX AWD Luxury sells on average for about $3,500 off sticker. Your relative that got one for $9,500 off apparently got the deal of a lifetime, that’s far below dealer cost.

        The Edge is a bit larger than many similar vehicles, but the Toyota Venza and Kia Sorrento can come close to $40K when optioned up. You can nudge an Edge all the way up to about $46K for an AWD model if you check every box on the option list, but it also has features that aren’t available on competing vehicles (like adaptive cruise, HID headlights, and the configurable LCD gauges). A higher price with more features doesn’t mean a vehicle is overpriced, it just means you can get more if you want more (similar to the Focus with competing models, yes, you can build a $28K Focus if you really want to, but it will have a bunch of equipment you can’t get on the Elantra, Civic, or Corolla).

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        @NullaModo

        $46,000 ???

        It’s possible to option a Ford Edge to $46,000 ???

        Why would…anyone do this….?

        I hereby double down on all of my comment previously made.

        Does that version of the Edge come with the finest Freudenberg (or Weinheimer Leder GmbH, at least) calf leather and automated pedicure stations for rear passengers?

        See, I can understand why a few people go nuts with options. I have more difficulty imagining a scenario where any sane person, buying a vehicle with their own money, would option an Edge to anything remotely close to 46k, rather than just spend the same amount and get into a truly luxurious vehicle like a Lexus RX350.

        Hell, for that matter, you can get into a base 2013 new Lexus RX350 (base is well equipped in Lexus land) for $38,500 or so.

        I must be trolling (allegedly, according to some) to be so provocative to dare compare the not fully optioned Edge that Alex reviewed at $35,000 to the a new Lexus RX350 that costs, at most, $3k-$4k more, though. And for those who want to know, there are plenty of places that will sell you a brand spankin’ new RX350 for that price, including a Lexus dealer in Rockland, Maryland (I won’t drop the dealer name since I’m not sure if that’s frowned upon).

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        deadweight, maybe Ford is trying to play in the Jeep Grand Cherokee territory.

        My wife’s Overland Summit 4×4 V6 listed at $48K+. The V8 version was $54K+. The SRT8 around $64K. Base price for a GC 4×4 is <$29K.

        We didn't pay that much for ours, we paid $44K, but I'm sure that there is a sucker out there who would pay $46K for an Edge or $48K for a Grand Cherokee.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        Man, how do I choose my words so as not to come off as too offensive?

        Oh, I know!

        Jesus Christ.

        Don’t feed the ignorant troll, folks.

    • 0 avatar
      jz78817

      Deadweight, with any manufacturer in the world, if you pile on options the price is going to climb. I don’t know why you’re bitching about it here.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Deadweight, saying anything in an argument is apparently “trolling” these days.

      • 0 avatar
        Ubermensch

        No, making the same specious arguments over and over again when being proved either very disingenuous or even outright wrong is trolling.

        The “premium” pricing of Fords really only applies to heavily optioned models. Don’t want to pay a premium? Simple, don’t buy the do-dads. I for one am glad that I have the option of getting features on a “lowly” Ford product that many luxury brands can’t even offer unless you pay through the nose.

        Sounds like Ford would be making much more profit, especially for it’s dealers if GM needs to slash almost 10k off it’s premium brands products as opposed to Ford who is getting much closer to MSRP for their low end brand products. Maybe there will be a new chapter in economic text books.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        At Uberbmod: Uhm, I’m not really backing anyone up in your argument, I was just answering a question.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    SUVs roamed the land with large-displacement inline 6s, optional V8s…

    Who had “inline 6s” exactally?

    A colleage has one of these ecobost Edges and loves it compared to the old V6 AWD model she traded in.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    You must have been flogging that thing or your driving habits are a wee bit aggressive. I averaged 29 mpg over a weekend and was achieving 30 (peaked at 32 when drafting) mpg easily highway. I was driving the speed limit, of course.

    I also noticed that when I loaded up my golfing buddies (and clubs), mpg went down about 2-3mpg on the highway.

  • avatar
    brettc

    I still don’t get why Ford is putting turbocharged gas engines in larger vehicles like this. Why can’t they offer their 2.0 litre TDCi engine? I imagine an engine like that could achieve in the mid to high 30s for average fuel economy. And who doesn’t love oodles of diesel torque? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

    • 0 avatar
      28-cars-later

      Diesel is an enemy of the state in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        Buckshot

        It looks like it.
        “Damn all those european communists that buy dieselcars.”

