Explorer with 2.0L Ecoboost...

[badtlc]

Does anyone on here have one or ever driven one? If so, how do you like it? How is the 7 passenger seating?

We are considering one for the wife's next car.

The FWD part bothers me a tad. FWD in the Escape feels right and with its design still gets around great. FWD on an explorer seems odd. Seems too big for FWD only.

 

[tig1]

What about the Taurus? It appears to be as big as the Explorer. Should be fine.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
The FWD part bothers me a tad. FWD in the Escape feels right and with its design still gets around great. FWD on an explorer seems odd. Seems too big for FWD only.


It's really no heavier than some of the larger minivans. True, minivans don't have the best reputation in general for transmission durability, but most modern powertrains seem reliable. Our Acura weighs about the same and its transmission still seems to be 100%. We'll turn 115k miles in it in another week or two.

We love having the 6th and 7th seats in her Acura. We certainly don't use them every day (we are a family of four), but we are often at either of the grandparents' house and the kids can jump in the back row and we can all travel comfortably in one vehicle. Or we sometimes carpool the kids to school or church and the extra seats come in handy at least a few times each month.

Our Acura's replacement may or may not be an SUV/CUV, but it'll be that or a minivan...something with that 3rd row. It's too useful for a young family, at least in our experience. We've owned sedans before, and despite some very great offerings like the Fusion and 6 and Accord, we just have no desire for something without a liftgate...especially as our primary family vehicle.

 

[Danh]

Auto press reviewers have said the 2.0 EcoBoost engine is overmatched by the Edge's mass. But you should be able to make up your own mind with a test drive.

And there have been reports of intake valve carbon buildup on Ford's EcoBoost engines. Guess it's too early to know if these are one-offs or a chronic problem.

 

[NHGUY]

The Explorer is basically a Taurus wagon.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: tig1
What about the Taurus? It appears to be as big as the Explorer. Should be fine.


If we wanted a 4/5 person vehicle we'd buy the Escape, CX-5 or Forrester. Wife doesn't want a van and likes that she can take her Escape out even in 1'+ of snow with little worry. She wants that same feeling in her next car.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Danh
Auto press reviewers have said the 2.0 EcoBoost engine is overmatched by the Edge's mass. But you should be able to make up your own mind with a test drive.

And there have been reports of intake valve carbon buildup on Ford's EcoBoost engines. Guess it's too early to know if these are one-offs or a chronic problem.


The escape she currently drives is 150 hp and is more than adequate. I would have assumed 230+ for the Explorer was enough. Maybe it isn't.

My dad has the 2.0L EB in his escape with no problems. We really like that engine. That is a PLUS for the explorer.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

I think these are excellent looking SUV's but I just dont get the whole "Eco Boost" thing. If you look at the reports for "real world" driving you will see they get the same mileage as a V6 powered SUV. So whats the point of the Turbo 4?

I like the idea of the turbo power delivery and all, but to sell this "Eco Boost" one first thinks of Fuel Economy. Just seems that isn't the case here. Well maybe on a perfectly straight road with no load on the engine AT ALL it may get 1-2 MPG's better, but who ever does that?

Jeff

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
I think these are excellent looking SUV's but I just dont get the whole "Eco Boost" thing. If you look at the reports for "real world" driving you will see they get the same mileage as a V6 powered SUV. So whats the point of the Turbo 4?

I like the idea of the turbo power delivery and all, but to sell this "Eco Boost" one first thinks of Fuel Economy. Just seems that isn't the case here. Well maybe on a perfectly straight road with no load on the engine AT ALL it may get 1-2 MPG's better, but who ever does that?

Jeff


My dad's escape is rated 28 MPG with the 2.0L EB and AWD. Should be comparable and I have no problems getting 30+ MPGs in it.

If you look at mass real world MPGs for every vehicle they are below the HWY ratings of every vehicle out there.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

I just have not seen the "Eco" in these engines. "Real World" they are the same as a V6 from I have seen.

Jeff

 

[itguy08]

I've driven one with the 3.5 and that's about as low as I'd want to go. The Explorer like all it's siblings (Taurus, MKS, Flex, MKT) is a porker. The reviews say the 2.0 is a little strained by the mass of the vehicle.

That being said, if you want a useable 3rd seat, take a look at the Flex. I'm 6'2" and had no issues fitting back there and being relatively comfortable.

 

[OneEyeJack]

I thought the point of the 4-cylinder Eco-boost engine was less mass, fewer parts, easier to service and more profit.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
I thought the point of the 4-cylinder Eco-boost engine was less mass, fewer parts, easier to service and more profit.


^^^^^ This I can believe^^^^^^^

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
If you look at mass real world MPGs for every vehicle they are below the HWY ratings of every vehicle out there.


I don't share that observation. I haven't ever owned a vehicle that didn't pretty easily beat its highway fuel economy...even using the 2008+ ratings. The older ratings were really easy to beat.

