Loki 5.0

Wow , less than 5 HP difference comparing a 2WD Eco vs. a 4WD 5.0. Two things are obvious, when you factor in drive line loss due to running the power through a transfer case which is around a 30% loss on a F250 6.2L then it is clear the 5.0 in a 2WD wins the HP war. Second , it is clear Ford has sandbagged the 5.0 published numbers.

Loki 5.0

I am not understanding why no one is charting below 2000 RPM either, my 5.0 will drop into 6th gear and pull a 2500 lb trailer from 1300 rpm so I know it's not because of stalling @ low RPM in the 1:1 gear they use for dyno pulls. My 5.0 pulls grades with my trailer in 6th my 5.4 SD with a lower diff gear could not pull at the same speed without dropping a gear. The 5.0 and Eco boost are torque monsters for small displacement engines. Loving the dual VCT!.

swiffer

^^x2

GRWolverineFan

The trucks were both dyno'd in 2WD. They are only rated at 5hp difference and this proves that to be true assuming a 13-15% driveline loss. I am wondering why you keep popping into EcoBoost threads trying to pimp the 5.0.

Loki 5.0

Two problems with your logic. 1. The driveshaft in a 4WD is driven off the TRANSFERCASE even in 2WD mode. Dyno runs of other 2011 Ford 4WD systems show around a 30% driveline loss in 2WD mode.
K&N's parasitic driveline loss reported in the torque readings show less loss with the 5.0 4WD. Does anyone actually believe that could even be possible? I don't and that pretty much proves that Fords Hp and Torque numbers are not accurate for the 5.0, if they were the Parasitic numbers would reflect reality.
Here is what a 4WD does in a rear wheel dyno run. The 6.2 is 4WD and the 2WD is 5.0. Everybody agrees that the 6.2 puts out more HP, TQ at the crank. http://lh3.ggpht.com/_M9nViCiSYVM/TT...800/50vs62.jpg

p38fln

Yeah the thing that really makes it look to me like they were just trying to skew the results to make the 5.0 look better. I'm not saying the 5.0 is a bad engine, its not. I'm just saying that it looks like PTC had a bone to pick with the 3.5 and purposely ran a dyno ran that they knew would make it look bad.

The ecoboost torque curve REALLY gets going at about 1500 RPM and peaks at 2500 - if you start the dyno run halfway through the torque curve and completely ignore most of the low side what do you expect will happen?

Note that officially the engine produces 250 lb-ft at 1,000 rpm - Starting the test at 2,000 RPM seems boneheaded and kind of stupid to me.

By the way, here's the official Ford dynometer run for the Ecoboost in the F-150:

triglet

Yeah and we all know ford doesn't lie. Hey I'm a big ecoboost fan. However something is bad wrong with this writeup by pickup truck. And if they were trying to spool the turbos well that would be skewing the results Also. Simply because they would be well into boost when the run started. If a magazine wants to do something. Either take 2 2wd or 2 4wd trucks one with a 5.0 and one with the ecoboost and put then on the same dyno on the same day and show us the real charts. Until that happens we will all just speculate which is better

11screw50

except that there is no 1:1 gear in the 6 speed AND (based on the EB speedway towing test, locked in 3rd gear at 99mph and near redline on the EB, with 3.73's), you'll hit the governor in 3rd before you hit redline on the 5.0...

11screw50

30% for just the xfer case? that seems ridiculously high.

I know a manual 4x4 frontier shows 228 at the wheels...engine is only rated at 265...thats only 14% loss for the entire driveline (the auto dynos at ~219).

that said, I do believe Ford sandbagged the numbers on the 5.0. I think they're trying to push the EB and too many people only look at hp numbers so the EB had to be rated higher to justify the extra cost.

(and yeah, I know the EB is a good engine, I'm not knocking it at all but something here doesnt quite add up.)

dcfluid

What doesn't add up is K & N did not do a proper test of the ecoboost. If you read the comments at pickuptrucks.com you see Mike L. if going to ask K &N for an explanation for the torque curve error.