      • 0 avatar

        Doesn’t seem stopping WV, why is that? I bought this argument before they started selling a 50-state diesel in TDI Jettas and Golfs.

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        “Doesn’t seem stopping WV, why is that?”

        because VW has always sold diesels, and VW has its own kind of customer.

        “I bought this argument before they started selling a 50-state diesel in TDI Jettas and Golfs.”

        So? VW sold 50,000 TDIs in a market of 14.x million cars. All we can tell right now is that VW buyers are amenable to diesel cars. it does *not* demonstrate that there’s a huge pent-up demand for them from other makers. If the diesel Grand Cherokee sells, and if the diesel Cruze actually makes it here and does well, then others might wade into the fray.

        • 0 avatar
          rafeeki

          Those diesel Grand Cherokees are no where to be found… and the v6 Pentastar is noise if pushed hard on acceleration. I prefer my 4.7 flex v8 on my 07 GC.
          Decided to go with the Ecoboost Edge. Very quiet and peppy

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        jz78817,

        “because VW has always sold diesels, and VW has its own kind of customer.”

        So the dramatic sales increases in certain VW models are from magic VW customers who’ve always existed but never purchased a car before? How does that work? What other manufacturers have these ethereal buyers waiting in the wings to materialize as needed?

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    You could get roughly the same amount of cargo space and half-again better mpg with a Toyota Prius V. Wait a few months and trade a few cubic feet and you’ll be able to stay in the Ford family and do it with a C-Max. It’s a shame that Ford isn’t bringing its Grand C-Max to the US. With the same 2.0 Ecoboost, that would be a fun family-hauler.

  • avatar
    chiefmonkey

    I have misgivings about the use of a turbo 4 in a vehicle of this magnitude. Specs are one thing, but how it actually performs is another. At least the Edge continues to be a great looking CUV with some pretty cool features

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      People from the future have already told us that the new turbo-inspired small displacement motors hauling massive gross tonnage around are bulletproof, due to technological advances in ICE design and the use of unobtanium alloys in critical, high pressure motor components.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        High compression engines aren’t new. Hell, the blown 3800 series 1 had a compression ration slighly less than the 10.0 to 1 the ecoboost 2.0L has. Not to mention, modern engines have more efficient ingnition control (less lean instances) and better calibration to prevent knocking. If you’re afraid of the turbo, your life will be spent hunkered down, clenching to your push rod LS motors (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing).

        Granted, with higher complexity, comes higher probability of manufacturing defects, but here you’re relying on the sacred Borg Warner supplier cow that gives the sacred turbo milk to your highly held BMW.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        The problem that I will SWAG is going to manifest itself with these heavy vehicles, relative to the displacement of their motors, is the copious amounts of heat they generate.

        Most of us believe that heat is one of the most formidable enemies of the internal combustion engine, and it’s not going to help matters when the motor is constantly running at high rpm from standing stops just to get up to traffic speed because it happens to be pulling around quite a bit of weight.

        I do realize that some will chime in here with stories and anecdotes of the reliable turbo-assisted motors they ran in the 80s and 90s (though I’ll bet they’re more the exceptions than the rule), and others will claim that these new motors (and transmissions) are designed from the ground up to reliably deal with the commonly known issues turbos bring to the table, but I still maintain that all of these vehicles are engineered to a price point first, with reliability being 2nd place priority (at best).

        We’re in uncharted territory here, with 1.4 liter to 2.0 liter turbocharged motors hauling around 3,300 to 4,000 pounds of vehicle, and I’m not speaking of diesel motors.

        Time will tell.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        I don’t think Deadweight has driven a 6 speed four banger, ever.

        My 2012 Focus can easily drive around at or below 2,000 RPM (usually very much below) in city traffic and still accelerate not-like-an-old-lady. In fact, the only time I’d *need* to go above 2k to maintain appropriate vehicle speed is when going onto the highway. I guess I could keep it at or below 2,500 RPM but I’d probably be moving a tad slower than traffic would like.

