Let me explain.
Like most of the staff members here, I have been pleasantly surprised by the performance of the 2.0L turbo I4 Ecoboost engine. It pumps out 240 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque, and gives great low-end response.
But there is no way that if I ever got an Explorer that I would get the Ecoboost I4.
You know why? It is not because it's a $1000 option (although that doesn't help either.)
(Photo by Scott Jacobs)
It's because you can't get 4-wheel drive if you order the turbo I4 engine. That's right -- front drive only with Ecoboost. I also checked for 2013 and it's the same deal -- 4WD with the 3.5L V6 only.
Yeah, I know, most Explorers are used as Mommy cars to go to the mall and the kids' soccer practice. And if I got an Explorer myself I would probably use it 95% of the time for mundane tasks that would require only FWD.
But for this size SUV, even if you call it a unibody crossover or whatever, I want off-road capability. I want to be able to go in the snow, sand, or mud, and 4WD gives greater performance and security in those environments -- of course.
The 4WD Explorer's off-road capability is evident in this video showing the Ford Police Utility in action on a low-friction surface.
So no Ecoboost I4 for me. I won't consider it until Ford makes it available with 4WD.
Albert Austria, Senior VE Engineer @ ~9,000 miles
bimmerjay says:
10:41 AM, 01/27/12
I wouldn't get it either even if it was offered with 4WD. Too pokey.
half_ton says:
11:08 AM, 01/27/12
If I remember correctly this packaging was announced when this vehicle was officially unveiled; I think I may have even made a post on this site about it because it sounded bass-ackward to me to have a V6 standard but a smaller less powerful engine was an additional cost option. Anyone know how much weight 4WD adds and if that added weight is simply too much for the 2.0L 4 banger?
bemanix88 says:
11:27 AM, 01/27/12
Re: the video
Doesn't make much sense to compare Ford AWD vehicles to GM and Chrysler RWD vehicles. Put a Mustang in there and see what happens.
cynic783 says:
11:59 AM, 01/27/12
"gives great low-end response"
This kind of thing should be objective, not subjective. So, let's measure it.
Drive at a steady 5mph, then simultaneously mash the gas and start the timer. When the car reaches 60mph, stop the timer.
Repeat for 30-60, 50-70, etc.
Now compare to the 3.5.
Still great?
pezzy669 says:
12:10 PM, 01/27/12
I bet the performance was deemed unacceptable when they tied it to the AWD system. IMO that is a bit much to ask from a 2L Turbo in a 7 passenger crossover. Could you imagine loading this up with the family+gear for a trip that will take you over some mountainous range in the middle of summer?
I am very much a fan of the current right sizing of engines by the manufacturers, but I think Ford may have gone just about .4L too small here. This 2.0T would be perfect for a $1000 upgrade engine option on the upcoming Escape, the Explorer should really have a 2.4-2.5T as the Ecoboost option.
audisport says:
12:32 PM, 01/27/12
If you want an SUV/SAV/Soccer Mom mobile that even has a chance for any off road capability, you should be thinking a Durango over an Explorer anyways.
Not that either gives you tires that would do you anygood, but at least the Durango gives you the proper hardware to stray off road.
The Explorer is a bloated FWD car that was given an SUV'ish exterior and higher seating points.
huisj says:
12:53 PM, 01/27/12
cynic--
I'm not sure that what you are proposing is a "low-end response" test. Going 5-60 at WOT is a low-end about as much as a max-grip skid pad test is good for measuring parking lot maneuverability. Same with the 30-60 and 50-70. With an automatic transmission that will downshift, those aren't measuring low-end response.
zcalvert says:
01:05 PM, 01/27/12
frankly i can't understand how anyone can justify purchasing a 2wd version of one of these crossovers rather than a minivan. you can't honestly say that the image of one of these is any less "mommy-wagon" than a more useful van. without AWD, what's the point?
ptcdawg says:
01:27 PM, 01/27/12
Agreed about AWD. I've considered picking up a used crossover type vehicle for chores, etc. and AWD is hard to find. I don't get it. IF I wanted a van, with FWD, I would get one.
06scooby says:
02:40 PM, 01/27/12
I'm sorry. I don't get the whole "the ecoboost doesn't have enough power for the AWD" argument. You know how many Explorers with the 4.0 v6 (210 hp/254 lb ft torque) and 4x4 were sold since the late 90's. They are all over the place. the 2008 V6 4x4 weighed 4600 lbs and the new 2012 V6 AWD weighs 4700 lbs. You can't tell me that the ecoboost wouldn't be just fine with AWD especially with 270 lb-ft and a curb weight that would have to be equal to or slightly less than the old V6 version.
Me thinks the ecoboost is just simply there to boost that gas mileage number up and allow them to sell more hurricane v8's. Which is fine by me, if it helps fool the government. But real world mileage shows a different story from EPA ratings on the 2.0 ecoboost.
brn says:
03:07 PM, 01/27/12
06scooby beat me to it. I don't think it has anything to do with the motor. With a lot of torque and a wide power curve, the 2.0 is plenty powerful for AWD. I suspect the tranny has something to do with it. Ford may have mated the 2.0 with a fwd only transmission.
explorerx4 says:
06:05 PM, 01/27/12
I'm pretty sure the original goal was 30 MPG highway.
That couldn't be reached, but maybe another goal was at least 20 MPG city.
Maybe if those goals (my guess) had been more real world, tuning could have been better.
I wonder if anyone is going to develop a chip one of these?
ed124c says:
06:14 PM, 01/27/12
I live in the Northeast, where most non-cars are AWD/4WD. It just makes sense. If the Explorer had the weight of, say, a Subaru Outback, then the 2.0 Ecoboost might work with AWD. The Outback 4 cyl. only makes 170 hp and 170 torque. But with only 3,500 pounds to pull/push, the car moves OK, but not something I want to live with. And that is the main problem: Who wants to spend upwards of 40K for a pokey car?
nomercy346 says:
01:54 AM, 01/28/12
"the 2008 V6 4x4 weighed 4600 lbs and the new 2012 V6 AWD weighs 4700 lbs"
... we switched it to unibody because the BOF platform is too heavy and we can't get good fuel economy with that setup.
Mission accomplished.
I bet a BOF Explorer with the updated 3.7l V6 and 5.0l V8 they put in the F150 and the dimensions of the previous generation could pull off pretty similar EPA numbers with much greater capability than this overweight minivan. The reason they did this is to milk that old Volvo platform some more...
goaterguy says:
07:43 AM, 01/29/12
The 2013 Escape combines the 2.0T with AWD, so there are no excuses.
legacygt says:
06:56 AM, 01/30/12
The ecoboost explorer exists for two reasons: (1) PR and (2) CAFE. It allows them to publish and advertise pretty impressive fuel economy numbers. In the real world these numbers are not really achieved but the real world is not the reason this engine option exists.
cr_driver says:
09:49 AM, 01/30/12
"that is a bit much to ask from a 2L Turbo in a 7 passenger crossover. Could you imagine loading this up with the family+gear for a trip that will take you over some mountainous range in the middle of summer?"
. taken