Four-cylinder fuel economy with V6 power. It's the kind of having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too scenario SUV-buying Americans want. Ford's answer to this dilemma is smaller-displacement engines augmented with turbochargers. Fuel economy is better and performance is, well, close enough. Call it EcoBoost.
"The EcoBoost Explorer is for a buyer who has utility needs that the vehicle provides but who doesn't require as much capability," said Explorer Marketing Manager Eric Peterson. "It's for someone invested in fuel economy." And it is efficient, netting 20 city/28 highway mpg and 23 combined mpg according to the EPA, while still producing 240 horsepower and 270 pound-feet of torque. Compared with the V6, this is a 3-mpg combined increase in fuel economy and a 15 lb-ft improvement in torque. (Ignore the 50-hp advantage to the V6 for a moment.)
Also in comparison to the V6, the EcoBoost 2.0-liter engine adds $995 to the bottom line. Is it worth it? We just added the 2012 Ford Explorer XLT EcoBoost to our Long-Term Test fleet to find out.
What We Got
The 2012 Ford Explorer is available in three trim levels — base, XLT and Limited. The base SUV gets 17-inch wheels, integrated blind-spot mirrors, roof rails, cruise control, power driver seat with manual recline, a tilt-and-telescoping wheel, MyFord trip computer and a pretty basic stereo. We didn't want that.
Stepping up to the XLT gets you 18-inch wheels, automatic headlights, rear parking sensors and an optional Driver Connect package that has upgraded Sync and, more importantly, MyFord Touch. This newest tool in Ford's multimedia armory is making waves for being too slow and too complicated. We want to see how it feels after a year of use. We were definitely interested in this trim and could do without the Limited trim level's 20-inch wheels. The XLT starts at $31,980. But you know us....
What we really wanted was an XLT with EcoBoost and MyFord Touch. We didn't need many options but wanted the $995 engine. What we found, though, was a market flooded with fully loaded cars, dealer-installed wheels and really expensive ($1,595) dual-panel sunroofs.
That is, until we found an Ingot Silver XLT with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost inline-4 (front-wheel drive with a six-speed automatic, as that's the only drivetrain paired with the EcoBoost) at Power Ford in Torrance. It had the $3,520 205A equipment package which includes MyFord Touch, Sync, rearview camera, dual-zone A/C and the Comfort package. We also got a power liftgate ($495), blind spot monitor with inflatable rear seatbelts in the second row ($595) and navigation with voice controls ($795). But we did avoid the sunroof.
Ford was quick with the rebates and let us out the door for $35,402 on a car with an MSRP of $38,485.
Cost vs. Benefit
The 2012 Ford Explorer XLT EcoBoost is an interesting proposition; there is a power loss but a torque gain, a price premium and a fuel economy advantage, and then there's the small-engine/big-car conundrum. Towing capacity is reduced from 5,000 to 2,000 pounds. It's a light-duty SUV for someone with light-duty needs, which, if we're honest, is how Explorers are used most of the time anyway.
One factor tipping the scale in favor of the EcoBoost is that Ford recommends the same 87-octane fuel for the turbo engine as it does for the V6 — although running the stuff yields a reduction in power and torque to 233 hp and 266 lb-ft. Assuming a per-gallon cost of $3.66 (the current national average for regular fuel according to U.S. Energy Information Administration) and considering the 3-mpg combined difference versus the V6, almost 42,000 miles must be covered to make up the additional cost of the EcoBoost engine in fuel cost savings alone.
We'll drive the car and do the math. You decide if it's worth it. Twelve months and 20,000 miles with this SUV should be enough time to figure out if EcoBoost is the do-all solution. Follow along on our long-term blogs to find out.