        Four speed car != modern, 6 speed car.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        I agree with your concern, almost any turbo-charged car out of the 80′s is in need of headgaskets at this point in time, even Swedens mighty bricks haven’t stood a good change.

        Heck, I drove a turbocharged Merkur myself once, not the heaviest of cars but the engine was still blazing hot when I got out. That and it lacked to no end.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        If only diesel was more main stream. I agree with you on that front, but I’m not afraid of swapping a Turbo out myself. As for heat, I can tell you that calibration engineers run around with these with thousands of sensors to make sure proper heat shielding is tested along with numerous other tests. There are also high mileage test mules… but like you said, all OEM’s will be measured by our ten years aged selves. It will be interesting.

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        “I agree with your concern, almost any turbo-charged car out of the 80′s is in need of headgaskets at this point in time, even Swedens mighty bricks haven’t stood a good change.”

        while anecdotal, I have 153,000 miles on my (Neon) SRT-4 and it’s on the original head gasket and uses no coolant or oil.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      At jz: Good job keeping your Neon going.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Alex,

    Did you trust the computer on these MPG figures or did you do your measurements at the pump?

    • 0 avatar
      Alex L. Dykes

      I always verify the numbers at the pump. In my experience with modern cars they are very rarely off by more than 1-2% which is within my manual calculation margin of error.

    • 0 avatar
      tuffjuff

      Same here. The most my ’12 Focus has been off, so far (in about 9 months) is .4 MPG, and that was when it showed 37 MPG versus 36.6. I remember the 2007 Pontiac G6 I had years ago, that thing LOVED to be 3-5 MPG off, pretty much every fill-up.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I have always loved the Edge Limited when I’ve had them as rentals – one of my favorite vehicles to get. I think to myself I could see me owning one of these, but when I price out how I would equip one and go north of $40,000 – the luster disappears.

    It’s a great CUV, agree it has the nicest interior by far in its class – but Ford wants an awful lot for their cute-ute.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      As a person who actually is deeply involved in the auto business (maybe even someone I know well) told me, in diplomatic terms:

      “Ford is very proud of their new lineup, and it only takes one some brief cross-shopping the competition to realize this.”

      This strategy of premium pricing really is in contrast to what Toyota and VW are doing at this point in time, and it’s going to be interesting to see how these different strategies pan out over time.

      Chapters may be added to economic textbooks.

      • 0 avatar
        toxicroach

        The main difference I can see between the Edge and the Venza pricing wise is that Ford has 4 trims. The lowest three match the venza, and the fourth is about 4 grand above it.

        The options on the base model are entirely respectable (AC, cruise control, decent stereo). So maybe the premium pricing accusation comes from them not offering some stripper with manual locks, no cruise control, etc?

        I don’t think their prices are really out of line when you look at what they are packing. Sure, the Santa Fe looks cheaper… until you add the engine that is comparable to the Edge’s engine… then the gap looks a lot smaller.

        The Ford has a lot of things on the base model that you would need to up trim the competitors model to get (the base edge comes with halogen headlights, for instance). So price wise I don’t think it’s a rip off, and as an American brand with union labor, your probably better off trying have a healthy profit margin than you are chasing every sale you might get with bare bones models. Especially when you have a reputation you need to repair.

  • avatar
    stroker49

    Engines without turbo sucks! Saab was right all the time, but could never get their act together.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    APaGttH and DeadWeight, when you go to Ford’s website and go to the “build my own” tab and start adding options; things get expensive real quick. Then I start doing the mental games of a gussied up Ford or a CPO luxury SUV? Yeah, I know apples and oranges but at the same price point. This issue will prove interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I know, right?

      Option these vehicle up even modestly and watch that price tag just moonshot.

      But I dunno…there are a lot of seemingly rational people telling me that these vehicles aren’t pricy on a relative basis.

      I don’t know who to believe, them or my own (possibly lying while looking at Ford’s website) eyes.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    The “aluminum block” bit scares me, I remember that the Vega had something similar and the results were… not good.

    With a vehicle this size and weight, i’d rather go with the old fashion V6 over a 4 cylinder with a turbo.

    That and personally I prefer less styling, I don’t care for the “I’m an Audi with braces!” look, nor the Chevy Volt steering wheel.

