Any thoughts on why the 2017 2.3L 4x4 lost a MPG on HWY rating?

[JR123]

Any theories on why the 2017 2.3L 4x4 went to 25MPG from 26MPG on the 2016?

Just got my 2016 Limited 4x4 2.3L (Guard with Tan)...love it so far.

 

[peterk9]

More realistic testing? MPG figures for most manufacturers have changed over the past few years due to more 'real life driving' testing. These figures are just estimates anyway.

Peter

 

[JR123]

With no product changes, that would indicate a potential "mistake" in the previous estimates, which could be a problem for them if they have to revise figures....

 

[Flatplane]

VolksWagen getting caught has OEM's very protective of information being correct. 1st guess. 2nd guess there may be some internal changes to the product that has caused the drop in MPG. Past that it's anyones guess why the drop shows up on the Monroney.

 

[Machine090767]

Still, 25 is a good number!

 

[blwnsmoke]

With no product changes, that would indicate a potential "mistake" in the previous estimates, which could be a problem for them if they have to revise figures....

No, the EPA adjusted their procedures and rules when it comes to testing for all 2017 models. You will see many makes/models adjust their mpg slightly because of this.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/23/epa-update-mpg-sticker-rule-2017-model-year-vehicles/

Today, EPA issued a guidance document that provides the automotive industry with detailed information about how EPA conducts audits of road load force values, a critical input into fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions calculations for cars and trucks. Each year, EPA identifies a number of production vehicles for audit testing to measure whether the actual road load value matches what automakers reported to EPA. Today's guidance clarifies EPA's criteria and methods for conducting these tests. This guidance also introduces a new method that allows EPA to examine road load forces over a broad range of vehicle speeds to better align with current testing methods. Releasing this guidance is another step in enhancing our oversight of our fuel economy labels to ensure that consumers have reliable fuel economy information, and that EPA's historic greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks achieve the environmental results promised to the American public.

 

[Flatplane]

SO VW getting caught had repercussions on the industry.

 

[Tuscany]

VolksWagen getting caught has OEM's very protective of information being correct. 1st guess. 2nd guess there may be some internal changes to the product that has caused the drop in MPG. Past that it's anyones guess why the drop shows up on the Monroney.

Diesel tuning and emission equipment are completely different from gasoline engines. VW was caught using two separate ECM programs with their Diesel engines. Their crime was pollution from bypassing emission laws, and not mileage fraud.

In Fords case, IMO, I think the 2.3l is still too small of an engine for the Explorer, and they can't consistently achieve the mileage they thought they could.

 

[thefranchise713]

Ford had a number of rerates in the past year. Taurus itself dropped at least 1 on the highway MPG for 16 MY.

I haven't given it much thought. Can't wait to get my 2.3L to get some real world numbers hopefully this week or next.

 

[Flatplane]

@ Tuscany, I was well aware of VW being caught with their Diesel pants down but fail to see how that impacts other OEM when mileage fraud is directly related to their emissions misgivings. When VW reflashed their ECM's with correct data the mileage values changed as well. "Getting Caught" has far reaching manifestations to all OEM's and has caused all to re-evaluate their data. Ford will publish actual numbers as tested. The 2.3L is NOT too small for the Explorer as noted. Smaller engines with the same or greater output numbers indicate how well the industry is driven to reach goals mandated by govt.

 

[need-a-cage]

The 2.3L is not too small for the Ex. When you add boost, it is like making that motor a whole hell of a lot bigger. I just drove an F150 with the tiny 2.7l Eco and that thing screamed. It was quite a bit quicker than our 3.5 EB Explorer Sport. It was in the lightest configuration, but I still didn't expect it to light em up every time I would go WOT around 15mph and it would downshift to 1st. Felt like a low 14 second rig and my timed runs from 0 to 95mph looked like it might even hit a high 13! Incredible what they are doing with these tiny motors nowadays. A tuned 2.3EB Stang has hit the 11's!!