Current Odometer: 1,110.6
Best Fuel Economy: 19.4
Worst Fuel Economy: 18.8
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 19.1
Edmunds purchased this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
jmag928 says:
03:22 PM, 01/13/2012
I currently drive a 2009 Ford Fusion company car (SEL4cyl) rated at 20/28 city/Hwy but I regularly exceed the hwy numbers on business trips. I don't do jackrabbit starts, or pedal to the floor passing maneuvers on the highway and I typically get 29-31mpg. The worst I've ever done was driving to West Texas into a 20-25mph wind when I got 25mpg hwy. That being said, I also drove back from West Texas with the same 20-25mph wind at my back and I got a WHOPPING 37mpg on the highway. Why am I telling you this? Because I am considering buying an Explorer with a 2.0L Ecoboost and I did a test drive on the first one ever delivered to a dealer. The salesman was excited to learn it had just been delivered and gladly got the keys for a test drive. He drove it out of the parking lot and proceeded to mash the pedal to the floor to test the "into the back of your seat" characteristics of this new powerplant. I was very impressed with the quick acceleration of this turbo and the s_ _ _ eating grin on the salesmans' face told me he really liked the engine as well. When it was my turn to drive it I re-set the MPG calculator to get my own real-world test of city MPG on this new Explorer. I drove it carefully-no jackrabbits, really smooth, eased up on the gas like I normally do when approaching stop signs or red lights, and then also drove up/down hills in the neighborhood behind the dealership. I had the mpg rating up to 28 in town, but then finally settled at 25 for all the combined city driving I did. So while the M/T guys said they only got 19, consider that they usually drive cars on a test track and are looking for slalom data, zero to sixty times, how many feet does it take to stop tests, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the M/T guys all walk in circles because they're right legs are 3 times stronger than their left legs from stomping on the gas and brake pedal so much!
Almost every M/T, C/D type magazine story I've read that reviews a vehicle typically ends with, "...if they could just re-tune the engine to give it 40% more horse power, this would really be a great ride.....". Come on, tell me you haven't read this too ? ?
BTW, a year ago Dec-2010, I bought my wife a 2012 Ford Edge (V6 SEL, Heated Leather seats, and My Ford Sync). She loves the vehicle and is constantly telling me it's the best vehicle she's ever had! Yes, the MyFordTouch had it's problems, but during the last visit to the dealer for an oil change (Nov-2012), they upgraded the software and we've had no problems with it since. We got 27mpg on a road trip so I don't always believe the gov't ratings or M/T data either. Also, remember that Microsoft and Ford ENGINEERS wrote the manuals that explain how to use MyFordTouch so it will absolutely take a lot of practice learning how to use it, especially since you have voice, steering wheel, touch screen, and touch button options to pick from. My suggestion is pick one method, and stick with it, otherwise you'll get confused mixing and matching the different ways to use it. I rarely read software manuals for my computers because when Engineers write the manuals, it's a little difficult to follow. No offense to Engineers, I think they're usually in a parallel universe compared to most of the rest of us. How else would they dream up so many cool new gadgets?
One of my buddies at work got the 2011 Explorer V-6 and had a noise (slamming gears) issue with the transmission but it was fixed by the dealer-no problems since. He also really likes his vehicle and averages 22mpg, with 25-27 on the hwy.
So, since my current Ford Fusion is rated at 20/28 (normally aspirated 2.3L 4cyl engine), and I can get between 25mpg and 37mpg on the highway, depending on the wind direction, I'm sure I'll be happy with the new Explorer and the 2.0L Ecoboost because it will also likely get the same mileage. Maybe the Engineers could add some boat sails to the Explorer for those times when you've got the wind at your back!! ;-O)
explorerx4 says:
04:46 PM, 10/01/2011
Under 'Related Content' on the right side of the screen, there is a long term review of a 2002 Explorer. I found it interesting.
sdmcwilliams says:
05:16 AM, 09/19/2011
I drove a rental Traverse in Colorado for 10 days on vacation. It was slow and uncomfortable. My daughter almost broke her tailbone on the seatbelt portion sticking out of the cushion in the middle of the 2nd row. The interior is beyond bland and in my opinion is not even in the same league as the Explorer. I also find the styling of the Traverse very bland. That back end is one only a mother could love.
lolxd says:
09:33 AM, 09/18/2011
Looking forward to read updates about the Long Term Explorer. I've always thought of how the explorer would be like to live with.
