2012 Ford Explorer XLT EcoBoost: Waiting

AND you get to pay another $1000 for this privilege. Not as bad as spending the extra cash on the SFE package to wring 2mpg more out of a Fiesta that already gets 38mpg, but it is the same alarming trend.

Fantastic photograph of the gauge cluster, by the way.

This is just too little engine for too much car.

Besides being different mfrs, consider the different performances of the Kia Optima 2.0T and the Ford Explorer 2.0T. Ford is trying too hard with this combination.

Since this thing doesn't have paddles I would just shove the gas and hope that the committee works faster.

Seems like the only thing you can do at this point.

Ford _says_ it has the same ratings as the BMW N20, but I'll bet the BMW outpowers and outtorques the Ford by a fair amount on the dyno. Not dissing the Ecoboost engine at all, just saying that a legit 240 hp isn't enough to power a big SUV like this.

Of course it's slow and dimwitted, the thing is a pig. 1,100 extra pounds over the BMW is immense to haul around.

The BMW turbo 4 may be a reference point but I'm not sure I'm ready to make it a real comparison. The 328 may be a base model but it's a base model of the world's premier sports sedan. It's supposed to be quicker than a 7 passenger CUV.

To me the real issue with the Ecoboost Explorer is not driving performance. Those interested in fuel economy are willing to sacrifice acceleration. The problem is that the fuel economy numbers in this vehicle are just not terribly impressive and may not be worth the tradeoff. I get 18-19 mpg in my CX-9 and I have AWD. Edmunds had a 2008 CX-9 in the long term fleet and averaged 18.2 mpg. The Ecoboost Explorer is beating those numbers, but not by much. Not by enough to justify it's sluggish performance and premium price.

One of the reasons Edmunds got this car was to test the Ecoboost 4. I'd like to see them get their hands on an FWD Explorer with the V6 for a couple weeks and see if there's any real world benefit to the Ecoboost option.

I guess it now goes without saying that the Explorer needs the 6. I wish there were some statistics (not from Ford, of course) that show whether the Ecoboost is worth the $1,00 premium. I am guessing it isn't worth it. And if the break even point is 5 years or more, that also makes it not worth it.

Now I am worrying about all the tiny turbos that will be coming out in the next year or two.
I am particularly concerned about the new Fusion, which has what seems to be the same turbo engine.

I thought turbo lag was a thing of the past.

I have a CX-7 and this is annoying for lane changes.

Getting a CVT + V6 next time. Will be super smooth instant power.

@ed124c: The new Fusion will be asking much less of the turbo engine than the Explorer is.

Help me out here, are there any examples of turbo 4s in such a large vehicle. The closest I can think of is the old Outback XT and that wasn't all that large and the engine was a 2.5L and it didn't get great fuel economy.

Turbos can be nice but I'm afraid we're starting to see them crop up where they don't belong for one reason only: the EPA mpg test cycle. It's the automotive equivalent of teaching to the test. The turbo does great on the highway EPA number because it's lighter than a larger engine and, when cruising at a constant speed on the highway, there isn't too much turbo boost required. But in real world driving, when you need the turbo to spool up a bit more often, you end up with less than impressive fuel economy.

"Turbos can be nice but I'm afraid we're starting to see them crop up where they don't belong for one reason only: the EPA mpg test cycle. It's the automotive equivalent of teaching to the test. The turbo does great on the highway EPA number because it's lighter than a larger engine and, when cruising at a constant speed on the highway, there isn't too much turbo boost required. But in real world driving, when you need the turbo to spool up a bit more often, you end up with less than impressive fuel economy."

+1 legacygt

At the end of the day, you can't beat physics. It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate a certain amount of weight to a certain speed. If you want significantly better REAl WORLD fuel economy without changing your driving style or compromising performance, then your best option is to buy a lighter vehicle.

@legacygt:

So, the new Fusion won't have the turbo lag because it is a lot lighter than the Explorer?