    I do like the fluid bottles being easy to access under the hood, but that should be something standard with cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Practically everyone uses aluminum blocks these days, the Vega is ancient history. I’m with you on the steering wheel, when I first saw the interior pic I thought they posted a pic of a Chevy by mistake.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      The problem with the Vega engine (aside from GM’s general incompetence in those days) was that it used an aluminum block without iron cylinder sleeves. Lots of people have tried that over the years, and the only company that got it right was Honda. Aluminum blocks and turbos can get along just fine, as the Nissan SR20DET amply demonstrates.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        Hmm I still like my iron, but thats just me.

        At Russ: Audi guages and Chevy steering wheels seem to be the norm in car interiors. I’m not expecting notable differences in car interiors but it’d be nice if they didn’t use the same styling ques.

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      It wasn’t the aluminum block that was the real problem in the Vega’s motor, it was the unlined cylinders (Most engines since then have steel/iron liners in the block, making it a non issue) and the bizarre choice of using an iron head on an aluminum block, just asking for head gasket issues. I can’t imagine how GM couldn’t have known what a disaster the 2300 was even before the Vega’s actual launch.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        “On a Clear Day you can see General Motors” has a lot of answers to GM idiotic decisions during that time.

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        Unlined cylinders weren’t the problem either. Plenty of VW/Audi and Porsche engines use linerless aluminum blocks to this day. The problem with the Vega engine was three-fold:

        1) The iron head caused head gasket issues due to scrubbing
        2) the block was open-deck
        3) the cooling system was woefully inadequate.

        2) and 3) combined to make it very easy to overheat the Vega engine, which would cause the block to distort, thus compromising the head gasket and/or causing the cylinders to score.

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        The overheating issue would quickly break down the silicon treatment that was supposed to allow the Vega to use a sleeveless block. The Germans’ experiments with nikasil and lokasil treatments haven’t turned out much better.

  • avatar
    G35X

    Yes, scary. 16-psi boost means a 2-litre engine becomes more than 4-litre in effect consuming more gas in direct proportion. Also, 10-to-1 compression ratio becomes more than 20-to-1 in effect, which is in the diesel territory. To avoid detonation I think Ford delays fuel injection timing slightly after the piston reached the top when at full boost compromising thermal efficiency. It would be much easier to go with diesel for the same economy and better reliability.

    • 0 avatar
      jz78817

      the point is that the smaller engine consumes *less* fuel when you’re not dipping into boost.

      “Also, 10-to-1 compression ratio becomes more than 20-to-1 in effect, which is in the diesel territory. ”

      this does not follow.

      “To avoid detonation I think Ford delays fuel injection timing slightly after the piston reached the top when at full boost compromising thermal efficiency.”

      one of the key advantages to DI is the charge cooling effect of the fuel evaporating in-cylinder.

      I mean, c’mon. Ford is hardly the first to do a turbo DI gas engine (they were just the first to market the hell out of it.) They’re a known quantity.

      “It would be much easier to go with diesel for the same economy and better reliability.”

      and another couple thousand in cost.

  • avatar
    86SN2001

    The Edge truly is an answer to a question nobody asked.

    What’s the point of it when you have the Escape and the two Taurus wagons (Explorer and Flex)?

    And I hate how Ford intentionally sand bags the Edge to make people buy the Explorer and Expedition. Specifically in the area of towing. It can be had with the same 3.5 V6 and 6-speed as the Explorer/Flex, yet can’t tow over 3500 pounds (same as the Focus wagon with the silly Egoboost 4 banger).

    I would buy an Edge tomorrow if Ford would give it a proper tow rating. There is no reason why it’s so low. Manufactures falsely assume that anyone that tows needs some 7 passenger monstrosity (Explorer/Flex) when it’s just not true.

    This is where Jeep has them handily beat with the Grand Cherokee…plus with the Jeep, your actually getting a vehicle worthy of the price.

    Ford and their “pay more for the smaller engine” has to be the stupidest thing since the “One Ford” scam.

    • 0 avatar
      tuffjuff

      Good lord, the Ford hating trolls are out in force, eh?

