Bamm1
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by Bamm1
-
-
Prices are not usually posted with the order guides.
Interesting. Here is a quote from the article I posted: "Order guides show the ST has been priced from $43,350, including destination."
I wonder why the author would state he got the pricing from the order guide? Maybe it came from another source and he is generically referring to it as an order guide?
-
You can order a ST without 401A (because its a option) ? Yes, there is a 400A package
You can order a ST without the brake PACKAGE (because its a option) ? Yes
....but can you still get the 21” gloss black wheels? Yes
The order guide is posted here http://www.fordedgeforum.com/topic/24448-2019-edge-order-guide/
It looks like an updated order guide was released on or around July 5th. That one appears to include pricing. Hopefully someone will post that one up soon.
-
Looks like there was an updated order guide released.
Edge ST starts at $43,350
401A Package: $5,585
ST Performance Brake Package: $2695
The article doesn't mention the pricing for the Cold Weather Package or the Cargo Accessory Package. But if someone posts an updated order guide it will be listed there.
Source:
-
2
-
-
Edge only has 11 more sq feet cargo space. Estimate are putting ST 0-60 in mid 5-6s range. Ford could do better here. Go big, or go home.
This is the "range" I was referencing.
The current Edge Sport already goes 0-60 in that same range. The ST is at least a few tenths faster. I would say maybe closing in on FuSpo territory for straight line performance.
But back to the original comment, not in the same range.
My statement regarding the "range" was referring to the current 0-60 time range for the Edge Sport vs. the estimated 0-60 time range for the Edge ST posted by Nicksteer. Then I went on to talk about the new Edge ST likely getting closer to the times for the current gen Ford Fusion Sport. At no point did I state that any Ford product I referenced fell into the same range as the M40i.
-
The X3 M40i starts at 54.5k and is very nicely equipped even in base trim, so you can't really compare it to the starting MSRP of the ford edge sport (not to mention the ST starting price will be higher). 0-60 in 4.6s.
Edge only has 11 more sq feet cargo space. Estimate are putting ST 0-60 in mid 5-6s range. Ford could do better here. Go big, or go home.
Ford is known for performance in its enthusiast segment so that argument doesn't hold any water.
Why can't we compare the starting price of the M40i to the starting price of the Edge Sport? Because the M40i has more options and amenities at its staring price? Then we can just look at the "loaded" Edge Sport. It is still 5k less than the M40i's starting price. Even if the ST costs 5k more than the Sport the "loaded" version will still cost less than the M40i's starting price. You also don't have to pay 300 bucks to get Carplay.
I wouldn't consider that an insignificant amount. The cargo capacity of a Lexus IS350 or Cadillac ATS is less than 11 cu-ft.
The current Edge Sport already goes 0-60 in that same range. The ST is at least a few tenths faster. I would say maybe closing in on FuSpo territory for straight line performance.
Ford could put the Raptor motor in the Edge and charge M40i money. But I am not sure that makes business sense given the take rate for the Sport and the expected take rate for the ST.
-
The new Explorer/Aviator will be capable of using the same drivetrains as the F150 and Mustang, so I guess we'll see how far they're willing to go on performance.
The rumor mill has the Explorer ST following in the footsteps of the Edge ST. It is being suggested that it will be equipped with the new 10A and a re-tuned version of the MKZ's 3.0T taking it over the 400 hp mark.
-
1
-
-
There may be room in the engine bay but the chassis wasn't designed for that much power. Even on the D3 vehicles (Explorer/Flex/MKT/Taurus/MKS) they had to completely redesign the front clip to handle the power.
What does a X3 M cost? $65K. And it's way smaller than an Edge. Better to compare with the X5 which would be even more expensive.
The X3 M doesn't exist just yet. But given that the M3 starts at ~67k and "model for model" the X3 costs more than the 3 series sedan, I wouldn't be surprised if ends up in the 70k area to start. It is simply not an Edge ST competitor at that price. That would be reserved for the likes of the Merc GLC63, etc.
-
"Performance is not measured in straight lines alone".
