In This Thread: MoD Says Positive Things About an EcoBoost Product

[MinisterofDOOM]

I've driven a number of 3.5 and 2.0 Ecoboost products and found them severely disappointing. Dyno and EPA numbers from Ford sound great, but real work experience repeatedly fails to back either up.

My mom recently replaced her '04 Maxima (which has become a money pit of spectacular proportions) with a 2015 Edge Sport with the new 2.7 EcoBoost V6. This new 2.7 is not at all connected with the 3.5 or its ancient Duratec underpinnings. It's a whole new engine, and unlike the 3.5 it actually belongs in this century and offers a little more than a 20-year-old design with snails bolted on.

This is the same V6 that's now the base engine in the F150. I'm not sure how it'd fare in the F150, honestly, but it can't be worse than the last 3.5 liter half-ton Ford I drove (which I'm sure was CAPABLE of the advertised 420 ft-lb, but adamantly refused to actually make it happen).
In the Edge, though, it's relatively potent. This is a 4400lb crossover with a 6.5 second 0-60 time, and my Butt Dyno tells me that number is pretty solid. It feels pretty much exactly as quick as the LS8 (which is to say: quick, but nothing spectacular) while weighing nearly 1,000lb more.
Better yet (and again unlike the 3.5) there's zero discernable turbo lag. There's no point at which the engine isn't making plenty of torque. It's not the typical experience I'm used to from Ford's OHC engines, with no usable torque below 4,000. Ford seems to have figured out that engineering has advance in the last decade or so and built a V6 that makes solid low end torque and builds on that as boost is added. Exactly the way it should work. So it feels just as seamless as a naturally aspirated engine. Which is great. But it makes a lot more torque than an N/A 2.7 liter V6 ever could--supposedly pushing out 275 ft-lb as low as 1700 RPM and 350 by 2750. I say "supposedly" but in this case reality backs the numbers. It's reasonably impressive, as my (admittedly dated) DOHC V8 makes 220 ft-lb at 2,000 with 1.2 more liters of displacement. And the 2.7's delivery is just as smooth. No gaps, no peakiness, and no wheeziness at the top end.

But, aside from Ford specifically, power has never been my complaint with trading cylinders for boost. Behavioral dynamics are the real issue. I4s are quite simply a terrible layout, engineering-wise. V6s are better but still a huge compromise. Both require major workarounds to achieve even remotely tolerable NVH levels and neither can possibly be as good as a V8 or I6 in that regard. It's a physical impossibility. But it's certainly improving. More critically, in the Edge, nobody ever expected a V8. But what we get here is a pretty refined V6 that makes a lot of usable torque. That's a decent step toward real-world validity for EcoBoost. I don't want a 2.7 in my F-150: if I only wanted 350 ft-lb, I wouldn't be shopping for a full-size pickup. But that was true of older base-engine pickups, too.

What's neat is that this is the first time I've seen an EcoBoost engine as a proper fit for the vehicle it's in. All the boost in the world can't make Ford's D3 a decent platform, so the Taurus, Exploder, Flex, and MKT are terrible cars trying to cover up glaring weaknesses in every conceivable area with some extra torque. It doesn't work, especially because the 3.5 itself is a turd.
But the Edge isn't some archaic fat pig being dressed up in lipstick like the full-size Fords. It weighs about the same as its competitors, handles about as well, and as such it makes sense that a little extra power would make it a much better car than it already is.

This new 2.7 liter is supposedly made from Compacted Graphite Iron, which is a little heavier than traditional aluminum alloys but allows for dimensionally smaller block construction so you can still end up with weight savings. Ford uses an aluminum ladder cradle to support and reinforce the block, and says the 2.7 with cradle still weighs less than the 3.5, while being much, much stronger and more tolerant to changes in heat in addition to not needing cylinder sleeves. I also heard (though I can't find any recent literature to support it) that the 2.7 is essentially the same motor as the NEW 3.5 from the Raptor and GT but in a different displacement.

The one complaint I have about the Edge's 2.7 is that there's a very obviously fake "exhaust note" piped into the car that sounds more like a 5+ liter DOHC V8. It's got a very deep burble that's obviously not the actual noise the V6 makes. The Sport model has active noise cancellation, so I can't really hear the engine itself, and I can't find a way to disable either (noise cancellation or the fake exhaust note). But I honestly prefer the fake V8 noise to real V6 noise. Especially to real 3.5 EcoBoost noise, which basically just sounds like something dying repeatedly in an industrial washer at varying speeds.