 

[Halwg]

I've got 6,100 miles on my '16 with the 2.3L. The engine has been really nice. I have actually averaged over 26 mpg on the highway at 70 mph. 26.4 is the highest I have gotten, but over 25 is very realistic. The mileage is so much better than my 2014 with the 3.5 NA engine, and is smoother running and has much better pick-up. The greater torque is a wonderful thing.

 

[Tuscany]

We can agree to disagree.
I personally have no use for a small turbo engine over a larger NA engine in an automobile.
I personally own 4 turbocharged vehicles, and understand fully what turbocharging offers. I simply don't buy the EB concept at all. It offers small engine mileage, but only when drawing small engine power and torque. I would rather have the advantages of a larger NA engine for a daily driver.

Better mileage ratings comes from the EB configuration in very low boost situations. Less compressed air uses less gas to fire, so it can be said that cruising at highway speeds will produce four banger mileage. I accept that, but it's not a consistent number, and carries a higher variable depending on driving conditions. Step on the gas, compress more air and the fuel needed to fire it, and all of that goes away. The 3.5EB mileage is no better than a larger V-8. In a pick up truck, ill take GM's 6.2l option every day over the 3.5l option.

Drag racing times do nothing for me. High RPM or fast acceleration under boosted conditions is not an area that I use to compare engine drivability. Having a lag free, wider torque curve that delivers a smooth feel, does. Simply looking at the tow ratings of the 2.3 compared to the 3.5 will tell the story.
JMO.

 

[need-a-cage]

Not sure why the tow ratings are lower when the 2.3 has MORE torque down low than the 3.5NA. The 3.5NA has no power until you get to 4000rpm. The torque curve you describe that you like in a truck is exactly what the 3.5EB gives you, especially when you tune it. Go drive a 3.5EB or even a 2.7EB F150. If you still aren't convinced, drive one that someone has tuned. The biggest gains from the tune of over 100lbs of torque over stock is under 3000 rpm.

 

[1995E]

Not sure why the tow ratings are lower when the 2.3 has MORE torque down low than the 3.5NA. The 3.5NA has no power until you get to 4000rpm. The torque curve you describe that you like in a truck is exactly what the 3.5EB gives you, especially when you tune it. Go drive a 3.5EB or even a 2.7EB F150. If you still aren't convinced, drive one that someone has tuned. The biggest gains from the tune of over 100lbs of torque over stock is under 3000 rpm.

For the tow rating, I think it's mainly due to the fact that it has only 4 cylinders and heat build up in a turbo engine can be a lot.

What I'm disappointed in is that the Explorer 3.5L ecoboost has only a tow rating of 5000 pounds when a Jeep Grand Cherokee which has always been unibody and is capable of a tow rating of 7,400 pounds.
http://www.jeep.com/en/jeep-capabilities/towing/#GrandCherokee3Tab*

The main thing is that Ford really cut costs with the Taurus and Explorer. The Unibody frame came from a Volvo platform that underpins the XC-90 from 2002 to very recently. Also, the XC-90 has always done well in front overlap tests while the Explorer based on the same design, has a marginal rating. Even for the new refresh 2016 Explorer. Same thing with the CD4 platform that underpins the 2013 - current Fusion, 2015 - current Edge. They only score marginal to average on small overlap:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/explorer-4-door-suv
Unibody vehicles have never really been done well by Ford except for the new CD4 platform but even then, if you look at IIHS ratings, it really shows that Ford cuts a lot of costs in terms of the frame and only builds as much safety it needs to get a good rating in the car. Even then, you have body squeaks which my Fusion is in the shop for now. Very disappointing.

Also, I'd be wary of tuning the Ecoboost engines. So many blown pistons have occurred from tunes.

