Ford Edge...2.0, 2.7, or 3.5?

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by meep
LOL. I guess I must be showing my age!! I grew up with 45HP VW vans and 88HP station wagons, and V8s that were putting out 160HP. 6 second 0-60 times were only the fastest of muscle cars back then.

Yep, amazing that most pedestrian vehicles would smoke a hot V8 from back in the day. A 4-cylinder 2.0T Accord would run with some of the baddest stuff on the street in the 60's.

 

[jcartwright99]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by jcartwright99
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by meep
If it were me, I'd probably lean towards the 2.0, because of handling. I don't like have all that weight up in front of the front axle. The 2.0 should have plenty of power for driving a small SUV around. That said, the 2.7 is one of the nicest driving engines I've owned - it does everything well. Gobs of torque, feels refined, great mpg, and has balls when you ask it to deliver. It just seems overkill for an SUV. I mean, this thing pulls the truck plus a laden trailer up steep grades on the highway without breaking 2500 rpm - it's overkill for a passenger car. BUT, if that's attractive to you, the 2.7 is a great engine IMO.

2.7 is nowhere near over-kill in an Edge. Has only a touch more power/weight than my CX5, and I consider that the upper edge of "adequate".


We get it. You love your CX-5. However the Edge ST isn't just a hair faster it is significantly faster. It's clear you have never driven one because they are not slow. Every scenario other than fuel economy it would lay waste to the CX-5. Driving experience will be much better too because of a thing called torque at low rpm.

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by meep
it's overkill for a passenger car.

It's all about one's point of reference and expectations, I suppose. I've driven a Fusion Sport with that 2.7 engine, and I would call it adequate, not overkill. It would certainly not be overkill for a midsize SUV. But if it's just for getting groceries, I'm sure even a 1.5T would do.

True but in what world is a 0-60 time a tenth or two over 5 seconds adequate. Actually, I want to live in that world.


No, never driven one, but by the numbers...do you REALLY consider 3 tenths in the quarter "significantly faster"? I mean, it IS faster, no doubt, but my definition of "significantly faster" has a much larger margin than 3 tenths in a quarter.


Ok. You can be a magazine racer from where ever you grabbed those numbers. To humor you, let's take these numbers. 0-100 it is 1.3 seconds faster. That is a significant amount. Which makes the 1/4 look even more suspect. That's fine. Enjoy your CX-5.

0-100: 16.2 vs. 14.9
1/4 mile: 14.6@95mph vs. 14.3@98mph

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by jcartwright99


Ok. You can be a magazine racer from where ever you grabbed those numbers. To humor you, let's take these numbers. 0-100 it is 1.3 seconds faster. That is a significant amount. Which makes the 1/4 look even more suspect. That's fine. Enjoy your CX-5.

0-100: 16.2 vs. 14.9
1/4 mile: 14.6@95mph vs. 14.3@98mph


When I get a chance to line up with one, I'll share the results. Until then, keep in mind that Car and Driver and Motor Trend testing of the same vehicle resulted in a larger performance spread than the difference between C&D's test of the CX5 and ST. When 2 different magazines can test them, and one is faster than the other when you cross-compare, I tend to opine that the vehicles are "relatively similar". Although I do truthfully believe the Edge ST is a touch faster than my CX5. That said, I would NOT find the Edge ST "too much" for an SUV by a long shot, which was my point, that I have experience with an SUV that is more or less similar, and I find it just barely above my threshold of "boring".

Compare:

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/edge/2019/2019-ford-edge-st-first-test-review/
0-60 MPH 6.1 sec
QUARTER MILE 14.7 sec @ 93.4 mph

vs.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a27255337/2019-mazda-cx-5-reliability-maintenance/
60 mph: 6.1 sec
¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 95 mph


Also, let's compare the SAME VEHICLE...You say 1.3 seconds to 100 is a "big difference".
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25474101/2019-volvo-xc60-reliability-maintenance/
This vehicle changed by 1 second 0-100 over the course of 40K miles.

This vehicle stayed the same.
https://www.caranddriver.com/review...-awd-long-term-road-test-wrap-up-review/

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25348777/2018-honda-accord-reliability-maintenance/
This vehicle got a whopping 1.6 seconds QUICKER in 40K miles.

So, yes, 1.3 seconds is a decent amount to 100, but man, put 40K miles on it and you might gain or lose that much, so hardly what I'd call earth-shattering. Just food for thought.


