2.0 L EcoBoost or 3.5 L v6

[Brian Bettencourt]

Hello,

 

 

We are looking to purchase a 2016 edge but our now conflicted on whether to opt for the 4cyl engine or V6 engine option. ( Ford ecoboost vs V6 in 2016 Ford Edge).

We understand that the 4cyl is rated more fuel efficient but are worried about the long term cost and quality of the smaller engine compared to the larger V6 engine. Is there any truth to a V6 engine requiring less Maintenance over time and lasting longer?

[jacksprat]

Hello,

 

 

We are looking to purchase a 2016 edge but our now conflicted on whether to opt for the 4cyl engine or V6 engine option. ( Ford ecoboost vs V6 in 2016 Ford Edge).

We understand that the 4cyl is rated more fuel efficient but are worried about the long term cost and quality of the smaller engine compared to the larger V6 engine. Is there any truth to a V6 engine requiring less Maintenance over time and lasting longer?

Brian--There is gobs of stuff about your subject in this forum. However, they have recently changed the format, and I'm almost totally lost on how to find anything. I asked your same question some months ago. Lately, I have ordered a loaded Titanium - AWD - 2.0. Most of the folks who answered my question on engine size, recommended the 3.5. I decided on the 2.0 mainly because of the fuel economy..... and I never did hear anything bad about that engine.

Here are some links I copied while I was looking. Feel free to click on some of them to help you out..... and maybe somebody else will chime in with better ideas.

I apologize for the length of this. Hopefully it will help you..... as it helped me in my decision. Jack

 

ALEX GIVES 10-MINUTE REVIEW: (This is a very good road test & recommendation by Alex, on the 2015 Edge

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bvXZRqyc

Here's one of the threads in this forum that will give you tons of info: (And if you keep looking, there are others.)

http://www.fordedgef...d-vs-subaru-vs/ Good luck! Jack

http://www.fordedgeforum.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=35860

POWERSTROKE:

Wife & I put 12,000 miles on our first '15 Edge that leaked. 3.5L V-6 AWD. Setting the cruise at 75 on 4-lane divided highways in hilly western Wisconsin would have the transmission dropping two gears and screaming up to 4200 rpm while climbing hills. If I played with the sport setting the car would climb the hill in 5th gear.

We have around 3500 miles on our replacement Edge, EB 2.0L AWD. Most of those same hills it will pull in 6th gear, even accelerate in 6th. If you drop into 5th acceleration is rather spirited.

So the extra 25 #/ft of torque 1000 rpm lower in the rev range does make up for the 40 extra HP of the 3.5L. The 2.7L EB V-6 makes even more torque & HP at even lower rpm so it must pull really well.

My Wife found the 3.5L in the Edge to be "doggy", only way to get it to move at times was to floor it and force a downshift to lower gears or it would not accelerate. The little 2.0L EB blends into city and highway traffic with much less commotion and accelerates comfortably at lower rpm without downshifts.

cv27:

Personally, I don't do much hill climbing. I find the additional torque of the 2.0EB versus the V6 really makes a difference at low speeds, especially if you set it on 'S'.

sprocketman:

I own a 2015 Edge with the 2.0L EcoBoost. The car only has 2800 miles on it, so I can't speak to the longevity of the engine, but I can speak about drive-ability. My current car is in the shop, and I am driving a 2015 loaner with the 3.5L NA engine.

In my opinion, the 2.0 is much better suited to this vehicle than the 3.5L. The 2.0 has much more torque, and that torque is available at a much lower RPM than the 3.5. The 3.5 downshifts at the tiniest touch of the throttle, and it hunts around for the correct gear when going up and down rolling hills on the freeway. We also own an older Explorer with the SOHC V6, and that vehicle drives the same way. IMO, that engine is mismatched in that vehicle also. Neither V6 is a bad engine - they just aren't made for hauling a heavy SUV around. They make good power - just not where you really need it.

The 2.0 drives more like a torquey V8 that an inline 4. If you haven't driven one, you should do so before pulling the trigger. The driving experience is much more enjoyable with the 2.0. You'll thank me for it.