I think, too, the highway ratings are less easy to manipulate through things like transmission shifting schedules. It seems that that's a fairly common practice now, to 'game' the fuel economy testing schedule by using shift programming that best matches.

If Ford claims 28 mpg for the 2.0 Explorer, I'd expect to see close to that. Our MDX is 21 highway and we usually get about 23. Our CR-V is 26 highway and we usually get about 28.

 

[CT8]

The Cadillac Eldorado was FWD and it was ultimate Ghetto playground equipment. It was a boat.

 

[kkreit01]

Most of the reviews hate the 2.0 EB in this application. They said it's OK in the Edge, but not the Explorer. I've had 4 past gen Explorers. I researched them again when we recently bought our Durango (wanted 3 rows). They seem to be problem-some (after browsing the forums a few days). You'll probably never reach the EPA MPG, unless you set the cruise at 55, on a level road (this is another trait I'm reading of most all EB engines). They don't really live up to their gas-saving claims over their larger counterparts.

If you get around fine in your fwd Escape, the Explorer will also do fine (although it probably has slightly lower ground clearance). However, I would pick the 3.5. It's tried and proven for several years.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

well we all know which companies have been getting in trouble for inflating their MPG figures cough cough Hyundai, cough cough Ford amongst others.

For 2 cars I personally can compare.

2011 Hyundai Elantra, Rated at 29 city, 41 hwy (at least when I bought the car in 2011) in reality? City 23-24, hwy 33-34.

2013 VW GTI rated at 24 city, 31 hwy, in reality? 25 city solid, and 33-34 hwy solid.

So it all depends on the manufacturer I reckon. From what I have gathered from reading the rags, and people I know, most Turbo 4's make about the same MPG's as any modern V6. Did you read the Article in the new Automobile Mag I believe it was about the new 2015 Camry? The Toyota Rep stated "we stuck with our V6 vs a turbo 4 like our competitors because or V6 beat the turbos in every single category".

Only benefit I personally like about a turbo is the flat torque curve. Its nice to be in any gear and hit the gas and your gone, vs naturally aspirated you have to get some revs up, unless you have a V8.

One example, though its a 4 cyl comparo, my friends 2012 Hyundai Sonata with the 2.4 GDI motor, going up the same 6% grade to the local big city and it downshifts all the time to maintain speed. Vs. My Turbo 4 making the same HP rating can pull the same exact hill in 6th and never downshift.

Just love a turbo motor, just dont buy one thinking you going to get better gas mileage. Well maybe you can if you drive with an egg under your foot.

Jeff

 

[datech]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
well we all know which companies have been getting in trouble for inflating their MPG figures cough cough Hyundai, cough cough Ford amongst others.

For 2 cars I personally can compare.

2011 Hyundai Elantra, Rated at 29 city, 41 hwy (at least when I bought the car in 2011) in reality? City 23-24, hwy 33-34.

2013 VW GTI rated at 24 city, 31 hwy, in reality? 25 city solid, and 33-34 hwy solid.

So it all depends on the manufacturer I reckon. From what I have gathered from reading the rags, and people I know, most Turbo 4's make about the same MPG's as any modern V6. Did you read the Article in the new Automobile Mag I believe it was about the new 2015 Camry? The Toyota Rep stated "we stuck with our V6 vs a turbo 4 like our competitors because or V6 beat the turbos in every single category".

Only benefit I personally like about a turbo is the flat torque curve. Its nice to be in any gear and hit the gas and your gone, vs naturally aspirated you have to get some revs up, unless you have a V8.

One example, though its a 4 cyl comparo, my friends 2012 Hyundai Sonata with the 2.4 GDI motor, going up the same 6% grade to the local big city and it downshifts all the time to maintain speed. Vs. My Turbo 4 making the same HP rating can pull the same exact hill in 6th and never downshift.

Just love a turbo motor, just dont buy one thinking you going to get better gas mileage. Well maybe you can if you drive with an egg under your foot.

Jeff


So I guess yo9u would have to keep it out of turbo boost mode to get decent mileage? Geez, you go up a 6% grade in top gear? What RPM, how much turbo boost to do that?

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: badtlc
If you look at mass real world MPGs for every vehicle they are below the HWY ratings of every vehicle out there.


I don't share that observation. I haven't ever owned a vehicle that didn't pretty easily beat its highway fuel economy...even using the 2008+ ratings. The older ratings were really easy to beat.



You didn't read my post very well. I don't have any problems exceeding EPA estimates either. But go to any site that tracks MPGs for the "masses" and see their averages. They are almost always well below HWY ratings. That isn't an issue with any one vehicle.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
You didn't read my post very well. I don't have any problems exceeding EPA estimates either. But go to any site that tracks MPGs for the "masses" and see their averages. They are almost always well below HWY ratings. That isn't an issue with any one vehicle.


I may have misinterpreted the context of your post. I originally read it that you were concerned with not being able to get the rated MPG. Maybe that was a different person.