Honestly, why are the 2.7s as fast as the 3.5s?
08-26-2017, 11:34 AM
#11
Senile member
The turbos aren't the same, so let's put that out there.
Even if they were the same, and ran the same boost, a 2.7 running the same turbos at the same boost (let's say 10psi for argument's sake) will not make the same horsepower and torque as the 3.5. It just won't.
Let's not forget the fact that the 2.7 is rated at 325hp, and the 3.5 is rated at 375...and the torque numbers are massively different.
What are the 1/4 mile times? 2.7 is slower in the 1/4 mile. Especially in trap speed (as mentioned above).
"butt dyno" i.e., what you feel, is not an absolute. Line up a 2.7 SCREW 4x4 with a 3.5 SCREW 4x4 with the same gearing and the 2.7 will lose.
The following 4 users liked this post by chimmike:
Aj06bolt12r (08-30-2017),
BigDozer66 (10-10-2017),
engineermike (08-26-2017),
Newskool Mach (10-10-2017)
08-26-2017, 11:36 AM
#12
Senior Member
I only have a little over 8000 miles on mine but it doesn't have any leaks. There is a video out there where a mechanic is changing oil on an, I think, 2011 3.5 eco with 205,000 miles and he shows the underside with out any leaks.
The following users liked this post:
Kent5 (05-07-2021)
The following users liked this post:
Newskool Mach (10-10-2017)
08-26-2017, 11:59 AM
#15
Senior Member
I've often wondered about this myself. The dyno numbers agree with the ratings though. Going by the livernois stock dyno runs the 2.7 makes 265 rwhp and the 3.5 makes 310. That's right where they should be, but I agree that the performance doesn't seem to indicate that.
Keep in mind as well that the pcm on these are all based on torque demand. In other words, the torque demand in the ecm is probably limited to 375 ftlb at 100% pedal, even if the engine is capable of more. Notice how flat the torque and hp curves are on some dyno tests. That's the pcm making it flat by limiting it to whatever ford said we get. So, you could come up with scenarios where you wind up with 375 ftlb from 2000-5000 rpm, which will perform better than 420 ftlb and a rapid drop off to 350. Just keep that in mind when comparing performance.
Keep in mind as well that the pcm on these are all based on torque demand. In other words, the torque demand in the ecm is probably limited to 375 ftlb at 100% pedal, even if the engine is capable of more. Notice how flat the torque and hp curves are on some dyno tests. That's the pcm making it flat by limiting it to whatever ford said we get. So, you could come up with scenarios where you wind up with 375 ftlb from 2000-5000 rpm, which will perform better than 420 ftlb and a rapid drop off to 350. Just keep that in mind when comparing performance.
Last edited by zx12-iowa; 08-26-2017 at 05:48 PM.
08-26-2017, 12:07 PM
#16
08-26-2017, 12:25 PM
#17
Mind sharing the numbers? I think I've only seen the 3.5s quarter mile time published but haven't come across the 2.7 and 5.0. Would be interesting to compare 0-60 ET and trap across all 3.
08-26-2017, 12:27 PM
#18
Senile member
50hp difference is not a lot in the grand scheme of speed in two heavy bricks fighting physics and aerodynamics......not sure what some of y'all are expecting (buslengths?)
The following users liked this post:
Kent5 (05-07-2021)
08-26-2017, 12:39 PM
#19
Trap speed is an indication of HP. 1/4 mile time is an indication of torque. 60ft times shows what kind of traction you got. I would like to see 8th mile times and trap speed.
Would be interesting to see the difference between a 4x4 and a 2x4
Would be interesting to see the difference between a 4x4 and a 2x4
The following 4 users liked this post by MNSportsman: