Honestly, why are the 2.7s as fast as the 3.5s?
#1
Honestly, why are the 2.7s as fast as the 3.5s?
I've read and watched countless articles with back to back comparisons between the two engines. With very few exceptions, the two engines perform very close. Based on the hp/tq numbers, and common sense, this does not make sense. So honestly, what's going on here?
#2
Senior Member
I think its turbo related. They both have the same or similar turbos and that's what produces the speed and the torque! (IMHO)
The following 10 users liked this post by Summers22:
77Ranger460 (08-26-2017),
bigdad84 (08-28-2017),
gregsf150stx (10-10-2017),
isthatahemi (08-30-2017),
Jkry2121 (08-29-2017),
and 5 others liked this post.
#4
Senior Member
I'm not sure wether it is bore or stroke that gives the size difference but the 2.7 may just be a faster reving engine to get it moving faster. Once you add a load then the size difference shows. Think of it like two football players, a small one and a large one, the little guy is going to get those legs moving quicker but when it comes to the power to block, the big one excels.
#5
Senior Member
#6
Senior Member
I'm not sure wether it is bore or stroke that gives the size difference but the 2.7 may just be a faster reving engine to get it moving faster. Once you add a load then the size difference shows. Think of it like two football players, a small one and a large one, the little guy is going to get those legs moving quicker but when it comes to the power to block, the big one excels.
#7
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 engineermike; 08-26-2017 at 11:12 AM.
Trending Topics
#8
Look at the trap speeds. The 2.7 has the slowest trap speed compared to the 3.5 and 5.0
#9
Senior Member
The following 15 users liked this post by Brand:
77Ranger460 (08-26-2017),
Bigcat1185 (08-26-2017),
Chris5 (05-07-2021),
freman dave (08-26-2017),
gregsf150stx (10-10-2017),
and 10 others liked this post.