[Brian Bettencourt]

@jacksprat, this is greatly appreciated, thank you!

[macbwt]

I have never driven a 2.0 or 2.7 turbo. I have only driven the 3.5. I will say that between three Edges, (see signature) I have a combined total of over 500,000 with the 3.5 and it has never failed. The 3.5 is a rock solid durable engine and I am waiting for the new ecoboost 2.0 and 2.7 to prove themselves out for now before I just jump in.

Hello,


We are looking to purchase a 2016 edge but our now conflicted on whether to opt for the 4cyl engine or V6 engine option. ( Ford ecoboost vs V6 in 2016 Ford Edge).
We understand that the 4cyl is rated more fuel efficient but are worried about the long term cost and quality of the smaller engine compared to the larger V6 engine. Is there any truth to a V6 engine requiring less Maintenance over time and lasting longer?

[jeffcarl]

There is an old adage that says "There's no replacement for displacement". I prefer the simplicity of normally aspirated (no turbo). Less stress on the internal components, no turbo to be concerned about, no worries with sludge, etc etc. Having said all that I have had many turbo'd cars over the years. From MB diesels to a couple modern Passats. I have never had a turbo failure, but I have always been mindful of the equipment. I would always run premium synthetic Mobile 1, change oil religiously on schedule, and allow spool down after hard driving.

 

There are 2 Fords in our family at the moment: my wife's '13 Fusion 1.6 turbo & my '13 Edge 3.6 non turbo 6 cyl. No issues with either, but less than 40k on each odometer. The Fusion gets about 27 mpg on relatively short (15 mile round trip) rural country trips. While I am about 25/26 on my daily 90 mile commute in Mr Edge. I also got 29 mpg on a longer trip recently. So the 6 can give good performance & mileage if driven conservatively. If city driving is in the cards, the 6 is probably not good.

 

The modern technology of smaller turbo'd motors is pretty darn good, but I would still go for displacement over turbo. I confess I'm old school, really old ;<)

 

 

[cjh]

There very much is replacement for displacement. I test drove a new F150 with the V8 after testing one with the 3.5 EcoBoost and was so disappointed. The V8 felt just sleepy and gutless.

 

I've driven a 2.0 EcoBoost Edge and found it to be potent for what it is. Can't comment on the naturally aspirated V6 however.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

It's also marketing & packaging. More attention is paid to the Ecoboost lineup now that Ford has a firm grip on mass-market turbo tech, which is a good thing But the naturally aspirated engines are at the same time NOT being put on equal footing, in essence making them a generation or generation(s) behind, especially when you consider the transmissions they are mated with.

[cjh]

They are for sure a generation or two behind, Ford hasn't made much investment in non-EcoBoost engines in the past few years. They're old and have proven reliability, yes indeed. But by no means cutting-edge.

[akirby]

I beg to differ. The 3.5L (and I assume the 3.7L) was just revamped a couple of years ago. The 5.0 Coyote is only 5 years old and the flat plane crank voodoo 5.2L variant is only a year old. The 2.5L is pretty much unchanged. Obviously Ford is putting more investment in EB engines for CAFE reasons but they also allow a wider range of performance and tuning.

 

Where does the 3.5L, 3.7L, 5.0 and 5.2 engines come up short against the competition?

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

Was the 3.5L revamped after the introduction of the Ti-VCT (2011+ Edge)? Would like to read up on that if you have a link ...

 

The transmission puts a damper on what the NA 3.5 can bring to the party. Maybe if they mated the 6F55 trans to it, we might see different results.

 

No idea on the 3.7 or 5.0 engines, sadly lacking in knowledge there ...

 

It is addictive to have so much torque available so early, as in the case of the Ecoboost offerings, so you can see why NA engines would be downplayed.

[akirby]

I can't find it because of all the ecoboost articles, but I thought they tweaked it more when they dropped it into the 2015 F150.

 

How does the tranny limit the NA 3.5?