The Edge Sport was able to tie the Porche Macan S through Motortrend's figure-8 course when shod with all season tires. With the ST improvements this could be prove to one "sure footed" SUV.
-
I heard the same thing from LMS and I'm still waiting for a time slip. my 2 best slips on 93 are 13.39 @ 101 and last weekend managed a 13.28 @ 102
Both were while running the 93 octane V2 tune. My runs with the V3 tune were much worse so i don't know how LMS can make those claims.
I also haven't been able to make a 100 octane run yet. fuel shack was closed, maybe too early in the season for them to have fuel at a test n tune? I would assume I can get into 13.1X territory with the 100 tune and the right DA
With a tune alone that is a pretty big reduction over stock. It seems possible that LMS could make some tweaks to knock off a few more tenths and get into the 12's.
So the V3 tune, which is showing much better dyno numbers under the curve, actually slowed you down?!? Wow. Did you reach out to LMS to help troubleshoot?
-
My understanding was that the 1st Edge into the 12's was on a 100 octane tune from unleashed with lowering springs.
The IC, aftermarket wheels, and motor mount were added later and he got deeper into the 12's.
I could be wrong here. can't seem to find the damn thread for the proof. But no, it wasn't just a flashed tune alone.
I have searched the forum. It looks like with a 93 Octane tune alone we are seeing mid 13's (or slightly below). I see the LMS just released a new version of their tune. On their youtube page it says customers are reporting being in the 12's. But no timeslips, etc. there either.
-
http://www.fordedgeforum.com/topic/21158-0-60-quarter-mile-stock-tuned-edge-sport-thread/page-1
Honestly, dont think a stage 1 Sport has much of a chance against a stock M40i... worse even if the M40i installs JB4
So it looks like getting into 12's required some pretty extensive modifications (motor mount, lowering springs, upgraded intercooler, etc.) plus an e30 tune. I was mistakenly under the impression it was just a Stage 1 93 Octane flash tune with no other modifications.
So it doesn't really translate to the improvements Ford will be adding with the ST trim. Looks like there are some wheel hop issues. Maybe with the ST alterations to the suspension, etc. that could be reduced or eliminated.
Again, not looking to beat the M40i or the GLC43. Maybe the SQ5 would have been a better performance benchmark (again, I understand it is smaller). But the weight is very close (4429 lbs.) and though its power ratings (354/369) are an almost exact match for the M40i, it is a good bit slower. I would think matching performance numbers from the ST are much more in the realm of possibilities.
2018 SQ5
- 0-60: 5.1
- 0-100: 13.0
- 1/4 mile: 13.7 @ 102 mph
The ST would need half second improvements to 60 and through the 1/4 mile (vs. the Sport) to match the SQ5. It would also need a little less than a 2 second improvement to 100 (maybe less doable). The 19 horsepower deficit (likely more as Audi also tends to under rate their hp #s as well) will likely not allow a trap speed match, but it could break into triple digits. Coincidentally, these numbers would also match the ~300 lbs. lighter Ford Fusion Sport.
I think I am banking on the transmission alone for some not insubstantial performance improvements. When Chevy moved from the Aisin Warner F8F35 8-speed to the GM/Ford 9T50E 9-speed on the 2017 Chevy Malibu (with no other changes) it saw a 0.5 sec. faster 0-60 to time and a 0.4 sec / 3.4 mph improvement in ¼ mile mile. I can only hope for similar gains in moving from the current 6A to the new 8A (with the power bump only helping the cause).
-
Yes. Several. There are members here part of a Ford Edge facebook group of some kind that post videos and slips. I'd give you a link, but I don't have a facebook.
Interesting. Do you happen to have any additional information? Which tune? Do you know elapsed times and trap speeds?
-
MKX 2016 2.7T already has that 335 and 380 engine but only on octane 93 and 6 speed transmission. It is probably heavyer than the Edge. It was meant to compete with the Lexus RX but also the BMW X5 when you look at the size; the X3 is much smaller closer to an escape or MKC. The X5 with the base 3.0 turbo engine is also much heavyer than the MKX so imagine vs the Edge.
