Explorer EcoBoost gets low marks

[Exage]

Car and Driver First Drive of the 2012 Explorer EcoBoost

Originally Posted by Car and Driver

Yes, Even EcoBoost Has Its Limits

Ford readily admits that the four-cylinder Explorer is not ideal for crossover buyers who intend to tow. Rather, Ford says it is a better match for workaday tasks like shuttling the kids to school and grocery-getting—so, the stuff crossover buyers do. In most regards, the lighter, more enjoyable-to-drive Edge with EcoBoost could work equally well (and yield an additional mile or two per gallon while it’s at it) unless that third-row seat is absolutely necessary. The portly Explorer is just a bit too much Ford for four cylinders to handle—even with a turbo.

Motor Trend First Test of the 2012 Explorer EcoBoost

Originally Posted by Motor Trend

There you have it. Slow, clumsy, pricey, thirstier than we would have thought, and a packaging disaster, the new Ford Explorer EcoBoost is not a Motor Trend favorite. We're not sure we even like the styling anymore. Here's Loh: "Looks like the Range Rover Evoque’s older, fatter, balding middle-aged brother." Concludes Mr. Lassa, "The Explorer may prove wrong the cliché that there are no bad cars anymore, as it's hard to find anything good to say about this SUV. At best, it's mediocre." Here's to next time.

______________________

I found it somewhat interesting. Motor Trend has a vendetta against MyTouch (and the Explorer it seems), but even Car and Drive was negative against the 4 pot EcoBoost power-train in the 4500lb. Explorer.

As a result we have the:

3.5L V6: 290hp@6500rpm and 255lb-ft@4000rpm at EPA 17C/25H mpg
vs.
2.0L Turbo I4: 240hp@5500rpm and 270lb-ft@3000rpm at EPA 20C/28H mpg

With the V6 getting a higher praise in the Explorer despite it's lower torque and milage figures.

Thoughts on the subject?

[serialk11r]

Eh, 9.2 seconds 0-60 isn't bad for that sort of engine power to weight. I guess the rest of the car is pretty horrible though, not much of a surprise?

[Neutral_Eyes]

I think we should be past the point of needing something that large to shuttle anklebiters around and bring home groceries.

But what the hell do I know? I drive a Miata.

[1660]

All the manufacturers have to move to smaller displacement in order to meet CAFE down the road. Ford has been bragging about the EcoBoost and it may become an export item.

[Exage]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Eh, 9.2 seconds 0-60 isn't bad for that sort of engine power to weight. I guess the rest of the car is pretty horrible though, not much of a surprise?

It's interesting because Car and Driver estimated a 8.0 second run for it. A decent margin between the two figures. For reference Car and Driver managed a 7.5 with a V6 4WD Limited @ 4900lb.

This is one of the few new models in recent history that has severely missed the mark.

Originally Posted by Neutral_Eyes

I think we should be past the point of needing something that large to shuttle anklebiters around and bring home groceries.

But what the hell do I know? I drive a Miata.

I would have to agree. Like the engine downsizing to improve efficiency, perhaps the vehicles like this should as well. I guess after the Freestar, this and the Flex are now the multiple child carrying options from Ford...

Originally Posted by 1660

All the manufacturers have to move to smaller displacement in order to meet CAFE down the road. Ford has been bragging about the EcoBoost and it may become an export item.

The EcoBoost V6 seemed to get praise in the F150 as contender against the 5.0L V8. I'm re-reading the article and it seems like it [F150] too didn't get the milage that they had expected, but actual drivability and performance was better, unlike what's gone on with the Explorer I4T vs. V6. Your reasoning for CAFE is sound, it's an extremely good move by Ford moving in this direction.

F150 EcoBoost, it you want to take a read.