2019 Ford Edge Review

[blitz118]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku5yMGCkaew

[todd92]

Quietly mentioned at the end is the huge change in the AWD system. The differential is in the front now, so the PTU is gone?

[akirby]

Quietly mentioned at the end is the huge change in the AWD system. The differential is in the front now, so the PTU is gone?

 

No, there is still a rear differential. The new PTU has the ability to disconnect the drive shaft when rear torque isn’t needed. No real change in performance but should provide better fuel economy.

[ben senise]

being only available with the 2.0 unless you buy the ST means that I won't be buying an Edge again. too bad because i really like the edge.

 

this is just stupid.

[akirby]

being only available with the 2.0 unless you buy the ST means that I won't be buying an Edge again. too bad because i really like the edge.

 

this is just stupid.

More usable power and no water pump engine failure to worry about. I’d much rather have a 2.0EB than the 3.7L in our MKX.

[omar302]

More usable power and no water pump engine failure to worry about. I’d much rather have a 2.0EB than the 3.7L in our MKX.

 

I drove a 2015 MKC with the 2.3L Turbo for a week when I had the 2011 MKX 3.7L, the MKX's 3.7L felt more powerful and more refined, can't imagine how the 2.0L would be in a larger vehicle! But then again, that is why there is the "ST".

Edited September 2, 2018 by omar302

[akirby]

I drove a 2015 MKC with the 2.3L Turbo for a week when I had the 2011 MKX 3.7L, the MKX's 3.7L felt more powerful and more refined, can't imagine how the 2.0L would be in a larger vehicle! But then again, that is why there is the "ST".

I find that hard to believe. The 2.3LEB in the MKC should be a rocket ship compared to the MKX 3.7L especially off the line.

[omar302]

Yes, of the line but then that's all the power you get. There is no top end power.

 

When first driving the MKC, it felt really strong in traffic city driving, then I decided to see how much more power it got and found that beyond ~4K RPM there is no more additional power. It's flat. I had more than 1 MKC rentals with the 2.3, they were all the same. They were AWD by the way, just like my MKX was.

[2FAST4U]

being only available with the 2.0 unless you buy the ST means that I won't be buying an Edge again. too bad because i really like the edge.

 

this is just stupid.

 

Yep!…Very disappointed that it'll be only available with a 4 cyl. engine… …So glad I have the V6 in mine!

 

Claude.

[akirby]

Yes, of the line but then that's all the power you get. There is no top end power.

When first driving the MKC, it felt really strong in traffic city driving, then I decided to see how much more power it got and found that beyond ~4K RPM there is no more additional power. It's flat. I had more than 1 MKC rentals with the 2.3, they were all the same. They were AWD by the way, just like my MKX was.

That’s true but how often do you drive at 5K rpm?

[omar302]

Not much. But you'll always now it .

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

There is no replacement for displacement ... after a point. Most mass production cars are made to brag about 0-60 or 0-80 times unless they are flat out performance coupes/sedans/trucks. Haven't delved into electric powered vehicles yet, maybe they hold more promise?

[akirby]

My issue is trying to get the 3.7L going from low speed. Maybe I’m just used to ecoboosts having all that torque available immediately so I’m not giving it enough gas to begin with, but it’s very frustrating. Whereas with my F150 I have to be careful not to give it too much gas.

[Further North]

ST tow capacity is finally useful...is that what I understand from the video?

[TheWizard]

More usable power and no water pump engine failure to worry about. I’d much rather have a 2.0EB than the 3.7L in our MKX.

 

Are the transverse 3.7L V6s different from the RWD models? My Mustang 3.7 has a normal belt driven external water pump. You couldn't pay me to get an Ecoboost Mustang... if I had to replace mine now it would have to be a 5.0 (naturally aspirated) since they don't make them with a V6 anymore.

Edited September 13, 2018 by TheWizard

[akirby]

Are the transverse 3.7L V6s different from the RWD models? My Mustang 3.7 has a normal belt driven external water pump. You couldn't pay me to get an Ecoboost Mustang... if I had to replace mine now it would have to be a 5.0 (naturally aspirated) since they don't make them with a V6 anymore.

Yes. The longitudinal versions (RWD) have the external water pump. They only did it on the transverse models because there wasn’t enough room for the external pump.

[akirby]

You couldn't pay me to get an Ecoboost Mustang... i

Have you actually driven one?

[TheWizard]

Have you actually driven one?

 

Yes, I have. Its performance is very similar to the V6 except it has more torque below 3000 RPM... above 3000 RPM they're basically indistinguishable. I had taken care of the torque in my V6 by changing the rear end gears and tuning.

 

My Edge was an Ecoboost as well. In fact, I bought the Edge over other options specifically because of the Ecoboost. The performance was decent but the economy is a myth (our current V6 Kia Sorento - bigger and heavier - gets far better mileage with similar performance) and I still don't see turbos as being a good choice for the long run. So, if I'm not going to get great mileage in a new Mustang anyway, then I'll go with the naturally aspirated V8 over a small forced induction engine every time.

[akirby]

Fair enough. My experience is the ecoboosts have a wider range of mpg. You can do great if you drive it the right way but you can also do a lot worse if you drive it the other way, whereas NA engines don't vary as much. I also find it interesting that people worry about ecoboost turbos but you never hear any concerns about diesel turbos that routinely go 200K, 300K or longer.

[TheWizard]

I also find it interesting that people worry about ecoboost turbos but you never hear any concerns about diesel turbos that routinely go 200K, 300K or longer.

 

That's a good point. There are differences... diesel engines (and their turbos) are built like tanks, run at lower RPMs, run less boost overall, and have lower exhaust temps. Gasoline turbos are generally smaller and lighter, spin much faster, produce more boost, and handle higher exhaust temps, so the longevity isn't directly comparable.

[akirby]

Ecoboost engines and turbos are designed and built to work together from the get-go, just like turbo diesels. That's the biggest difference between modern ecoboosts and older turbos that were just add-ons to engines designed to be NA. And new materials make the turbos much more reliable.

 

They do probably see higher RPM sometimes and higher exhaust temps, although my 3.5LEB F150 stays under 2K rpm almost all the time and usually around 1300 rpm with the new 10 speed.

[TheWizard]

By higher RPMs I meant of the turbo itself. Diesel turbos typically operate under 50,000 RPM while gas turbos go much faster than that.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

How big are the diesel turbos? The transverse gas engine turbos are really tiny, the longitudinal ones are bigger. But not sure how they compare to diesel.

[akirby]

By higher RPMs I meant of the turbo itself. Diesel turbos typically operate under 50,000 RPM while gas turbos go much faster than that.

 

Ah, yes the smaller turbos would spin much faster than the larger ones.

[Further North]

I don't think anyone who has done their homework thinks EcoBoost motors have "Best in class" fuel economy.

 

The performance was decent but the economy is a myth (our current V6 Kia Sorento - bigger and heavier - gets far better mileage with similar performance)...

Can you help us out by defining what "far better mileage" means, objectively?

 

Something like, "The EcoBoost Edge gets 24 MPG, and Kia gets 32 MPG." Everyone has a different perception of what "far better" means and it'd help if we could quantify it.