The HP and MPG Figures Are in for the New Ford Edge Sport

When Ford gave us a peek at the redesigned 2015 Edge last summer time, the dossier for the Sport trim was quick 1 essential detail: The power, baby. The Sport is the only Edge trim level to get Ford’s new direct-injected, twin-turbocharged, “Nano” 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6, and Ford would tell us only that it would make “more than 300 horsepower” in this application. Now we have the numbers, and Ford wasn’t far off the mark.

Rated at 315 horsepower and 350 lb-ft of twist, the 2.7-liter EcoBoost in the 2015 Edge Sport handily beats the outgoing 3.7-liter V-6’s 305/280 numbers. And while these 10 ponies may well not be a massive deal, the extra 70 lb-ft torque is where the 2.7 EcoBoost tends to make its presence recognized. Additionally, maximum torque is now completely on board at 2750 rpm, whereas the former V-6 didn’t build a complete head of steam till 4000 rpm. (Careful readers will note that the Edge’s 315/350 numbers are just shy of the 325/375 numbers the 2.7 EcoBoost makes below the hood of the new F-150.)

Fuel economy numbers for the 2.7 EcoBoost, nonetheless, aren’t considerably greater than the old 3.7-liter. The front-wheel-drive Edge Sport turns in an EPA-estimated 18/27 mpg city/highway all-wheel-drive models suck a tad a lot more fuel, posting EPA ratings of 17/24 mpg. For the earlier Edge with the 3.7-liter, the numbers had been 19/26 mpg (FWD) and 17/23 mpg (AWD).

If the 2.7 EcoBoost and Sport trim offer you far more thrust that you require, the regular 2.-liter EcoBoost 4-cylinder makes 245 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 275 lb-ft of torque at 3000 rpm (on 93-octane fuel). With 2 fewer cylinders, its fuel economy is greater, but not a entire lot greater: EPA ratings for the 4-cylinder are 20/30 mpg city/highway with front-wheel drive and 20/28 mpg with all-wheel drive.

---

---

Traditionalists can take solace in the reality that the naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V-6 is still obtainable as an alternative on non-Sport versions of the Edge. Producing a affordable 280 horsepower at a lofty 6500 rpm and 250 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, its EPA ratings of 18/26 mpg city/highway (FWD) and 17/25 mpg (AWD) are quite considerably on a par with the smaller sized EcoBoost V-6.

While we’re glad Ford is pushing boundaries and exploring new technologies, at the end of the day, it’s fascinating to see how tightly grouped  the fuel-consumption numbers are. Expect costs for the Edge Sport to start off around $ 38,25 when it goes on sale this spring.

The HP and MPG Figures Are in for the New Ford Edge Sport

Fuel use figures “still way off mark”

Although pump prices are at their lowest level for 4 years, a gallon of unleaded still works out at well over a 5r – which means fuel consumption remains a big consideration when choosing a new car.

The trouble is, manufacturers’ fuel consumption figures still can’t be trusted.

Despite widespread coverage of how manufacturers can manipulate a motor’s miles-per-gallon (mpg) ratio, the latest batch of True MPG test results from WhatCar? show how advertised fuel consumption figures are still well off the mark.

Manufacturers work out mpg under 3 types of test condition – urban, extra-urban, and combined. The assumption is that most drivers will usually cover one or more of these test conditions as part of their normal routine.

The problem is that these tests aren’t carried out on real roads. They’re performed in laboratory conditions, on rolling roads with no headwinds or inclines to add to consumption figures.

Results are manipulated even further by pumping up tyres extra hard to reduce rolling resistance, removing mirrors to reduce wind resistance and even disconnecting brakes to ease friction.

All this means the results are anything but realistic.

WhatCar? set up a series of True MPG tests to give motorists a better idea of fuel consumption  and some results varied considerably.

To get a more accurate view of ‘real-world’ fuel consumption, the WhatCar? mpg test involves vehicles being driven over a variety of real roads, including motorways, A roads, B roads, in towns and in villages.

Almost 400 cars have been tested under these conditions and results show that vehicles achieve economy figures that are an average of 19% lower than the manufacturers’ figures.

WhatCar? editor, Jim Holder said: “Our True MPG test figures are reliable and achievable. Drivers, unfortunately, cannot trust the government-sanctioned data because the tests are carried out in a laboratory.

“However, most buyers consider fuel consumption to be among the most important attributes of a car. That is why motorists should visit our website to check how well the car they intend to buy really performs.”

So which cars are among the best and worst performers when it comes to real-world versus laboratory-test fuel consumption figures?

The VW Golf SV 2.0 TDI is currently in pole position, achieving 83% of its claimed fuel consumption of 58.9mpg.

Back in the pits, meanwhile, is the Volvo V40 2.0 T5 R-Design, which delivered 32.5mpg – just 67.9% of its claimed 47.9mpg.

Here is a rundown of the latest cars tested for True MPG, courtesy of WhatCar?:

Model	Official MPG	True MPG	% of official achieved
Audi A3 Saloon 1.6 TDI Sport	72.4	52.7	72.8
Audi A3 Cabriolet 2.0 TDI	67.3	46.3	68.8
Audi A6 2.0 TDI S line	61.4	47.8	77.9
BMW 218d Active Tourer	68.9	56.2	81.6
Mini Cooper 1.5 D	78.5	58.7	74.8
Toyota Yaris 1.33 VVT-I	78.5	57.8	73.6
Volvo V40 2.0 T5 R-Design	47.9	32.5	67.8
Volvo V40 2.0 D4 X-Country	70.6	55.9	79.2
VW Golf SV 2.0 TDI	58.9	49	83.2

Does your car perform anywhere near the expected mpg? Let us know in the comments section or on Twitter using the hashtag #FocusonFuel

Fuel use figures “still way off mark”

Your Mileage Could Differ: 2015 Ford Mustang Fuel-Economy Figures Leaked for V-6, EcoBoost Models

Fuel-economy ratings for specific 2015 Ford Mustang models are out, and V-6 purchasers will be slightly disappointed.