Although I agree with you, as a guy who used to street race, magazine numbers are next to worthless. Sadly, I have no personal experience with an Edge Sport or ST, so that's all I got for ya right now.

 

[MCompact]

My wife's X1 takes a tick over six seconds to hit 60 mph. Adequate for her, barely adequate for me. I can tolerate glacially slow acceleration in older special interest cars and work beaters, but in a new or nearly new car I want a 0-60 in the low four second range at a minimum- but that's just me. As always, YMMV.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by MCompact
My wife's X1 takes a tick over six seconds to hit 60 mph. Adequate for her, barely adequate for me. I can tolerate glacially slow acceleration in older special interest cars and work beaters, but in a new or nearly new car I want a 0-60 in the low four second range at a minimum- but that's just me. As always, YMMV.

I agree with this, and feel very similar, but the cost to entry for an SUV (operating/maintenance/reliability of available models) is just more than I care to invest at this time, and a car is out of the question for me. The X1 is a dead ringer for my CX5 (I actually raced one the other day, it's like neither vehicle moved, lol!), and it is as you say, barely adequate.

 

[HemiHawk]

Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by jayjr1105
3.5 engine is shared with the Flex, Taurus, and Explorer. That would be where I'm leaning.


The pluses of that engine are that it seems to have been around for a while and is a good, durable motor, and it's not turbocharged (fewer things to break). The minus is that's it's a larger engine and its fuel economy isn't quite as good as the turbo engines...


My parents have an Edge with the 3.5 and I agree Its been super reliable (its a 2011). And in fact the fuel economy has even been pretty great. From what I've heard the turbo engines never really reach the rated figures. Probably a result of people using more the "boost" in the ecoboost name.

The one thing I will say about the 3.5 in AWD trim... its not quick. doesn't feel underpowered exactly, its just not fast. Fill it with 5 people and cargo and it still moves, but still at a slowish pace. My FIL has the first year Edge ST with the 2.7 turbo and that thing gets moving. With a tune/intake/exhaust I could see 13s in the quarter for it.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by HemiHawk
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by jayjr1105
3.5 engine is shared with the Flex, Taurus, and Explorer. That would be where I'm leaning.


The pluses of that engine are that it seems to have been around for a while and is a good, durable motor, and it's not turbocharged (fewer things to break). The minus is that's it's a larger engine and its fuel economy isn't quite as good as the turbo engines...


My parents have an Edge with the 3.5 and I agree Its been super reliable (its a 2011). And in fact the fuel economy has even been pretty great. From what I've heard the turbo engines never really reach the rated figures. Probably a result of people using more the "boost" in the ecoboost name.

The one thing I will say about the 3.5 in AWD trim... its not quick. doesn't feel underpowered exactly, its just not fast. Fill it with 5 people and cargo and it still moves, but still at a slowish pace. My FIL has the first year Edge ST with the 2.7 turbo and that thing gets moving. With a tune/intake/exhaust I could see 13s in the quarter for it.

I'd say a tune alone would nudge it into the 13's.
Here is one running 14.2 bone stock, supposedly:

 

[grampi]

Like I said earlier, the CX-5 isn't really comparable to the Edge as it's smaller. It's comparable to the Escape. Maybe if the CX-7 was still around it would be comparable, but it's no longer made...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by HemiHawk
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by jayjr1105
3.5 engine is shared with the Flex, Taurus, and Explorer. That would be where I'm leaning.


The pluses of that engine are that it seems to have been around for a while and is a good, durable motor, and it's not turbocharged (fewer things to break). The minus is that's it's a larger engine and its fuel economy isn't quite as good as the turbo engines...


My parents have an Edge with the 3.5 and I agree Its been super reliable (its a 2011). And in fact the fuel economy has even been pretty great. From what I've heard the turbo engines never really reach the rated figures. Probably a result of people using more the "boost" in the ecoboost name.

The one thing I will say about the 3.5 in AWD trim... its not quick. doesn't feel underpowered exactly, its just not fast. Fill it with 5 people and cargo and it still moves, but still at a slowish pace. My FIL has the first year Edge ST with the 2.7 turbo and that thing gets moving. With a tune/intake/exhaust I could see 13s in the quarter for it.


