Author Topic: 2011 Ford Edge (Read 4918 times)

Mitlov · « **on:** February 10, 2010, 04:32:30 am »

New look, and I like it.

Also, engine choices swell from one to three. There's a 2.0L EcoBoost (direct injected, turbocharged) i4, a 285-hp 3.5L V6, and a 305 hp 3.7L V6 in the "Sport" model. No hard numbers on the 2.0L yet, but Ford is promising a 30% gain in fuel economy over the pre-facelift Edge.

As a side-note, I think I finally figured out a rational explanation of the "EcoBoost" terminology, as some have pointed out that the engines are not remarkably economical compared to some naturally-aspirated engines on the market. EcoBoost doesn't just mean turbocharged. It means direct-injected and turbocharged. The Eco refers to the former, the Boost to the latter. Maybe the engine isn't a lot more economical than competitors, but it's more economical than it would be without the direct injection. That's where the "Eco-" comes in. The "-Boost," of course, is straightforward.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/10/2011-ford-edge-gets-three-engine-choices-more-ambitious-sport-m/

Full gallery at Autoblog. I'll post a few pics here once NetCarShow gets up to speed.

Mitlov · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:17:25 am »

As promised.

Grille is too aggressive IMO, but otherwise the front is good.

Rear is uneventful and pleasant.

Nice interior!

The Edge Sport is over the top, but I think it'll find its fans:

airbalancer · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:25:12 am »

Why does all the front have smiley faces now , first Mazda , Tucson now this

Juke1 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:26:52 am »

Me like a lot. Best looking CUV on the road, bar none. I'm ok with that grill, meaner looking IMO.

Juke1 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:28:33 am »

Quote from: airbalancer on February 10, 2010, 11:25:12 am

Why does all the front have smiley faces now , first Mazda , Tucson now this

Smiling is healthy.

ovr50 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:31:55 am »

Good for Ford, very nice. Ford is rapidly becoming a top ranked global maker.

safristi · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:36:01 am »

....EDGY Baybee.....................

Weexy · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:00:37 pm »

Thumbs up as well. I didn't care for the Fusion grille when i first saw it, but it I really like it now.

This one might grow on me as well, or maybe swallow me whole. Its certainly big enough.

DrJay · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:31:06 pm »

Impressive indeed. I like the bold styling and very nice choice for the rims even that exterior colour is nice. Interior is a step up. (only pet peeve is Fords marriage to sony car audio systems. Not the best choice IMO)

Aside from the engine does this get any other tech upgrades, suspension etc?

Loudpedal · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:56:31 pm »

Very nice indeed. I really like the front end, even though it may be slightly over proportioned.

Is this the new Ford 'glass cockpit'?

DockMan · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:09:17 pm »

Ford has some great product. I put the Edge up against the Acadia last time and it was a fine vehicle.....now it just looks better.

carcrazy · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:13:31 pm »

One and the only three-bar grill implementation I actually like. The interior is a big step up though. Perhaps the 3.5 V6 EcoBoost would've been more appropriate on the Sport model with the 3.7 V6 standard? The car is heavy and the 2.0 EcoBoost may be underpowerd.

Loudpedal · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:14:50 pm »

Quote from: carcrazy on February 10, 2010, 01:13:31 pm

One and the only three-bar grill implementation I actually like. The interior is a big step up though. Perhaps the 3.5 V6 EcoBoost would've been more appropriate on the Sport model with the 3.7 V6 standard? The car is heavy and the 2.0 EcoBoost may be underpowerd.

Interesting point. I wonder why it didn't get the V-6 EcoBoost?

Weexy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:15:08 pm »

Is the 2011 as portly as the outgoing? I was hoping since there is the option of the 2.0L 4 that maybe it shed some weight too...

When the Edge first came out I was pretty excited about it, but the major bloat turned me off.

carcrazy · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:22:18 pm »

I haven't seen the numbers, but I wouldn't expect to be less than 4000 lbs in FWD. Although the power numbers with the 2.0 EcoBoost may be 260+ hp, it will get thirsty and slow to move that much car.
Just my guess...

Weexy · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:40:14 pm »

I think you're right - the 2010 in V6 trim was about 4,080. The turbo 4 would make it a bit lighter, but i'd bet it still tips the scale at over 4 grand.
The 2.0L 4 i expect to be a great engine, but it will have to sweat pretty hard to move this thing around

Weexy · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:45:19 pm »

And... 22" rims on the Sport model ??!!

MKII · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:03:28 pm »

Base Curb weight details for the refreshed Edge 3.5L
FWD 4,082
AWD 4,265

& the 3.7
FWD 4,291
AWD 4,473

The 2.0-liter EcoBoost I-4 engine is about 55 pounds lighter than a comparable normally aspirated 3.5-liter V-6 engine. No hp/tq details released as of yet, but the fuel economy graph shown today at the Chicago launch showed the 2.0L EB (assume) Hwy average FE 30mpg. My guess on the 2.0L EcoBoost output with the Edge is 240hp with ft.lb tq probably equal or close to 240. With the Ti-VCT the motor will have good pull throughout the powerband. It won't be a 0-60 star, but it will be what its application is for, decent balance of power and good fuel economy.

I really like the new aggressive face, especially the blacked out grille on the Sport, even has proper amber rear turn signals. But what impresses me the most is the 200% better materials used in the interior and the total redesigned interior. The current Edge is a sea of slab sided grey plastic, with nary a curve or any sense of style.

As far as suspension and upgraded (needed) brakes, the rear suspension and brakes have been beefed up. We will see if there is improvement when some of the 1st road test reviews start happening.

Lots if info here
http://media.ford.com/mini_sites/10031/2011Edge/

carcrazy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:26:02 pm »

Quote from: MKII on February 10, 2010, 03:03:28 pm

The 2.0-liter EcoBoost I-4 engine is about 55 pounds lighter than a comparable normally aspirated 3.5-liter V-6 engine. No hp/tq details released as of yet, but the fuel economy graph shown today at the Chicago launch showed the 2.0L EB (assume) Hwy average FE 30mpg. My guess on the 2.0L EcoBoost output with the Edge is 240hp with ft.lb tq probably equal or close to 240.

Man, the marketing dept can trumpet all they want about fuel economy of a little I4 moving around a 4000+ lbs brick, but I'm skeptical about the real world (see GM's 2.4L engine in the Equinox/Terrain). Ford's application may work better, but I wouldn't set my hopes too high.

I think this engine would work best in applications up to 3500 lbs.

Leviathan · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2010, 04:50:58 pm »

Quote from: Mitlov on February 10, 2010, 04:32:30 am

As a side-note, I think I finally figured out a rational explanation of the "EcoBoost" terminology, as some have pointed out that the engines are not remarkably economical compared to some naturally-aspirated engines on the market. EcoBoost doesn't just mean turbocharged. It means direct-injected and turbocharged. The Eco refers to the former, the Boost to the latter. Maybe the engine isn't a lot more economical than competitors, but it's more economical than it would be without the direct injection. That's where the "Eco-" comes in. The "-Boost," of course, is straightforward.

I thought the "Eco-" portion meant that it is tuned to run on regular vs premium gas.