The Edge also has AWD, which is a lot more advanced and intelligent than the older Ford AWD systems I'm used to. Rather than being FWD and occasionally sending a little power to the back, this thing constantly shifts power around. There's a visual graph you can display for front:rear power distribution and, if it's to be believed, the Edge sends more than 50% of power to the rear in a lot of acceleration situations. It makes it feel less FWD--which is because it's reducing some of the undesirable side effects of FWD.
Torque steer, however, is always present and very noticeable to my rear-drive-accustomed hands. It's not bad--not turn-of-the-century Nissan bad by any means. But it's not Cadillac transparent, either.

The Edge's interior is decent (practically amazing by Ford standards) which is interesting because the Escape's interior is a complete and utter clusterf@#k. But the interior isn't the only place that the Edge departs from its lesser sibling's design langauge. I don't like crossovers, but I find the Edge pleasant enough to look at. The hood ridges look silly from the driver's perspective (where they just kind of suddenly emerge a little way from the rear of the hood) but aren't jarring from the outside view. The bigger, gate-split taillights are still nice, if not quite as clean as the more traditional pillar-only lights of the 1st gen. The sillhouette's decent enough. A big ol square with a jutting chin and softened corners.

One bizarre thing that feels like a VERY Ford design decision is the lack of any door lock controls of any kind in the back seat. So hopefully your driver isn't a serial killer. But I guess if he is, you have bigger problems anyway.

The touch infotainment interface is way better than the Sync s*** Ford used to plaster Microsoft badges all over in the past. It is relatively intuitive with a decent resolution screen and a good combination of dedicated buttons and onscreen functionality. I still think the stupid enormous center-mount volume knob is tachier than a lit-up Alpine headunit in a lowered '95 Civic with underglow, but if that's the worst design decision inside a Ford product, I think we're making some real progress.

Leg room everywhere is plentiful. The steering wheel adjusts mechanically but tilts and telescopes AND I CAN SEE ALL THE GAUGES WHEN ADJUSTED COMFORTABLY which is phenomenal.

The tach is an LCD but Ford offers the clever ability to minimize the tach readout to one far side (as a sort of scrolling peek at the gauge) while displaying other info like power distribution graphing. The speedo (center of 3 gauges) is the only "real" gauge but that's just fine in this car.

Manumatic mode is pointless. Since my Ford 5R55S is my all-time-favorite manumatic (will bounce off the rev limiter or bog if you tell it to-only doing its own thing if you come to a complete stop in 4th or higher) I thought maybe Ford had a better handle on this. But they don't. The paddle shifters are there to make you feel in control, but the transmission still does its own thing.
Mercifully, the transmission is a regular old 6AT with a single overdrive (5th is a straight 1:1, though that might still end up overdriven after the differentials) and doesn't do an excessive amount of hunting and also doesn't seem to go out of its way to stay two gears too high at all times like every other effing car these days. I'm sure the ample torque helps. But it's pretty much always in the right gear and manages a cool 2,000rpm at 80mph which is excellent. It just doesn't really need another gear. If you're the kind of person who thinks another two gears for another 2MPG would make sense, you should probably go buy a Prius Prime or just find an ocean to drown in, because this works just fine and I'm grateful (though honestly mystified) that Ford didn't go that route here. It's wonderful to drive a modern car that isn't constantly trying to decide which gear it should be in.

I'm sure tires for the thing aren't cheap (20'' wheels because 2015). Of course, with Ford using Hankook as their OE tire manufacturer these days, they'll be cheaper than otherwise, but they probably also suck. Hard to tell in a 4400lb crossover, though.

So, yes:
I have found a Ford EcoBoost product (a double negative!) that I like! I would not buy one, of course, but then I wouldn't buy ANY crossover. I WOULD be okay with a rental and I enjoy driving it occasionally for something different.

[Jesda]

I'd like the Edge more if it was lower to the ground. The upright seating and reclining rear seats in a hatchback/wagon form make it practical and comfortable. I just see no good reason for any of these CUVs to be so high off the ground.

So far, everyone I know who has owned one has been very satisfied.


As for base output in the F-series, I towed cars through the mountains with a 217hp V6 F-150 with ease. The truck would have been great if not for the costly electrical issues and other quality problems.

GM's newer 4.3L Ecotec V6 is interesting. It claims 300+ lb-ft and 24mpg.