Took the first long trip with the new 2.0, coming from the 3.5 v6. As I had already noticed, it is a bit of a different powerband with the 2.0 being more "torquey" throughout the powerband. The 3.5 is the traditional set up we are all used to for 35 years- normally aspirated with predictable up shifts and down shifts. The 2.0 seems less responsive because it may not down shift when accelerating from a cruising speed, but it will pull just fine if you have a bit of patience. Just a bit. Fully loaded with luggage and 2 adults mostly on 81s through the blu ridge mountains we got just under 25 mpg, 70-75 with a/c on. This is hilly terrain. On the way home on 95n mostly flat we did a bit better at 26.5. So my conclusion on the gas mileage is it is only about 10% better than the 6 on the same trip. We are getting 26.5 average during normal mixed- mostly side roads every day driving which the 3.5 delivered just around 20 so every day driving is the big fuel savings over the 3.5 and this is where it counts as it is the bulk of the milage. Short hiway trips unloaded we are seeing about 28.
My opinion is the 2.0 is a quite impressive 4 banger that takes a little getting used to but is a fine engine. Also in the life of the vehicle- less shifting may logically extend transmission life which is a good thing but yet to be proven.
First long trip with 2.0 ecoboost2.0
No replies to this topic
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2.0
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users