GFerg

http://www.autoblog.com/

I8ABMR

Damn !!! That is some solid technology. Great hp numbers and resonable mpg ( at least for todays prices)

GFerg

Ive been very excited about this engine for about a year and a half when everyone thought it was a joke. Glad to see it here with these stats. V8 power with V6 economy. Cant wait to see this in sedans such as the Taurus and in the Lincoln MKS. The EcoBoost I-4 is going to be BEASTLY as well.

whoster

wooow, sounds like a great engine! (at least on paper...)

thetopdog

I don't see the need for 355hp in what's basically a minivan. Kind of pointless in this car, although it should be nice in other applicatins

I8ABMR

A boosted V6 is great to make 355, but the 3.7l normally aspirated VQ motor in the G35 and Nissan Z are putting down about 330 hp with about the same mpg.

spwolf

is that really the best engine for Flex?

Wouldnt something like boosted 4cly make a lot more sense?

plus, biggest advantage bi-turbo engines will have is during epa cycle... real life, everytime you press the gas pedal, you will spend more fuel, not less.

recently autobild had comparo with small turbos from Opel, VW and Fiat (which is what should be efficient) compared to their 1.6l competitors from Toyota and KIA, and while on paper turbos were supposed to be better in both performance and mpg, in real life, Toyota and Kia were better in both performance and mpg... Of course, we are talking about cars that are turboed for the purpose of better mpg (1.4l with 140hp) not Evo rivaling big turbos... And catch22 was that they even cost more :-).

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

Horsepower and technology looks great but I don't know that I am all that impressed with those gas mileage numbers. In this market 18/22 isn't bad but it's not great either, especially for a V6. ISF owners get those kind of numbers and most of the LS460 guys routinely beat them.

20/25 would be impressive IMO, but 18/22 is just meh. The real test will obviously be real world driving though, as above I am judging by the numbers that owners have recorded here, not what's on the sticker. This engine could potentially do a lot better in the real world, just like most Lexus cars.

Either way, nice to see Ford continuing to improve.

rcf8000

The 18 is "combined" mileage. I assume that the city mileage is 14 or thereabouts. Not good. I guess they thought that sounded too bad to publish.

LexBob2

The Flex weighs in at over 4,600 lbs so the MPG is not going to be very good, and probably needs the hp to pull it around. The same engine will be used in the MKS and that weighs nearly 4,300 lbs with AWD.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

Nice catch I didn't see that. Like you're saying, that probably means more like 15-16 city and 22 highway. That is not very impressive IMO.

Bean

iTrader: (1)

With an inferior powerband and less room for mods though.

Mr. Jones

This engine doesn't replace a flagship V8 or get anywhere near V6 fuel economy.

MR_F1

The 2GR makes peak torque at about the same RPM no? I'm sure with valvematic it will compare favourably to this engine. Nice work by ford, but I expected more, and why i'm not sure as to why they chose to debut this engine in a mini-van.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Manufacturers looking to forced induction for efficiency are kidding themselves. Anyone with a half a clue can look at injector sizing and tell right away the forced induction engines can't compete with naturally aspirated engines for efficiency. All you have to look at is the brake specific fuel consumption (the amount of fuel it takes to produce a fixed amount of power). BSFC doesn't lie. BSFC for FI is .55 to .65. BSFC for NA is .45 to .55. So, the FI engine has to burn more fuel to produce the same amount of power no matter how you slice it. Add the low compression requirement for boosted engines and you've got a double hit for economy (yes, increased compression is an economy booster).

Ford should be proud of this engine, but claiming it will be more efficient than its NA V-8 or V-6 competitors is a big stretch.