I'm completely turned off to the 3.5, and it's all because of the stupid design of the water pump and its location...if it wasn't for that, I would still be considering models with this engine...

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by grampi
Like I said earlier, the CX-5 isn't really comparable to the Edge as it's smaller. It's comparable to the Escape. Maybe if the CX-7 was still around it would be comparable, but it's no longer made...

I was talking solely about acceleration.

 

[Arob]

As an owner of an ‘18 Edge with the 3.5 awd, I would go for the ST and 2.7. I also wish for the days you could order your choice of engine with any particular model. Certain hipo engines required upgraded brakes and suspension, etc Just saying, 2.7 and don't look back!!

 

[grampi]

I did some more digging on this water pump issue with the 3.5 and found out some good info. The vast majority of water pump failures occurred on 2011 or older 3.5s, and most of them had between 180K and 260K miles. In 2012 Ford redesigned the water pump assembly, and since then the failure rate has decreased significantly. The only bad part about it is it's still located under the timing chain cover, so if it does start leaking, it still goes into the engine block. More than likely we will not put more than 100K on this vehicle so the water pump will basically be a non-issue for us. Other than the water pump, the 3.5 is pretty much a bullet proof motor, and I would rather have it than the 2.0 turbo. As far as the 2.7 is concerned, I will not even consider it because it's only available in the sport model. I love the looks of the sport model and I'm sure it's a pleasure to drive, but it's considerably more expensive than the other trim levels, its 21" tires are ridiculously expensive to replace, and they all come with a black interior, which both my wife and I absolutely hate.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Arob
As an owner of an ‘18 Edge with the 3.5 awd, I would go for the ST and 2.7. I also wish for the days you could order your choice of engine with any particular model. Certain hipo engines required upgraded brakes and suspension, etc Just saying, 2.7 and don't look back!!


Just curious why you would say not to go with the 3.5. We drove one a couple weeks ago and it was a pleasure to drive. Had plenty of power too...

 

[Arob]

We drove the 2018 Edge Sport and I really liked the torque and power and didn't have to rev it like the 3.5. The SEL 3.5 had a little less tire noise and though didn't handle quite as tight as the Sport it still felt good. Bottom line, I like the power reserve when I need it and better engine design of the 2.7. That said, our SEL does very nicely, the wife loves it.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Arob
We drove the 2018 Edge Sport and I really liked the torque and power and didn't have to rev it like the 3.5. The SEL 3.5 had a little less tire noise and though didn't handle quite as tight as the Sport it still felt good. Bottom line, I like the power reserve when I need it and better engine design of the 2.7. That said, our SEL does very nicely, the wife loves it.


I'm sure I would like the sport better too, but like I said earlier, replacement cost of the tires, the higher price of the vehicle itself, and the fact it only comes with a black interior are deal breakers for me...too bad Ford doesn't offer the 2.7 in the SEL trim level...

 

[caprice_2nv]

My parents bought a new 2019 Edge with the 2.0. They wanted to stick with the 3.5 because they had a 2010 Taurus, gave it to my sister with 230k miles, still going strong, original water pump. It was a great car, but obviously it will be a write off now when the water pump goes eventually. The 3.5 wasn't available anymore though so they went with the 2.0.

The 2.0 Edge apparently gets the same mileage as the Taurus but now they have AWD. I drove both and the 3.5 feels better in normal driving but I never drove either one hard.

They didn't like the idea of having a turbo but they're both retired now and won't be putting 230k miles on this one or keeping it as long so they figured they could take the risk. Looking under the hood, it looks easier to work on than most modern vehicles to me.

As far as the vehicle goes they love it. It's only been a year so reliability can't be judged yet. No problems so far though.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
The 3.5 wasn't available anymore though so they went with the 2.0.


What was the last year model they offered the 3.5?

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by metroplex


They basically have 2 failure modes. One is via the weep hole if you're lucky. The other is very bad.


That was very informative. Thanks for posting. I gave it a "like".

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
The 3.5 wasn't available anymore though so they went with the 2.0.


What was the last year model they offered the 3.5?

2018, I believe.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by metroplex


They basically have 2 failure modes. One is via the weep hole if you're lucky. The other is very bad.


That was very informative. Thanks for posting. I gave it a "like".

If it leaks out of the weep hole it means the outer seal is leaking...if it leaks into the block it means it's leaking through the impeller bearing seal...