One last thing I have to mention. The Explorer came out with a 17 city, 25 highway for FWD Explorers in 2011 for the 3.5L N/A, that number dropped somewhere and became 24 HWY.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Ford_Explorer.shtml

Ford just over estimates their numbers. There was even a huge scandal with the 47/47/47 city, combined, hwy they did with the C-Max, Fusion hybrids.
http://www.dailytech.com/Ford+Lower...MKZ+Hybrid+to+See+7+MPG+Drop/article36048.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/12/autos/ford-mileage-compensation/

I'm not surprised they keep doing this. I hope they improve their quality and methods soon.

 

[blwnsmoke]

There are plenty of people who have the cmax and get more then thev47/47/47. The problem is people who are new to hybrids do not understand how to drive them properly to get the mileage. There are people in cmax vehicles that are eating low 50s on average combined.

It is no different then the ecoboost. If you drive it for the power, you will not get the mileage of a regular n/a 4cyl. It is a matter of understanding.

 

[Tuscany]

Not sure why the tow ratings are lower when the 2.3 has MORE torque down low than the 3.5NA. The 3.5NA has no power until you get to 4000rpm. The torque curve you describe that you like in a truck is exactly what the 3.5EB gives you, especially when you tune it. Go drive a 3.5EB or even a 2.7EB F150. If you still aren't convinced, drive one that someone has tuned. The biggest gains from the tune of over 100lbs of torque over stock is under 3000 rpm.

It's very obvious why the EB engines aren't rated as high for towing. First, Small engine cooling systems and small head water jackets are inadequate for towing heavier loads with heat producing turbochargers when compared to larger NA platforms.

Second, the amount of EGTS from towing a heavier load would compound the cooling inadequacies of the small four.

More tuning? Forget that. Tuning may add a few unuseable ponies high up on the RPM scale where nobody goes, and maybe give someone the dyno jollies from a dyno results sheet, but torque gains are the real target when towing or for noticeably improving daily driving. IMO, there isn't safe power to be had in a gasoline platform from tuning or adding boost to an already small engine. Unless the EB can burn "extra" fuel along with the "extra" boost,..and..deal with the "extra" heat generated in the combustion chamber/heads to make "extra" power, then there are only disadvantages. Combine tuning stress with cooling limitation, and the result is eaten pistons, and I can also guess the extra heat shears engine oil in a hurry. Crank, journal and cam bearings will follow down the road.

No thanks to tuning, and I'll pass on the EB.

IMO, since Ford has heavily invested in the EB, this platform will go on for a few more years, and Ford will finally return to a better, lighter, fuel efficient NA engine across the board.

 

[Flatplane]

My answer .. It's all about the numbers!
Business model dictates that the EB power-trains have verifiable better fuel mileage,"when driven with the intent of achieving better fuel mileage". Add to that the customers expectations of better fuel mileage AND better performance are unobtainable "at the same time".
If Ford can get the numbers on the spreadsheet to affect CAFE standards and emission standards in a positive way, then let the chips fall as they may with respect to perceived drive-ability.
I agree with you on moving a specific amount of weight away from a stop light with nimbleness and comfort. When the business model dictates smaller lighter vehicles to achieve stellar goals with Cafe and Epa ramifications certain compromises must endure.
Too put in other words ..."It is what It is!"

 

[Tuscany]

My answer .. It's all about the numbers!
Business model dictates that the EB power-trains have verifiable better fuel mileage,"when driven with the intent of achieving better fuel mileage". Add to that the customers expectations of better fuel mileage AND better performance are unobtainable "at the same time".
If Ford can get the numbers on the spreadsheet to affect CAFE standards and emission standards in a positive way, then let the chips fall as they may with respect to perceived drive-ability.
I agree with you on moving a specific amount of weight away from a stop light with nimbleness and comfort. When the business model dictates smaller lighter vehicles to achieve stellar goals with Cafe and Epa ramifications certain compromises must endure.
Too put in other words ..."It is what It is!"

Ain't that the truth...

 

[need-a-cage]

Tuning adds power at LOW RPM! You can't get much more at high rpm because the turbos can't keep up and neither can the fuel system. Tuning adds very useable power.