That being said I think all BMWs require octane 93 so they are always at peak numbers. The MKX only requires 87 but published numbers have an * that specify octane 93.
The numbers we see for BMW don't line up with the hp/tq numbers we see for american cars. They have to be under reporting them for some reason.
Will the Edge 2.7 ST be faster than the X3? I don't know. If it is that is just crazy because the Edge is so much bigger even if weights are similar. Pretty sure MPG will be much worse on the Edge vs the BMW but for how much those cars cost gas price is not that much of a concern.
The Edge numbers reported above were produced using 91 Octane. So even then, likely not the full 315/350.
The MKX is ~220 lbs. heavier than the Edge Sport. The only performance numbers I could find were generated using 87 Octane. So again, not the full 335/380. But here they are for reference:
0-60: 6.0
0-100: 15.4
1/4 Mile: 14.5 @ 97 mph
The 5000 lbs. X5 35i xDrive produces similar numbers to the MKX. (0-60: 5.8, 0-100: 15.7 and 1/4 mile 14.5 @ 96 mph).
-
There are tuned edges into the 12's, so that is not entirely true, however one would guess that the new ST edge will be immediately brought to a tuner to see what they could do. i would imagine a 12.7-12.5 out of a tuned ST would be possible in the right tuners hands.
Are there "official" time slips showing an Edge Sport in the 12's with just a tune? All the time slips I have seen to date don't beat the X3 M40i.
I don’t understand why people continue to do that. They always compare smaller competitors whether it’s a price comparison or performance. You really need to compare the same size vehicles.
The 2018 X3 is 186″ L x 75″ W x 66″ H and weighs ~4300 lbs.
The 2018* Edge is 188″ L x 76″ W x 69″ H and weighs ~4400 lbs.
I wouldn't say the Edge is substantially bigger than the X3. But I get your point. I was not expecting the Edge ST to match the lighter and more powerful X3. My speculation game was more along the lines of how close do we think it can get...........
* I am assuming the 2019 will not change
Couple of things to note with regards to BMW:
- The ZF 8 speed in the beemer is very good and comes with Launch Control - this is porbably one of the biggest reasons why the BMW is so much faster 0-100
- BMW Power - BMW caught a trick from VW when quoting Hp numbers and the B58 platform is very underrated. Some believe the quoted numbers are wHp and not just Hp (have a read here: https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?6677-Technical-comparison-of-the-BMW-B58-3-0-turbo-I6-in-the-2016-F30-340i-to-the-N55-engine-it-replaces-Stock-and-Stage-I-Alpha-tuned-dyno-figures )
Holding thumbs that Ford ups their game with the ST. Would be great if the new Edge could keep up with a Bimmer
As far as launch control goes several of the car testing websites/magazines have found that just brake torqueing the ZF 8A equipped BMW's produces similar times (sometimes better) to those produced using launch control.
Otherwise I agree on all your points.
I am "hoping" Ford did some "bench marking" when it built its own 8-speed and the ZF was on that comparison list.
I am also well aware of BMW's power rating shenanigans. The 3820 lb. 340i xDrive 8A with "320 hp" runs the 1/4 in 12.7 @ 109 mph.
-
Performance numbers for the 2015 Ford Edge Sport AWD:
- weight: 4437lbs
- 315 hp / 350 tq
- 0-60: 5.6
- 0-100: 14.8
- 1/4 mile: 14.2 @ 98 mph
- skidpad: 0.83g
- 70-0: 176 ft.
Performance numbers for the 2018 BMW X3 M40i:
- weight: 4308lbs
- 355 hp / 369 tq
- 0-60: 4.4
- 0-100: 11.2
- 1/4 mile: 13.0 @ 107 mph
- skidpad: 0.85g
- 70-0: 158 ft.
The ST will have 20 more hp and 30 more ft-lbs of tq. It will also now have an 8-speed transmission along with improvements in the suspension, brakes, etc. I doubt the weight will change at all. So the M40i will likely keep its 100+ lb. weight advantage.
