Sounded like Ford allegedly didn't pay obeisance to the MT guys in an appropriately servile manner, recently. MT and such buff books are (allegedly) in hock to auto companies' advert $$, and are frequently targeted for soft-pedaling on criticism. So, every so often they have to dump on some car to appear fair. Looks like the Explorer EcoBoost drew the short straw.
The guys at MT appear to be environuts (see how every review has their Euro-sycophant CO2 g/mi rating) and seem to reserve their bile for Americans who dare to desire comfortable, big family vehicles that also get better gas mileage, going against their diktat that the proles drive $40K govt subsidized, cramped penalty-box electro-podmobiles, or better yet, public transportation. They are shills for the government investment in GM's unwanted-tech subsidy $ sinkhole, see the MT 2011 COTY - the Volt, natch. Nothing would please them more than $8 gas, and like others in their limousine liberal circle, they are immune, becuase they don't pay for the cars or the gas they use.
Coming to the Explorer ecoboost, the target of their latest attack. Attacks like "It's intellectually dishonest. It looks roomy, but it's not. It looks sporty, but it's not" ar, ahem, intellectually dishonest ad hominems. Objective measurements on the roominess stack it well against the competition. As for its sporty look -- that's purely subjective, and not deserving of the vituperation being heaped on it. Their reported gas mileage of 19.9 mpg, driven in a we-don't-pay-for-gas-and-we-don't-own-the-car manner, is actually pretty good.
I bought the EcoBoost Explorer *after* reading all the buff book reviews, and after comparing its performance and utility first-hand with its competition. It offered excellent performance for its desired mission. Much of the time, a daily-driven SUV is not hauling a full load; the EcoBoost consumes far less gas than its peers in such conditions. And its fully laden consumption is still better than the competition. I didn't get the MyTouch, because it is expensive and I'll accept that it can be polarizing. Even at a pessimistic 19.5 mpg, it is significantly better than 16.5 mpg typical every day consumption from 3-row V6 crossovers in daily driven conditions per my peers' experience (a couple of Mazda CX-9's and an MDX). Typical 1000 miles/month driving would yield 8.77 gallons less in the ecoboost per month. That's a not-insubstantial saving of $35/mo @$4/gal of gas! And with 270 lb.ft available in a broad, flat torque-delivery curve, I found no reason to complain, as I noted in my first post as a new member here on this excellent forum.
Ultimately, too much freedom is a bad thing for the great unwashed, according these MT folks. If everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too... who will subscribe to their Euro-topian dreams (not to mention, their magazine)?
