I'll note that the version of the Ford Escape with the V6 and the Auto and the high towing rating is actually AWD, not FWD. And I believe it's based on the same frame as the Mazda 6, which is not exactly a powerhouse chassis.
New Impala
- Thread starter ToyotaNSaturn
- Start date
- Status
You're wrong. See here: http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/features/specs/
3.0L FWD 2.93 5,000 2,000 without Class II Trailer Towing Package XLT, XLT Sport, Limited
3.0L 4WD 2.93 5,660 2,000 without Class II Trailer Towing Package XLT, XLT Sport, Limited
3.0L FWD 2.93 7,080 3,500 with Class II Trailer Towing Package XLT, XLT Sport, Limited
3.0L 4WD 2.93 7,240 3,500 with Class II Trailer Towing Package XLT, XLT Sport, Limited
The 4th column is the gross combined weight rating. Notice that the 4WD version offers only 160lbs more than the FWD version. (EDIT: Which is probably more than offset by the weight of the AWD components). The max trailer weight of 3500lbs is the same for both.
The Escape is not based on the Mazda 6 chassis. It's an all-new platform, and predates the Mazda 6 by several years:
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/070003.html
'Other than that[usage of the Zetec and Duratec engines], the Escape is said to be all new. Paul Linden makes an interesting observation as to why this is actually necessitated by the architecture of the Escape: "Car parts aren't strong enough, and truck parts—because the trucks are body-on-frame—didn't fit." He adds, "Even the battery is new."'
[ June 27, 2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: brianl703 ]
Not the Mazda 6...the Escape was out well before the mazda 6 hit the market. They were developed in entirely different labs. If anything, the Escape has a Ford Focus style unibody.
EDIT: brian beat me to the punch.
Actually it reminds me a bit of the Contour, but maybe that's just because of the Duratec engine.
I really really disagree with this statement. 05 Ford Mustang GT with the 5 speed auto does a 0-60 run in 5.1 for a reason...many quick gear ratios. If you're really gunning and engine with an Auto they are gonna be about the same. The 99 Grand Cherokee with the 4.7L V8 hits 0-60 in about 7.2. It had a 4 speed auto. That same 4 speed auto was re flashed to enable the 5th gear in that transmission (the software wasn't ready until 2001) and the same 0-60 run resulted in the same time but a better quarter. The gas mileage difference isn't tiny by anymeans! Our 2000 Grand without the flash does 2200 at 70. With the flash, it would do about 1750 or so. That's a big difference in gas mileage savings. For reliability, if you change the fluids at the correct intervals, they will last a long time, well beyond anyones expectations. These new transmissions are not like the transmissions of the past. a 4.7L GC drivetrain going 200K without out replacement is not uncommon.
Yeah, I thought about that a little more, and I see your point. In the case of the Saab, the wide torque band of the turbo engine seemed to make the additional gear unnecessary.
Of course, the specific calibration of the transmission can make a difference. For example, my parents' Solara convertible has a 5-speed auto. It is so biased toward smooth shifting that I swear it takes half a second to complete shifting between 1-2 and 2-3. The Aisin-Warner box in the Saab [same company as the Toyota's] shifted immediately with no "slop" when pushed.
I'm mostly worried about the rebuild cost of these new transmissions when the time comes, as I'm in the habit of always buying used cars. Given their history and the way they're driven, I doubt we're going to see 200k between rebuilds on Mustang GT autos...
Of course, the specific calibration of the transmission can make a difference. For example, my parents' Solara convertible has a 5-speed auto. It is so biased toward smooth shifting that I swear it takes half a second to complete shifting between 1-2 and 2-3. The Aisin-Warner box in the Saab [same company as the Toyota's] shifted immediately with no "slop" when pushed.
I'm mostly worried about the rebuild cost of these new transmissions when the time comes, as I'm in the habit of always buying used cars. Given their history and the way they're driven, I doubt we're going to see 200k between rebuilds on Mustang GT autos...
For a long time (ever since they had a single module to control the engine and transmission) Ford has been retarding the engine timing during shifts to make the transmission last longer. This is true even for manual transmission cars (it uses the clutch pedal switch to know when you're making a shift). (This is one reason given for changing the 94-95 Mustang 5.0s w/ manual to use the 87-93 Mustang 5.0 engine control module; the 87-93 does not retard timing between shifts).
As far as gas savings, it isn't linear with the reduction in RPM. That is, an engine in a vehicle turning 3000RPM at 70MPH does not use twice the fuel of that same engine in the same vehicle turning 1500RPM at 70MPH. So you really can't draw any conclusions about how much gas will be saved by looking at engine speed vs. vehicle speed.
As far as gas savings, it isn't linear with the reduction in RPM. That is, an engine in a vehicle turning 3000RPM at 70MPH does not use twice the fuel of that same engine in the same vehicle turning 1500RPM at 70MPH. So you really can't draw any conclusions about how much gas will be saved by looking at engine speed vs. vehicle speed.
Link doesn't show Impala and I don't see Impala under the Chevy link?
They've changed their web site around.
After poking around at thier site looking for an updated link, I found that I really could care less about the Impala, or any other car, after seeing this one:
690 HP Mustang
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=104572
After poking around at thier site looking for an updated link, I found that I really could care less about the Impala, or any other car, after seeing this one:
690 HP Mustang
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=104572
True but I know that my father's 00 WJ gets 17-18mpg without the 5 speed flash, compared to 19-20mpg with the 5 speed auto flash. I've heard of some people getting 21mpg. Actually, my father hasn't had it done. I heard it makes a big difference in over all gas mileage.
- Status
Similar threads
