What Do You Think The EcoBoost Take Rate Is?
Ford currently offers four vehicles with its EcoBoost-branded direct-injection, turbocharged V6: Taurus and Flex, and the Lincoln MKS and MKT. But what percentage of buyers do you think spends the $750 to $1,700 to upgrade to Ford’s engine technology of the future? Write down your guesses and hit the jump to see how close you were…
According to Edmunds [via AN [sub]]:
of all the 2010 Flex models sold through October, about 11.5 percent had the EcoBoost engine. The 2010 Taurus SHO, which offers the 3.5-liter V-6 EcoBoost, comprised 14.2 percent of all Taurus sales.About 30 percent of all 2010 Lincoln MKS sedans were sold with EcoBoost, and about 46 percent of the 2010 MKT crossovers sold had EcoBoost.
Which isn’t bad when you consider that Edmunds estimates that only three percent of the cars sold in the US are turbocharged. In fact, achieving a higher take rate for EcoBoost may just be the best argument for the Lincoln brand. After all, as Dan Edmunds points out, Ford-branded EcoBoost offerings are always going to face a certain dilemma:
If you live in the Sun Belt states, you have to pay extra for awd and then pay for the EcoBoost on top of that. It’s a double whammy.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
I want to know what appliance has an Ecoboost option for $750? It (senselessly) costs tjousands more on the Flex/Taurus, MKFlex/MKTaurus...it's even a grand or two on the F-150. And while those percentages may sound impressive...all of the D3 vehicles listed above have had piss poor sales numbers. The best selling model--Taurus--has sold at a slower rate than the equally bland/boring Five Hundred. My guess is that the take rate would have been much higher had Ford not lied when they said that Ecoboost was only going to cost the buyer $700 and that premium would be paid off within 2.5 years from the (non-existent) fuel savings.
For standard sedans with engines over 2L, turbo is a poor option. I believe the Fords have 2 turbos, a really poor option. Better acceleration, more HP, poorer MPG, and potentially high cost to maintain. I recently finished an overhaul on a Garrett T3/T3 83 MB 300 CDT. Should be done every 100k for this car. Hard to remove and install. Two would be very expensive done by a shop.
I wonder if the real reason why most full size luxury cars are offered with V8's is because equipping them with a V6 or I4 would eat into their profitability? The low uptake for the Cadillac STS with Northstar V8 when offered the alternative Direct Injection V6 seems to point in that direction.
Considering it is a top level trim, I would say the numbers are pretty good. Since the engine isn't offered lower levels, is anyone really surprised by these numbers?