The savvy enthusiasts at Mustang6g—the identical forum that posted the car’s very first official photos from a copy of Autoweek prior to it hit newsstands—have now posted Monroneys of several production ‘Stangs, all of which have been identified on Ford’s customer website. Here are the 3 models in question and their EPA numbers (where applicable) compared to 2014:

• 2015 Mustang V-6 Automatic: 19 mpg city, 28 mpg highway (2014: 19/31)


• 2015 Mustang V-6 Manual: 17/28 (2014: 19/29)


• 2015 Mustang EcoBoost Manual: 22/31 (no 4-cylinder in 2014)

Unsurprisingly, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost inline-4 is the thriftiest and beats the fuel-economy estimates for the bigger-displacement 3.7-liter V-6 in the base model. And utilizing the EPA estimates of the V-6 as a guide, it is probably that the EcoBoost with the 6-speed automatic will attain higher city and highway numbers than the manual. Why the V-6—which, as we’ve detailed previously, has barely been touched from 2014—returns worse mileage in a car that’s supposed to be just 25 pounds heavier certainly has a lot to do with the new final-drive ratios, which are greater numerically. The curb-weight distinction, like just about each and every bit of Mustang news all year, was also leaked by Mustang6g and put to rest rumors that the 2015 auto would be as significantly as 300 pounds heavier. Still, what offers?

---

---

All 3 of the window stickers on Mustang6g.com indicate sales to Virginia dealers, which confirms our suspicion that Ford has been taking orders for months ahead of the new Mustang’s planned fall arrival. The sticker PDFs are currently live on Ford’s internet site, and we had been able to track 1 of the cars to Purvis Ford of Fredericksburg, Virginia, where the dealer’s site lists a 2015 V-6 coupe and a hyperlink to one particular of the window stickers. As the Mustang is nonetheless in preproduction mode, consumers can not officially order one particular unless their local dealer agrees to sell them a car that has currently been allotted to dealer stock.

Other Stories You May possibly Like

---

Your Mileage Could Differ: 2015 Ford Mustang Fuel-Economy Figures Leaked for V-6, EcoBoost Models

Pony’s Gallop, Ford-Certified! 2015 Mustang Energy, Torque Figures Released

Ford’s achingly slow rollout of final details on the 2015 Mustang, from pricing to unique features to choices availability, is ultimately coming to a head. The automaker has at long last revealed output figures for every single of the pony car’s 3 offered engines, and they’re not wildly diverse from our estimates. Ford also released technical information for the Mustang’s V-6, turbocharged EcoBoost 4-cylinder, and V-8 engines, as well as weight figures for coupes equipped with the engines.

Here are the output figures, model by model:

Mustang 3.7-liter V-6: 300 horsepower and 280 lb-ft of torque, option of 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission.

Mustang 2.3-liter EcoBoost I-4: 310 horsepower and 320 lb-ft of torque, choice of 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission.

Mustang 5.-liter V-8: 435 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque, selection of 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission.

A handful of key takeaways from the numbers listed above: The V-6 sees its peak-horsepower figure drop by 5 ponies relative to the 2014 model’s V-6, while the V-8′s horsepower and torque enhance by 15 and 10. The 8’s power increase comes largely by way of improvements cribbed from the now-defunct Mustang Boss 302′s version of the same 5.-liter Coyote V-7 The intake and exhaust valves are larger, the camshafts and pistons have been revised, the valve springs stiffened, and a forged crankshaft and connecting rods were fitted to support greater engine speeds. The cylinder heads are new and function reduce-restriction intake and exhaust porting.

Happily, our reporting on the 2015 Mustang’s curb-weight increases was spot-on: The new ‘Stang is only marginally heavier than the outgoing model. Especially, Ford’s claimed curb weights reveal that the V-6 manual coupe carries just 30 additional pounds (for a total of 3526 pounds), whilst the automatic-equipped version gains 12 pounds (for a total of 3530). The V-8–powered GT coupe gains 87 pounds in manual type (for a total of 3705 pounds) and 54 pounds in automatic guise (for a total of 3729 pounds). The EcoBoost is claimed to weigh almost the identical as the V-6 version, at 3532 pounds with the manual and 3524 with the automatic. No official weight figures for the Mustang convertible were supplied, but a prior leak of info indicates that they’ll weigh roughly 120 pounds a lot more, regardless of engine.

---

---

The weight figures probably imply that 2015 Mustangs with the carry-over engines ought to execute pretty significantly the very same as their predecessors in a straight line, which is to say they’ll be plenty swift. Of course, we’re curious to measure the overall performance of the new 2.3-liter EcoBoost version, offered its impressive torque benefit more than the V-6. We’ll have to wait for a full test of each model to draw final conclusions, but we’re not seeing something to make us significantly less excited to drive Dearborn’s newest pony.

Pony’s Gallop, Ford-Certified! 2015 Mustang Energy, Torque Figures Released