Having driven several turbo Cruzes and a few Legacy GTs, I don't thnnk that I noticed much of an acceleration lag.

Wait, I think I have my engines mixed up. Now I remember that the manual transmission Fusion will have the 1.6 Turbo. The upper level Fusions will have the 2.0 turbo* as an option, which is supposed to be the 3.0 V6 replacement. Although I hope they don't call this car the Sport, because the engine only gets 237 hp.

*Automatic transmission, of course.

Turbos can be used everywhere, and should be used everywhere.
The difference is if you are using the turbo for Sufficient power, or Additional power.

The first 2000 rpm of a turbo engine is naturally aspirated.
So if the naturally aspirated engine delivers sufficient power already without assistance, once you hit 2000+ rpm, the turbo is extra oomph for extra quick acceleration. (GT-R turbo, 335 turbo, Taurus SHO, MazdaSpeed6)

If the naturally aspirated engine delivers insufficient power, the car will be sluggish, until 2000+ rpm and the turbo moves the car as the car should. (Possibly this Explorer, CX-7)

I love it when someone calls the Explorer a "pig" regarding weight. Yes, it's heavy (AWD, V6, around 4,700 lbs) but so are its direct competition (AWD V6 and up)...some are even heavier (Jeep GC Overland - 4900 lbs, Durango...the hemi at or beyond 5000 lbs). Note that the Grand Cherokee is a smaller vehicle even!

Having gotten that off my chest, I will say that I agree the Ecoboost 4cyl in the Explorer is not a good match because of its curb weight. It's a fine option for the lighter FWD Edge though. Perhaps if they upped the output it might be viable. In the other Ecoboost applications (V6 engine) one gains either more power (Flex)or more power and better economy (F150) so charging more for the option is worth consideration. The fuel economy advantage of the Ecoboost Explorer is not that great...especially in real-world driving. Throw in the fact you have to give up AWD for the privilege puts salt in the wound.

-Stephen

Someone posted about the economy they are getting with their CX-9 V6 AWD (nice vehicle, btw)...18 - 19 mpg. This is what we are getting with our 2012 Explorer Limited (AWD V6). First tank: 18.3, second tank: 19.2 both mixes of suburban/city driving with less than 800 miles on the odometer. The Ecoboost Explorer just isn't impressive in fuel economy or performance.

Wrong application for this kind of motor.

@steviebster: Thanks for sharing your experience with the new V6 Explorer. I guess it's safe to assume you'd be getting even higher mpg if you had the FWD. To me it's a real problem that there's this huge push around the efficiency of the Ecoboost option in the Explorrer while the real world advantage might be very slight. But I doubt that Ford is worrying about it. The Explorer is selling well. Most buyers who choose the Ecoboost option probably think they've made a wise choice. And Ford gets the nice bump in its CAFE number every time a buyer chooses that engine. But the problem is more long term in nature as consumers may become disappointed when they don't see anything close to the advertised mpg.

@ed124c: I don't think the turbo lag in the Fusion would be as much of an issue because the engine will have so much less mass to move than in the Explorer. I used to drive a Legacy GT and it definitely had noticeable turbo lag. But it wasn't a huge deal because the power really came on strong once you got the turbo spooled up and it was a relatively light car so you could build revs pretty quickly, or you could downshift. The Explorer doesn't allow for manual gear selection and it's so much heavier so it takes a while for the revs to build and the turbo to build pressure. I have higher hopes for the Ecoboost 4 in the Fusion than in the Explorer. But given the experience with the Explorer, I'm skeptical. I hope that the turbos in the Fusion provide some combination of driving enjoyment and real world efficiency...not just a nice CAFE number.

The current Fusion Sport's V6 is rated 263 hp and the 2.0 Ecoboost motor is going to be either 237 or 247 hp - torque is about the same peak for both engines, but in the turbo it's available from probably 1700-5000 rpm...I don't expect there will be any performance degradation in the new Fusion.

