spwolf

No, I am merely pointing out how this fluff PR piece about this wonderful EcoBoost is a lot more PR than reality - you are getting 2.0 4cly Turbo engine that gets only 1 MPG better than 3.5l V6 competition and through the miracle of PR you try to make us think it is wonderful.

Well it is not.

And if Toyota introduces 2.0 4cly replacement for 2GR that gets 1 mpg better consumption, I will call them out for it too, as obviously these advertising driving blogs like autoblog can not.

J.P.

Lets not make the comments personal, this does not need to be a heated debate

LexBob2

Personally, I find it interesting to see what every car maker is doing to improve fuel efficiency and performance.

Whether it's lighter weight, transmissions, boosted engines, SkyActive-type approach it's a start for all of them and interesting to see what they can do when they put their resources behind the technology.

Some will work better than others but it's a start and the consumer benefits.

LexFather

Arguing over a 4 cylinder Taurus. Guys, go outside and go to Hooters

Big Mack

iTrader: (1)

Hmmm...

Article is discussing I4, MP (whom you quoted) was talking about the I4, yet you are comparing the V6 numbers. Let's look at what the topic at hand actually is and pointed out.

I4 MPG - 32 highway.

Toyota MPG - 28 highway.

I4 MPG - 22 city.

Toyota MPG - 19 city.

I4 MPG - 26 combined

Toyota MPG - 23 combined.

I fail to see where it's only 1 MPG anywhere. Also, if you want to look a little deeper, the torque number for the I4 is outstanding when you compare it to the Avalon, with 270 @ 3K vs 248 @ 4700. Keeping in mind that torque is what actually takes you off the line initially, I'd say that the weight problem is going to push a dead heat here.

Even if you went to the V6 MPG numbers, which I won't, Ford still has better numbers with more power (288 vs 268) and more torque (254 vs 248). Perhaps that's why Toyota goes with shorter gears so that it can get into it's 20% higher powerband (4700 vs 4000) faster?

I'll give you that the Taurus needs a significant diet, but this new engine, the real topic here, is a big step in the right direction. BTW - this is not the press release that is quoted (for the most part). It is opinion on Autoblog.

We done here?

Big Mack

spwolf

you missed the memo where new 2013 Avalon gets 21/31 for combined 25 MPG

Avalon 3.5lV6 21/31/25
Taurus 2.0cly Turbo 22/32/26

now we are done :-)

Big Mack

iTrader: (1)

All right, I'll give you that one since I had not seen the 2013 numbers (though they have not yet been EPA certified, FYI), but the torque difference will still make it a dead heat, IMO. And, I kinda like the Taurus styling mo betta than the Camalon, but that's a different discussion.

Big Mack

LexFather

This is why I like reading your stuff in the debate forum. You don't mind saying "you know what, I was incorrect" and you don't go on a tirade of excuses about it. Contrarily too many will hold on to wrong and strong to their grave.

Good show sir

spwolf

what torque difference? 2GR makes 90% from 2000 rpm... and turbo will always have slower response - another problem that Steve also mentioned. Difference between pressing gas and reaching torque peak is not going to be less than 2 seconds.

But main problem is that Taurus is very, very heavy car, it is 500lbs heavier which means it is going to be both slower and spend more fuel in real life. Not just Avalon, but to the rest of competition as well.

which is what I was reffering to - and it is Ford that was comparing cars, not me - and my main "problem" is that Autoblog just puts in whatever Ford gives them without any critical remarks - such as small difference in mpg for instance, it is glorified instead of the opposite.

SteVTEC

NO, IT DOES NOT.

We've both seen what Toyota is claiming, but I've owned a car with THAT engine and I'm telling you that's a crock of you know what. It is a DOG at the low-end, and in no way, shape, or form does it make 90% of peak torque at 2k. Keep on using that in your argument if you wish, but I'm telling you that's a load of BS. Making a u-turn in front of fast moving traffic the tranny kept itself in 2nd once with my foot flat on the floor and the thing barely moved.... I was like WTF?? My old VQ30DE powered Maxima had 90% of peak torque or whatever at 2000rpm and actually felt like it. In the real world the 2GR-FE is a dog at the low-end.

Edit: The 2GR-FE feels almost exactly like the old Honda J30A1 in my old Accord V6, only scaled up to 3.5L and tuned up a bit. Shape of the torque curve and overall power delivery between the two engines is more similar than different negating the displacement and state of tune differences. Honda claimed "over half of peak torque is available from 2000 to 6000rpm", basically admitting that the engine didn't make much more power than a 4-cylinder at 2000. That's basically how the 2GR-FE felt to me, only up-sized. Did not feel like anything beefier than a 2.5L or a 3.0L being generous at the low-end, despite being a 3.5L. The Nissan VQ35DEs were far more impressive to me.

I just test drove at the BMW Team USA Drive event a few weeks back a Mercedes C250 with their 1.8L Turbo, an Audi A4 with their 2.0T, and the new BMW 328i with their 2.0L turbo and ALL of these engines were far more responsive around town below 4000rpm than the 2GR-FE is. Aside from the BMW, the 2GR-FE would probably smoke all of them on the highway due to its very good top-end. It at least did that well, but unfortunately I don't live in an area where that's even the least bit relevant. Torque rules in my neck of the woods.


You don't know that it's going to be slower though. Maybe Ford rated the engine conservatively. And you're still thinking the 2GR-FE has really good low end, which in my ownership experience it does not. And the new smaller turbo engines are more efficient than larger NA ones and that's a fact. It may very well be enough to make up for the fact that the Taurus is a heavier car than the Avalon.

Big Mack

iTrader: (1)

Thanks, mang. I've been staying away from the debate forum pretty much for that reason. It's not a debate when no one will allow a valid point into their concrete covered skull.

No one disagreed, although it's not even 400 lbs, much less 500. 3969 vs. 3572 = 397. In the regard of heavy, though, please don't make the Avalon out to be some lightweight kicking *** around corners car. It is far from it with the cushy suspension and, from what I've seen, quite a bit of body roll. As for the torque difference, I'll let you and Steve discuss. Having not driven either, I am merely positing a guess. I still like the Taurus styling vs. the Camalon, though.

Perhaps you should simply post your beef with autoblog about their entire blog, then, instead of simply trying to hammer one instance. As for Ford touting this as an accomplishment, I believe that it is warranted. 240 HP/270 lb ft of torque out of a 2.0L streetable engine with fantastic gas mileage is not small potatoes - even if it's only 1 MPG, it's still more, and as gas gets more expensive (in the overall, not just the past couple months), more = mo betta.

Big Mack