Topic Sponsor
2011+ Engine Related Questions Sub-Forum to the new engines that debuted in 2011.

Ecoboost - low rpm boost numbers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-23-2011, 10:32 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
triglet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

He is talking about lugging or loading the engine in top gear not from a dead stop. Mileage on a 3.55 and 3.73 is not gonna be much difference. In fact hwy mileage for the 3.55 should be better since it is turning a lower rpm than the 3.73 gear. Neither one of these gear ratios are gonna be so bad off that the engine has to kill itself to move the truck. Now if u compared a 2.73 to a 3.73 then u might have an argument.
Old 05-23-2011, 10:57 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
TruckLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,268
Received 26 Likes on 23 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by triglet
He is talking about lugging or loading the engine in top gear not from a dead stop. Mileage on a 3.55 and 3.73 is not gonna be much difference. In fact hwy mileage for the 3.55 should be better since it is turning a lower rpm than the 3.73 gear. Neither one of these gear ratios are gonna be so bad off that the engine has to kill itself to move the truck. Now if u compared a 2.73 to a 3.73 then u might have an argument.
Interestingly, 0-60 and quarter mile times are showing to be better with the 3.55's than the 3.73's.
Old 05-23-2011, 11:04 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
dcfluid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Prince George, B.C.
Posts: 1,794
Received 108 Likes on 73 Posts
Default

It simply has to do with the power band why 3.55 is a little quicker to 60. The engine is pulling longer in the strongest part off the power band (4000rpm) and not falling off the torque peak as my 3.73's do as it redlines right around 60, making it's shift into 3rd.

I'd bet the 3.73 is quicker to 50 mph, specially pulling a load.
Old 05-24-2011, 12:32 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
triglet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE="dcfluid"]It simply has to do with the power band why 3.55 is a little quicker to 60. The engine is pulling longer in the strongest part off the power band (4000rpm) and not falling off the torque peak as my 3.73's do as it redlines right around 60, making it's shift into 3rd.

You are correct sir
Old 05-24-2011, 12:43 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
dcfluid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Prince George, B.C.
Posts: 1,794
Received 108 Likes on 73 Posts
Default

Just lucky this time.
Old 05-24-2011, 01:37 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
RES4CUE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Manassas Va
Posts: 9,300
Received 1,523 Likes on 1,203 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by truckerdude
the 3.73 will put less load on the engine, therefore it will pull more (it's own weight or with a load) with less boost THEREFORE mpg will be better

i will say it again. since its a lower rear end it takes less fuel to get moving, therefore better fuel mileage. only time that a higher rear end will help will be unloaded on flat ground then the 3.31 or 3.15 would do better- oh also better not be any wind blowing

understand?
Partly right, the 3.73 will help it off the line but runs out the top end and makes the motor rev higher, this is not fuel efficent.

The lower gears, 3.55, 3.31, ect don't have the jump but are more efficent at higher speeds as the motor needs the rev less so this is more fuel efficent.

same 2 trucks, one with 3.73 and one with 3.31. Get both up to 60 mph and you will see that the 3.31 will be a few hundred rpms lower vs the 3.73 thus putting less demand on the motor, burning less fuel.



Quick Reply: Ecoboost - low rpm boost numbers



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 AM.