I expect they will fine-tune power delivery so there's not too much lag - that doesn't have to happen nowadays.

church123's comment is interesting, though - I would like to see the Explorer put on the dyno to see what kind of power this engine is actually making.

That said, the Explorer is the wrong vehicle for this engine. The 3.7 V6 should be the base engine and the 3.5 Ecoboost from the Flex should be optional. The 3.5 is powerful enough out of boost to offer great cruising mpg.

I still think the Flex is the better vehicle, but the sales numbers don't work.

"I love it when someone calls the Explorer a "pig" regarding weight. Yes, it's heavy (AWD, V6, around 4,700 lbs) but so are its direct competition (AWD V6 and up)...some are even heavier (Jeep GC Overland - 4900 lbs, Durango...the hemi at or beyond 5000 lbs). Note that the Grand Cherokee is a smaller vehicle even!"

Congratulations. You just put lipstick on the pig. It now looks better than the other pigs.

@fordson1: You're exactly right. the 3.5L Ecoboost would be nice in the Explorer just as it is in the Flex. And I bet it wouldn't do too much worse than the 2.0L seems to do in terms of real world efficiency. But I don't think Ford cares. What they care about are the mpg numbers they can put on the window stickers and report to the government and the 2.0L Ecoboost delivers some gaudy highway mpg numbers in the fantasy world of the EPA test cycle.

someguyposting:

Yes it does...thanks

legacygt:

We chose AWD because of the crazy Pacific NW weather. My folks live in a rural area that is the last to get plowed when snow falls. I looked at the FWD mpg ratings though to see what we'd be giving up and it wasn't that much. I suspect it would be the same range increase in the "real world". I would still prefer the V6 FWD though over the Ecoboost.

I have one word for this type of overweight wagons....diesel. takes care of needed torque & fuel consumption
Has IL tested the Edge with this engine..seems like thats the only version on the dealer lots?

Y U NO DYNO THE EXPLORER?

This is rediculous Im tired of you guys piling on a good vehicle comparing the and comparing the mileage to different cars with different engines.
1st - this is a moms car. Explorer became popular because women liked them, the guys drove Broncos. After the popularity waned it became more masculine even though the guys now drove expeditions, the 2010 Explorer was a piece of crap compared to this edition.
2nd. The ecoboost is not a underpowered. Yes there is a lag most noticeable at low speeds but it is by no means underpowered for a moms car. I test drove the car and told me wife she would love it (she did and does). It's as smooth as a luxury car and while driving you forget its size and wieght - that's whats important!
She used to drive a 2007 Murano, V6 powered and pretty nimble. The Explorer is much a better driving experience both of us agree. It feels much lighter, much smoother and gets better mileage. I can get 19-20 MPG in a mixture with the Murano and 21-24 Mpg with the Explorer.
For the guys comparing his V6 with the IL ecoboost you can't. My wife gets lower MPG in any car we share despite spending more time on the HWY. But I took the exact same routes to work on consecutive days with the Explorer and then with the Murano and I can see the difference- in a bigger vehicle I get 2-4 MPG more.
For the record I drive faster but smarter than my wife (she hasn't figured out how to use cruise control yet), and the Explorer is so smooth I can take my food off the accelerator and cruise home once I enter my complex (its downhill too).
As for the IL guy complaining about problems accelarating, everything is relative. I mean common guys who's never been overtaken by a prius before, that thing goes 0-60 in 10 secs.
The explorer drives as smooth as a car but it doesn't accerate like one, if your expecting it to your an IDIOT!! But then again IL pretty much savages the 4cyl engines in the Passat, Camry, and Jetta while never mentioning the lag in the VW TDI because diesel is soo WONDERFULL!!
Truth is with the premium charged for diesel fuel it and the fact that it needs "sophisticated" mechanics to repair it is not comparable to a V6 or a hybrid but rather to a 4cyl with best in class MPG
Yardieflo