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

1. Ford claims the 6F50 is designed to handle 300 hp (224 kW) and 280 ft·lbf (380 N·m)
2. Ford appears not to have made a public statement regarding the 6F55's maximum capabilities, but uses it in AWD in the Taurus SHO with an engine rated at 272 kW (370 PS; 365 hp)and 475 N·m (350 lb·ft) of torque (Final drive 2.77:1 standard or 3.16:1 with SHO Performance Package).

Knowing that there are several tuned and modded (boltons only) SHOs that are DDs and run at 500 hp/tq levels reliably, we know the 6F55 is capable of AT LEAST that much power handling. Then again, the owners are also somewhat fanatical about routine drivetrain fluid changes.

 

I will look for F150/3.5 related info, would be interesting to see the changes. But Ford puts a sturdier bottom end in the truck EB engines when compared to the EB engines in transverse applications. So same is possible for the NA engine as well. Just conjecture right now, tho.

 

What I have so far:

2011 Edge blurb - http://www.myfordedge.com/specs/2011-ford-edge-powertrain.php

2015 F150 blurb - https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/07/22/all-new-ford-f-150-2-7liter-ecoboost-v6-engine-delivers.html

Edited March 22, 2016 by WWWPerfA_ZN0W

[Gimp]

Hello,

 

 

We are looking to purchase a 2016 edge but our now conflicted on whether to opt for the 4cyl engine or V6 engine option. ( Ford ecoboost vs V6 in 2016 Ford Edge).

We understand that the 4cyl is rated more fuel efficient but are worried about the long term cost and quality of the smaller engine compared to the larger V6 engine. Is there any truth to a V6 engine requiring less Maintenance over time and lasting longer?

 

I just went over 91,000 miles with my 2012, 2.0 Liter Edge and I have never had any sort of engine problems. I'm the original owner. The oil has always been changed whenever the oil change message comes on and I use Mobil 1 synthetic. I also change the engine air filter regularly. (Transmission fluid was changed at 50K and will be changed again at about 100 K) Way back when I was deciding between the 2.0 and the 3.5 I took both for a test drive. In my opinion the 2.0 noticeably out performed the 3.5. I work for an automotive engineering firm with guys who have decades of powertrain experience. Eco boost Ford's are a popular choice here and two V.P.'s in my building own them. Test drive both vehicles and if you like the Eco boost model more (I think you will), you won't regret buying it.

[grumzy]

I have the previous version of the 2.0 on my 13 Edge and love it. Approaching 70,000Km on it (43K miles) and not had a problem yet. I love the acceleration when joining the highway or overtaking. I find the Torque more important to me than the HP as I'm rarely flat out, I accelerate to my cruising speed of just above the speed limit and then ease off.

I'm sold on the turbos now and won't go back to the regular... however it depends on your driving style and what your doing.

 

I think if you do a lot of towing you're probably still better off with the 3.5.

 

The new 2.0 is supposed to be better with regards the lag. With the turbo there is a gap between putting your foot down and the turbo kicking in, some people hate that but you get used to it. When it does kick in you really notice it. The newer model supposedly has less lag but I cant vouch for that.

 

I don't think fuel economy is necessarily a good reason to get the 2.0 though if you do city driving

I haven't got close to the fuel economy figures on the window sticker.

Sticker said 6.6l/100km hyw (35mpg US) and 9.9 city (23.7mpg).

The in car dash display says I've averaged 10.2l/100km (23.06mpg) but in the two and a half years I've had the car (80/20 mixture of city and highway) I've tracked it at 10.92l/100km (21.5mpg) which is far from stellar but also not terrible.

 

I imagine that's not too different to the 3.5, possibly worse.

 

You can get really good economy providing you never actually kick in the Turbo, that's a slow steady acceleration at low revs... but it's not as much fun.

 

Best economy I've had on a single tank is 7.71l/100km 30.5mpg. That's a road trip in the summer, so air conditioning was full on the whole time.