I think Ford's new Lineup is desirable and I find the Explorer (especially the interior) a lot desirable than most SUVs within the same price range.
darkman_xxl says:
02:44 PM, 09/17/2011
What I would like to know is, why don't they drop the Ecoboost V6 in this bad boy. I'm sure that would be a way better choice, unless packaging is a concern.
nelsonlu says:
01:06 PM, 09/17/2011
lions208487 wrote:
"The GM triplets Arcadia/ Enclave/ Traverse make more sense and yield better fuel economy averages than the Explorer. They also cost less."
How are you getting that? The Explorer starts at $28K; the Acadia starts at $32K, the Enclave at $35K, the Traverse at $29,370. Even if you're talking about the equipping the Explorer with an EcoBoost (which I understand you might be referring to) it starts at $29,165, which certainly doesn't make it more expensive than any of the GM trio that you just mentioned here.
Now, of course, if you start adding options to the Explorer, it gets expensive really fast, but that's the same for GM's (or any other brand's) 3-row SUVs, too.
lions208487 says:
10:00 AM, 09/17/2011
The GM triplets Arcadia/ Enclave/ Traverse make more sense and yield better fuel economy averages than the Explorer. They also cost less. Honda Element and Ford Flex also make much better options.
The new Explorer may be selling and may look nice, but it is not a logical option.
nutsaboutcars says:
08:44 AM, 09/17/2011
I hear the new explorer has quality issues such as squeaks and rattles and transmission problems and the my ford touch option being to slow and crashing on some vehicles. So that will keep me away for now
cobraboy1 says:
06:16 AM, 09/17/2011
"watkinst says:"
"Did you know that the new Mercedes ML which looks like it came off the same drawing board is nearly the same price?"
Are you insane?? The 2012 Mercedes ML350 is nowhere near the same price as a 38k explorer. The MB with absolutely no options on it at all starts at $49,000 which is a solid $10,500 OVER the explorer. Equiped with comparable options as the explorer the price climbs to $55,695. Oh by the way, the Ford has 3,000 in rebates and they're willing to discount the car. The IL guys actually bought the Explorer for 35k. I'm a rep for MB and I can tell you that we're selling 2012 ML-350s that haven't even been built yet and we're selling them for full sticker, no rebates and no discounts. So you see one that you like for 55k guess what? That's right, you're going to pay 55k and you're going to like it.
In the future, please don't compare an apple to an exotic fruit salad.
mk40 says:
10:41 PM, 09/16/2011
Still doesn't change the fact the V6 is the better deal and package by far.
"As far as this particular car goes, MT recorded 15.1 in the '11 V6 Explorer. Their 19.9 result is a 32% jump."
But the ecoboost costs almost $1000 more.
15.1 overall in a full blown AWD SUV comparo that likely included some offroading and more track tests, not a real world test. MT's was a limited "first test" of the ecoboost which included a real world mpg test. C/D got 18mpg observed in their "first drive" of the AWD V6. Add 1-2 mpg for FWD. That would be 19mpg via C/D observed.
Here's what MT really said comparing their real world mpg testing of both powertrain options:
"Well, during our (pretty much) real-world testing, the 2.0-liter Explorer returned a combined 19.9 miles per gallon, an exactly 1.5-mpg increase over the standard 3.5-liter V-6 Explorer. That's an improvement, sure, but not an earth-shattering one. But, as tech editor Frank Markus points out, "At least it's $1,000 more expensive!" Also, we got that mpg number when the Explorer was empty and unloaded. Imagine if a dad plus four ballerinas plus all their junk were onboard. And we did, as our own Nate Martinez drove the EcoBoost Explorer around fully loaded and found it couldn't hold a gear. The engine is just mismatched to the vehicle. Instead of the 2.0-liter turbo as gas-miser, Ford would have been much better served offering up a diesel."
It's apparent they got 18.4mpg combined w the V6 in a real world mpg test. Under load the difference will likely diminish even more. Be sure to use full synthetic... Good luck.