This is rediculous Im tired of you guys piling on a good vehicle comparing the and comparing the mileage to different cars with different engines.
1st - this is a moms car. Explorer became popular because women liked them, the guys drove Broncos. After the popularity waned it became more masculine even though the guys now drove expeditions, the 2010 Explorer was a piece of crap compared to this edition.
2nd. The ecoboost is not a underpowered. Yes there is a lag most noticeable at low speeds but it is by no means underpowered for a moms car. I test drove the car and told me wife she would love it (she did and does). It's as smooth as a luxury car and while driving you forget its size and wieght - that's whats important!
She used to drive a 2007 Murano, V6 powered and pretty nimble. The Explorer is much a better driving experience both of us agree. It feels much lighter, much smoother and gets better mileage. I can get 19-20 MPG in a mixture with the Murano and 21-24 Mpg with the Explorer.
For the guys comparing his V6 with the IL ecoboost you can't. My wife gets lower MPG in any car we share despite spending more time on the HWY. But I took the exact same routes to work on consecutive days with the Explorer and then with the Murano and I can see the difference- in a bigger vehicle I get 2-4 MPG more.
For the record I drive faster but smarter than my wife (she hasn't figured out how to use cruise control yet), and the Explorer is so smooth I can take my food off the accelerator and cruise home once I enter my complex (its downhill too).
As for the IL guy complaining about problems accelarating, everything is relative. I mean common guys who's never been overtaken by a prius before, that thing goes 0-60 in 10 secs.
The explorer drives as smooth as a car but it doesn't accerate like one, if your expecting it to your an IDIOT!! But then again IL pretty much savages the 4cyl engines in the Passat, Camry, and Jetta while never mentioning the lag in the VW TDI because diesel is soo WONDERFULL!!
Truth is with the premium charged for diesel fuel it and the fact that it needs "sophisticated" mechanics to repair it is not comparable to a V6 or a hybrid but rather to a 4cyl with best in class MPG
Yardieflo

I'm comparing my personal experience with the AWD V6 Explorer...because a FWD SUV/CUV doesn't interest me in the least based on what I require in a vehicle. Based on this parameter, the Ecoboost Explorer is not worth the lack of acceleration (compared again..to the V6) or the lack of AWD. The fact that I would have to pay $1000 more for the aggravation...doesn't compute. The mileage gain doesn't make up for this in the least.

Spelling in out in Seattle,
Stephen

@yardieflo: You say your tired of people "comparing the mileage to different cars with different engines" but then you go on to compare the Ecoboost Explorer to a V6 Murano. The issue here is pretty simple. There seems to be a performance sacrifice when you chose the Ecoboost option with the Explorer. There is also a $1,000 price increase. Now, both of those tradeoffs could be acceptable for some buyers provided there's a meaningful real world gain in efficiency. And this is where it seems there might be a problem. It would be great if IL could get a hold of a FWD Explorer with the V6 and compare the two. My hunch is that the Ecoboost beats the V6 in mpg but not by nearly as much as the EPA numbers would suggest. And then the question becomes: do I really want to pay an extra $1,000 and settle for less power so that I can gain one or two mpg?

@legacygt: I hope you see the difference, same driver, same route. As opposed to someone who drives a CX9 in a different part of the country holding it up against someone else who drives a different vehicle in another part of the country. Just far too many variables to make any meaningfull comparison.
Yes IL should compare the V6 vs Eco-boost engines. But don't bash a moms car with an efficiency engine for not having "pickup and go" power. That's like bashing a Prius for not having enough power - only and idiot would buy a Prius and complain about that. I waited for the Eco-boost engine because I wanted as much efficiency as possible.
As for $1000 being recovered in 5 years - I prefer to think of it in miles. I intend to keep this vehicle for 10yrs / 200K miles. Americans are holding unto there cars longer didn't you guys get the memo.?
Just stick to bashing MyFord touch, turning off your car, locking up while still listening to the radio play doesn't instill confidence