2011 Ford Edge EcoBoost Report

csv8 · 08-01-2011, 10:48 PM

Can you have your cake and eat it too? Ford thinks so. The Dearborn darling is in the middle of unleashing a slew of turbocharged, direct-injection engines for its products in North America, and we recently had a chance to sample a few. We were most interested, however, in one particular vehicle: the 2011 Edge equipped with Ford's new 2.0-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost engine. After some seat time with the Edge EcoBoost and a quick shake of our automotive journalist-issued Magic 8-Ball, we can confidently say Outlook Good for this Blue Oval-badged mid-size crossover. Outlook good, indeed.

Photos copyright ©2011 Jeff Glucker / AOL

The 2011 Ford Edge EcoBoost looks just like the refreshed 2011 Ford Edge Limited we drove earlier this year. The only difference on the outside is an EcoBoost badge on the rear hatch. It's essentially the same CUV with a very different motivational tool under the hood: a turbocharged, direct-inject 2.0-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, a powerplant that Ford wouldn't let us photograph on the day of our drive. This same engine is currently on sale in Europe under the bonnet of the Ford Mondeo where it's rated at 200 horsepower and 221 pound-feet of torque.

The version we sampled was a pre-production North American unit, which we were told was still in the early stages of development. Power figures were simply stated as "230-plus horsepower" and "250-plus pound-feet of torque." Engineers on hand informed us they were still working to get every last bit of power from the highly tuned engine. The 2012 Ford Focus ST, which will utilize the same EcoBoost engine, is rated at 247 hp and 250 lb-ft of torque, so we expect similar numbers for the Edge EcoBoost as well. In comparison, the larger 3.5-liter V6 in the naturally-aspirated Edge produces 285 hp and 253 lb-ft of torque yet the EcoBoost unit is 55 pounds lighter .

Ford's 2.0-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, like the 3.5-liter V6 and upcoming 1.6-liter four-cylinder, boasts a wide range of technology that helps push power and fuel economy numbers up while allowing for lower displacement and reduced weight. Working closely with Honeywell, Ford crafted a low-inertia turbo that spools up faster and helps eliminate lag. The direct-injection of the fuel allows for a higher compression ratio and a more efficient burn as well as reduced emissions. Timing on each cam, for both the intake and exhaust cycles, is adjustable thanks to the Ti-VCT (Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing), and this helps give the Edge the trademark flat torque curve that EcoBoost engines are noted for.

Understanding what's going on under the hood is one thing, but driving the Edge is where math and science meet the road. This may have been a pre-production powertrain, but we still wanted to see what it could do. The first thing we did was mash the gas pedal into the carpet. Power was sent to the front wheels and the result was surprisingly strong acceleration that left us with a Jack Nicholson-era Joker smile. There was no lag, just instant go. Like the larger, twin-turbo EcoBoost V6 we've sampled in so many other vehicles, the 2.0-liter manages to feel nothing like what its displacement and cylinder count suggest on paper.

Offering a four-cylinder as the Edge's premium optional engine sounds like crazy talk at first, but the bold decision makes some sense. Not only is power on par with the larger V6, but fuel economy is expected to improve anywhere from 10 to 20 percent. The front-wheel-drive V6-powered Edge is rated at 19 miles per gallon in the city and 27 mpg on the highway. With the EcoBoost, those numbers should rise to 20-23 mpg city and 30-32 mpg highway. It remains to be seen how many consumers are willing to pay more for similar power and better fuel economy out of a smaller powerplant, but if fuel prices rise as expected, this brave Blue Oval bet could just be a masterstroke.

Ford is putting a lot of time, money and marketing behind the entire EcoBoost family of engines, and by 2013, it will offer a variation of these turbocharged, direct-inject engines in 90 percent of its North American model lineup. Besides the 2.0-liter, we also sampled the 3.5-liter V6 and 1.6-liter four-cylinder, and the results mirrored each other. Their torque curves are flat and each model we drove them in surged toward the horizon with the same sense of urgency, be it the Edge, Flex or Fiesta.