      The Edge has a more comfortable ride, and for the better is better equipped than the Explorer. The Explorer pretends to be BOF despite being car-based, the Edge does not. If you’re going to buy a vehicle for off-roading, and you’re going to spend $28,000, you’re probably going to look at the Explorer, JGC or the Toyota Highlander. None of these three are BOF but all offer 4×4 and other weather-fighting/pretend off-roading options. The Edge is simply Ford’s 5 person CUV. The Explorer is a 5 person CUV catered to a different customer.

      That said, if I were in the market for a 4×4, for the money I’d get a JGC. IMO Jeep is offering more for a little less, on the lot. At least that’s the impression I got when cross-shopping them earlier this year.

      • 0 avatar
        86SN2001

        Yeah…I must be a troll when I WANT TO OWN A FORD PRODUCT. God forbid someone express some frustration when they can’t for no reason other than sandbagging.

        Quit with the baseless name calling.

        “The Edge is simply Ford’s 5 person CUV.”

        Then what is the Escape? Aside from a 5-person SUV that can tow 3500 pounds?

        With the same seating capacity and tow rating as the Escape (which is nothing but pure sandbagging…..the “it’s the platform” excuse is complete garbage), the Edge is completely pointless. For what you get(basically a vehicle equally capable as a lowly Escape), it’s very overpriced and not a good value.

        Ford COULD make the Edge relevant…..but they rather force people into the Taurus wagons.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        The Edge is the midsize CUV while the Escape is the compact CUV. Nissan has the Rogue and the Murano, Toyota has the Rav4 and the Venza, and Hyundai has the Tuscon and Santa Fe. It’s not as if there is no precedent to have two 5 passenger vehicles of different sizes in a CUV lineup.

        Compared to the previous Escape the Edge feels like a much more substantial vehicle, has ample extra width, and is much quieter inside. The new Escape closes on all of those gaps, but I think there will still be enough of a market for both. Towing capability just isn’t something that comes up very often with either of these vehicles. Out of thirty or so Edges on our lot we have four or five with a tow package on them, and it’s rare for that to be an option someone asks for (for that matter hardly anyone asks for the tow package on the Flex or Explorer either, while on the F-150 the majority do).

        The Escape vs Edge is like the Fusion vs the Taurus, same number of seats, but some people just like the feel of a larger vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        Ubermensch

        “Ford COULD make the Edge relevant…..but they rather force people into the Taurus wagons.”
        Ford has sold over 65k Edge’s so far this year, I would call that relevant. I’m with you and would prefer a wagon and think that car companies are purposefully gaming the tow ratings to get people into more profitable heavier SUVs/trucks. Unfortunately, no amount of enthusiast bloviating is going to change the fact that people in the U.S. don’t want wagons and loves them some CUVs.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        Oh, my bad.

        You just compared a vehicle “built for off-roading” (if you can call a car-based CUV such a thing) aka the Explorer to a vehicle built for no such purpose. In the same sentence, you compared a 4,000 pound $28,000 CUV with a 3.5l V6 to a $38,000+ 5,500 body on frame SUV with a 5.4l V8.

        The Edge isn’t BUILT for the purposes you’re looking for, so buy an Explorer. There’s literally nothing more to it than that.

        Edge = fluffy and carefree. Explorer = designed to get some light-weight work done. People don’t buy the Edge if they want to tow anything more than a small/mid-sized trailer, and you shouldn’t either. Period.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      The tow rating isn’t just the engine, its also to do with the structure of the vehicle.

      If anything, the Edge may be able to tow more but the rating is lowered for the sake of safety.

      But you’re right with the Edge being a bit “pointless”, give me a wagon anyday over a compact pseudo SUV thing.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        The structure has a lot to do with it, the D4 platform that the Explorer rides on is beefier than the CD3 the Edge rides on. Weight and dimensions also play a roll, the Explorer has a longer wheelbase, a wider track, and about a 600 lbs weight advantage on the Edge, all of that adds up to more stability to handle a heavier trailer.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        At Nullo: Ah, well that makes sense.

        Now, why buy an Edge over a Focus station wagon or a mini-van?