On long road trips I usually get over 640km from a full tank which is more than 400 miles. Think the tank on the 16 Edge is bigger than the one on the 13 so you'd probably get more.

[omar302]

I can't find it because of all the ecoboost articles, but I thought they tweaked it more when they dropped it into the 2015 F150.

 

How does the tranny limit the NA 3.5?

 

• Ford claims the 6F50 is designed to handle 300 hp (224 kW) and 280 ft·lbf (380 N·m)
• Ford appears not to have made a public statement regarding the 6F55's maximum capabilities, but uses it in AWD in the Taurus SHO with an engine rated at 272 kW (370 PS; 365 hp)and 475 N·m (350 lb·ft) of torque (Final drive 2.77:1 standard or 3.16:1 with SHO Performance Package).

Knowing that there are several tuned and modded (boltons only) SHOs that are DDs and run at 500 hp/tq levels reliably, we know the 6F55 is capable of AT LEAST that much power handling. Then again, the owners are also somewhat fanatical about routine drivetrain fluid changes.

 

I will look for F150/3.5 related info, would be interesting to see the changes. But Ford puts a sturdier bottom end in the truck EB engines when compared to the EB engines in transverse applications. So same is possible for the NA engine as well. Just conjecture right now, tho.

 

What I have so far:

2011 Edge blurb - http://www.myfordedge.com/specs/2011-ford-edge-powertrain.php

2015 F150 blurb - https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/07/22/all-new-ford-f-150-2-7liter-ecoboost-v6-engine-delivers.html

 

The 3.5L & 3.7L Engines are rated the same when installed in the Edge/MKX with the 6F50 tranny and when installed in the 2011+ F150/Mustang. So there doesn't seem to be any de-tuning of the 3.5L/3.7L Engine when installed with the 6F50 tranny.

[akirby]

Obviously Ford is investing heavily in new Ecoboost engines, but I don't think the 3.5 or 3.7 NA engines are lacking such that they need any major improvements. Outside of DI I'm not sure what you could really upgrade.

[macbwt]

Still waiting for a 2.0 or 2.7 to show up to the meeting wearing the 300,000 mile badge.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

With any luck they will! This would be a big win for Ford, and hopefully they are keeping tabs so they can crow about it

[fe2102]

Hi Brian,

 

I think grumzy gave you the best tip on here. I have had mine just over a year now and very pleased.

If I had to choose again, I would go with 2.0 EB Yes there is a bit of lag when you want the turbo to kick in but once it does kick in, you'd be surprised with torque power. As for fuel economy, its not a super gas saver but it sure beats 3.5L

[Groundpounder]

For what it's worth, Consumer Reports recommends the 2.0 vs the 3.5.

[macbwt]

Turbo's starting to fail now and are not available for replacement and very pricey to replace. Recent info I read stated the life of the Turbos is expected to be 150,000 miles. Second hand owners might want to consider this.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

A Ford Protect plan is invaluable for nused EB owners.

Edited December 30, 2016 by WWWPerfA_ZN0W

[2011edgese]

My input. Had a 2011 v6 no turbo for almost 5yrs. Traded it in for 2015 2.0 ecoboost. Miss the deeper sound of the v6.[]. But like the slight wistle turbo sound when you drive by a wall that sound reflects off. Now.. my observations. V6 is VERY responsive on the throttle, but always found it not so impressive over passing cars at 65mph and above. Seems like not a 285hp engine, im guessing its the weight? 2.0 ecoboost is opposite. Not responssive at take off, very sluggish for my taste but once its going, its very peppy. And feels a bit stronger at over passing. Thats my observations.

[akirby]

My observation is the exact opposite. The 2.0LEB is quick off the line but runs out of steam around 6K rpm. The 3.7NA is a dog off the line but comes alive around 4K rpm.

[lildisco]

Leaving it in Drive kills the responsiveness of the 2.0. If i need to get some pep off the line or pass someone, I'll throw it into Sport Mode. Once i get up to speed, I'll put it back into Drive. Leaving it in Drive is supposed to optimize fuel economy, so some performance is lost because of this.