In the case of the 2011 Ford Edge, however, adding the EcoBoost engine is like turning a circle into a sphere; the Edge was already exceptionally well-rounded, but now it excels in a whole new dimension.

dannyhilton · 09-01-2011, 01:04 PM

A 2009 Ford Edge SE FWD weighs about 1850kg. Take into consideration that the drag would be higher in this vehicle than a Falcon, and that the weight of a Falcon XT with a full tank of fuel is about 1700kg, take from than about 30kg or so as the difference in engine mass, and well the figures would seem to make a 2.0L EcoBoost Falcon a fuel sipping rocket if this pre-production review is anything to go by. Ford are onto a winner.

ivorya · 09-01-2011, 01:46 PM

Forget Kuga, send this car here!

galaxy xr8 · 09-01-2011, 01:57 PM

That is a nice looking little SUV.

kpcart · 09-01-2011, 05:41 PM

im not sure about the ecoboost in a falcon. in theory it will be a great fuel efficient car IF driven correctly. but aussies like to put their foot down to stay at the same pace as others, or in front when accelerating from lights in city driving.
Holden released the smaller 3.0 litre v6, but people are not getting the 9.0l per hundred kilometers, because they are driving the car wrong, to get that economy you need to drive slow. so most people are getting 14l/100km in the city, even in one of the local car magazines, they had the car as a long termer and produced about 14l/100km. people are having worse economy in the smaller engine then the big engine, because they dont want to feel like slow drivers on the road. i think it will be the same story with the 4 cyl falcon. i also wonder about the life of the turbos on the car, how long will they last. most turbo cars are more troublesome then their n/a counterparts and need to be serviced CORRECTLY, which im not sure will happen with Falcon buyers.

dannyhilton · 09-01-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpcart

im not sure about the ecoboost in a falcon. in theory it will be a great fuel efficient car IF driven correctly...Holden released the smaller 3.0 litre v6, but people are not getting the 9.0l per hundred kilometers, because they are driving the car wrong, to get that economy you need to drive slow. so most people are getting 14l/100km.

The key difference between Holden's SIDI 3.0L V6 and Ford with their EcoBoost 2.0L I4 is torque. The 3.0L SIDI engine only has 290NM of torque, and while the torque curve is relatively flat, it doesn't peak until 2900RPM. The EcoBoost promises to have more torque that comes in earlier and has an even flatter torque curve. Because torque is effectively the muscle that gets the car moving, you have to rev the guts out of the SIDI engine to get it going, which makes the fuel consumption hit the roof (the reason why the I6 beat the Commodore in real world driving). Ford shouldn't have this issue with the EcoBoost, at least not to the extent Holden does. Have attached figures of Holden's SIDI engines below. Not aware of any for the upcoming 2.0L Ford EcoBoost engine.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/au...nformation.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpcart

im i also wonder about the life of the turbos on the car, how long will they last. most turbo cars are more troublesome then their n/a counterparts and need to be serviced CORRECTLY, which im not sure will happen with Falcon buyers.

Ford recently did a torture test on a 3.5L EcoBoost V6, and the results were great. See below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-fCzBHVFTY

nobbystang · 17-01-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivorya

Forget Kuga, send this car here!

After driving one for the last 2 years and seeing the developments they've made to the Edge over that time, I've been hoping they release it before I get home later this year so I can buy one!!! I haven't seen 20mpg yet, close though, but she is awesome in the snow, ice and cruising at 80mph up through the Colorado mountains!!

From what I've heard the only thing holding Ford back might be the fact she doesn't have the 3rd row like a Territory??

chevypower · 18-01-2011, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpcart

im not sure about the ecoboost in a falcon. in theory it will be a great fuel efficient car IF driven correctly. but aussies like to put their foot down to stay at the same pace as others, or in front when accelerating from lights in city driving.
Holden released the smaller 3.0 litre v6, but people are not getting the 9.0l per hundred kilometers, because they are driving the car wrong, to get that economy you need to drive slow. so most people are getting 14l/100km in the city, even in one of the local car magazines, they had the car as a long termer and produced about 14l/100km. people are having worse economy in the smaller engine then the big engine, because they dont want to feel like slow drivers on the road. i think it will be the same story with the 4 cyl falcon. i also wonder about the life of the turbos on the car, how long will they last. most turbo cars are more troublesome then their n/a counterparts and need to be serviced CORRECTLY, which im not sure will happen with Falcon buyers.

Hmmm these points have been beat to death, but it still looks like the EcoBoost is a winner. As in the case of the EcoBoost F150 being thrashed in Baja, it was using much less fuel than a V8 being driven in the same manner. They were surprised it wasn't consuming as much fuel as predicted. Have a look at Ohio XB's pics of the engine after it was taken apart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFfRcwesqNg Take a look at Ford's torture test videos for this engine if you haven't done so already.
The engine is rated to tow more in the F150 than the 5.0L V8 is rated at.

I think your perceptions of turbos come from the past, where the engines needed to run at low compression, require premium fuel, have zero low end torque, have no durability, are highly strung, and have turbo lag. Those days are gone. Just like the days of diesels being slow, smelly, noisy and dirty.