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        @Ryoku75

        When I get rid of my ’12 Focus in the next year (love the car, but at 6’5 it’s turned out to be a tad too small for me) I wish I had the option of the Euro Focus wagon, perhaps with a slightly longer base between the A/B pillars. The Escape honestly, dimension-wise, isn’t a big step-up from the Focus, so for somebody like me the Edge or Equinox is a great fit, if only for that reason. I’ll go from having to unnaturally contort my problematic knees and have them jammed into my dashboard to getting in and out like a grown-ass man and having 4+ inches of knee room when I’m in my car. :)

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        At Tuff: As well sized as the new Focus is it sounds like the interior could use a re-design.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        @Ryoku75

        It has a very “European” styling, and by European some might say “odd”. The center stack looks/feels like a mobile phone keypad. Fit and finish is great, though, and coming off my lemon 2010 Kia Forte, that was what I was primarily going for with the Focus. *Hopefully* when I get her back from the body shop in a week or two, after a nasty $13,000 deer collision a few weeks back, that fit and finish will still be there! I’ve never hit a 200 pound roadblock before, so I guess we’ll see if anything’s been knocked loose. :P

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        At Tuff: I’m not surprised, ever since the 500 Ford seems to be going with a psuedo European route with styling.

    • 0 avatar
      jz78817

      “The Edge truly is an answer to a question nobody asked.”

      then why do they consistently sell 100k+ annually?

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    Consumer Reports tested dozens of vehicles in this class. 1st place: Toyota Highlander Hybrid. Not sure what came in last, but if I remember correctly, the Ford Edge and Ford Explorer were almost in last place.

    Talk about a resale value killer …

    Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Women love “cute utes” and customer love equals higher demand and higher prices. Have you driven one or just like quoting magazines? Yes, I drive an Escape.

    • 0 avatar
      Juniper

      2010 Edge owner here, love itl
      All I can say is Check it out, Check it out, Check it out!!

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Clearly towing and off-road capability was not a requirement at ALL in the Consumer Reports testing. I believe the Highlander still comes with the warning to do no off-road driving and tow no more than 1,000 pounds – which for the average soccer mom is no harm no foul, but if you’re buying a SUV/CUV for SUV/CUV reasons, the Highlander hybrid is pretty – useless.

  • avatar
    Bushwack

    Thanks for the video blog. Those others that blog for 60 seconds is just mindless babble. Your extensive blog has thought and preparation behind it.

  • avatar
    nrd515

    I have friends with an Edge, and this one is working out very well, it’s a lemon replacement for the first one that had numerous electrical issues that Ford couldn’t seem to resolve. The main complaint I have about it is the crazy price tag, it was stickered at about 44K. Another friend has a JGC, and it stickered at an almost identical price. I would take the Jeep, hands down, but if the Edge was about 10K cheaper, I would go that way. But that’s a fantasy, the out the door price was probably pretty close.

  • avatar
    carguy

    I like the extensive video review – keep it up.

    The 2.0 Ecoboost seems to be better than the 3.5 V6 in every way. The 3.5 is not only unrefined and unremarkable in its power delivery, its also heavier and thirstier wand delivers less torque. I am surprised that Ford doesn’t offer the Ecoboost in the Taurus.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    I’m an Escape owner. It’s not a vehicle 5 people can travel comfortably in. 5 for lunch? Yes. 5 for a 12 hour trip to heart land? No so much. Why does Ford make the Edge? Women love it.
    When it comes to towing, the 800 pound gorilla is being ignored. The F-150 is a superb tow vehicle. A crew cab F-150 will tow your toys and haul the flotsam and jetsam a family will take them.
    A wagon? WTF? I cross shop and no, not a single Ford salesperson has ever suggested a wagon to me.
    Significant other abhors trucks? 2 words: Ride Height. Something us country boys have known for years.

  • avatar
    lawstud

    GOOD GOD. What a pillar in the back trunk area; it’s freaking huge. I suppose it helps with the rear door open faster, but what an asymmetrical (ugly) implementation.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    Just a stylistic suggestion: you started four sentances with “despite” in the last paragraph. Maybe switch it up a bit?

  • avatar
    RS

    Local Dealer (best price, no negotiating) has 11 Edge Limited’s available with the 2.0L turbo. Here’s their pricing – which includes rebates and their discount.

    Lowest Priced Limited:
    MSRP $37,240
    Discount $4,459
    Best Price $32,781

    Most loaded:
    MSRP $41,635
    Discount $5,086
    Best Price $36,549

  • avatar
    Junebug

    Aw hell, forget these “cute utes” bring back the Olds Vista Cruiser!!


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

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States