How close to the M40i will it be able to get?
The ST has to make up over a second to 60 and in the 1/4 mile (vs. the previous gen Sport). Can it get within 3/4 of a second of those times? Maybe even less? The ST has less HP, so it will not be able to match the trap speed. The biggest discrepancy is that the M40i gets to 100 mph over three and a half seconds faster than the Sport. Tuned Edge Sport's are not even close to as fast as the stock M40i (in all measures).
The BMW had summer tires in the test above so just including those on the Sport should be able to partially reel in the skidpad numbers and braking distances. With the ST "tweaks" I would expect it to exceed those numbers.
-
I am running 20" rims. The difference between them and 21" is about 6 lbs so rims won't really affect the 1/4 mile as much as you would think.
I actually am doing some side by side comparison with LMS and Unleashed tunes to see the difference between the two... Yes I bought two tuners from two different companies.
I hope you will post the results. Until then I look forward to reading your comparison.
-
1
-
-
Switching to 93 octane gained me about a quarter of a second so I'm now at around 6.75s. Ambient air temp right now is 80-90 degrees here in Texas so I guess I'll have to wait until the end of the year to see how this thing performs in 30-40 degree air.
MT just tested a 2016 Edge Sport using 87 Octane. They lost 0.5 sec to 60mph vs. a previous test of a 2015 Edge Sport that used 93 Octane.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-ford-edge-sport-awd-first-test-review/
-
1
-
-
Keep in mind that the times reported by the car mags (MT, C&D, etc.) all use "1 foot of roll out" (like on a drag strip).
Forum member GT500R had some really great posts were he tested D vs S on a stock 2015 Ford Edge Sport using a VBOX. He did brake boost to around 1000 rpms and was running 93 Octane to attain his numbers. He was also able to reproduce that magazine times of ~5.6 s when he used the "1 foot of roll out" method.
I do not think we have seen any dyno numbers for the 2.7 Ecoboost used in the Sport run on 87 Octane vs. 93 Octane. I know that the Ecoboost Mustangs and the Focus ST's do loose a not insubstantial amount of horsepower over ~4000 rpm when run on 87 Octane.
But with elevated temperatures, 87 Octane, no brake boosting, no "1 foot of roll out" method and the inherent error of the stop watch method I could see adding another ~1.3 seconds to the magazine times.
Reference:
http://www.fordedgeforum.com/topic/18909-vbox-tested-drive-vs-sport-0-60/
-
Was this the 93 Octane "Aggressive" Tune?
-
So I had the opportunity to test out the 91 aggressive tune plus firmer shifting tune from LMS
"The transmission tune has firmer shifting and an overall more aggressive shift strategy which is the primary changes to the tune. The 93 tune would still have more timing advance because of the higher octane." - LMS
Impressions of the 91 agr. tune: the shifting is actually better then the current offering of tunes! Shifting is very quick (almost like my DSG VW, but not quite) and CRISP, there is no clunking, banging, etc. from the shift strategy on this tune - which the other 93 tune doesn't really clunk, but I feel like it sometimes bangs into the next gear on full throttle and I feel it can be a bit smoother. Normal "D" is very nice with the shifts also, crisp and clean. I think there is a bit more aggressive tuning (timing) in this tune based on the canned tune but I am not 100% certain. Either way I ran three times and had very similar results each run. It seems that this tune is just a SMIDGE slower then the 93 can tune (pretty cool). I now want the shift strategy on my 93 tune! DA was pretty much same for all runs for both tunes (-2200 DA)
I am not sure if I should keep posting these threads or should just create one big VBOX thread to sticky or keep updating? Do you guys mind these many updates?
Thanks.
I just wanted to say I appreciate all the time and effort you put into your data gathering and subsequent posts.
Did you ever get the 93 Octane Aggressive Tune? If so, any updates?
PS The fact that this topic was moved to the the Transaxle FWD only subforum seems very odd as the 2015+ Edge Sport is AWD only.
Pricing
in Edge ST
Posted