Dyno test results from PUTC thread.
04-26-2011, 01:08 AM
#2
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Well it certainly looks like the Ecoboost is as strong as advertised. The big V8's may have a small advantage below 1500, but then the Ecoboost pulls strongly ahead.
IN THIS TEST... 17 more rear wheel HP than the 5.0 at 700rpm less than the 5.0. and 75 lbs-ft of torque at 1390 rpm less. Truly an amazing result for a puny 3.5 liters.
The 5.0 shows the silky smooth powerband that feels so nice to drive, and it's power curves are a mirror image of the 6.2's, only downsized in numbers to the big block.
Really interesting how both Eco and 5.0 have the same torque at 1500 rpm, where many trucks cruise empty on the highway in top gear( 3.55, 3.15), that would indicate pretty close performance in top gear cruising, mpg's determined by motor efficiencies.
On the Ford SAE chart it clearly shows the ecoboost having more torque than the 6.2 until 4000 rpm, and more hp until 3800-3900 rpm. This must play a big part in how quick the Ecoboost is, as well as it's strong and relaxed driving charateristics at light throttle and low rpm operation.
In all this test results is pretty much what I expected, other than the 5.0 numbers seeming a bit low and may be so as Mike L. said the dyno was set up for the Ecoboost and they didn't dial it in as much for the 5.0.
It does seem like Ford is struggling a bit with the transmission to transmit all that torque effectively, at least in a chassis dyno test.
IN THIS TEST... 17 more rear wheel HP than the 5.0 at 700rpm less than the 5.0. and 75 lbs-ft of torque at 1390 rpm less. Truly an amazing result for a puny 3.5 liters.
The 5.0 shows the silky smooth powerband that feels so nice to drive, and it's power curves are a mirror image of the 6.2's, only downsized in numbers to the big block.
Really interesting how both Eco and 5.0 have the same torque at 1500 rpm, where many trucks cruise empty on the highway in top gear( 3.55, 3.15), that would indicate pretty close performance in top gear cruising, mpg's determined by motor efficiencies.
On the Ford SAE chart it clearly shows the ecoboost having more torque than the 6.2 until 4000 rpm, and more hp until 3800-3900 rpm. This must play a big part in how quick the Ecoboost is, as well as it's strong and relaxed driving charateristics at light throttle and low rpm operation.
In all this test results is pretty much what I expected, other than the 5.0 numbers seeming a bit low and may be so as Mike L. said the dyno was set up for the Ecoboost and they didn't dial it in as much for the 5.0.
It does seem like Ford is struggling a bit with the transmission to transmit all that torque effectively, at least in a chassis dyno test.
04-26-2011, 02:03 AM
#4
Yawn...... as said in other threads PUTC had chosen the 5.0 as the one they championed way before they started testing, they stacked the deck on each comparison.
Not to say ford didnt do some of that for the ecoboost, I mean it is their dark horse and its just good business.
My disappointment is in the fact that a supposedly neutral publisher like PUTC starts stacking things in favor of the one they want to shine, and everything from the different tires they used to the different trailer types to no head on testing to running the tests in completely different environments which made the 5.0 the forgone winner.
Personally in the long run,I think both the ecoboost and the 5.0 are pretty much neck and neck for real world measures, I mean if your pulling 11k on a trailer regularly you need a 250 right?
I got the ecoboost because it does everything I need that the 5.0 does, but the amount of miles I drive a week mean the extra 1 to 3 mpg I get with the ecoboost gives me a huge savings if you look at year end, especially with the gas costs skyrocketing.
Seems to me, aside from some statistical measurements that 99% of the time only apply to the test environment, and dont really impact real world use enough to matter, it comes down to this.
The ecoboost gives you a bit more mpg, the 5.0 gives you the V8 rumble..........
That is unless your one of those spec wienies who sit in the parking lot spouting about how their truck can get way more rpm's on a racetrack than someone else's while the real truck drivers are putting their trucks through the
they were built to drive through and enjoying the F150 life.......
Not to say ford didnt do some of that for the ecoboost, I mean it is their dark horse and its just good business.
My disappointment is in the fact that a supposedly neutral publisher like PUTC starts stacking things in favor of the one they want to shine, and everything from the different tires they used to the different trailer types to no head on testing to running the tests in completely different environments which made the 5.0 the forgone winner.
Personally in the long run,I think both the ecoboost and the 5.0 are pretty much neck and neck for real world measures, I mean if your pulling 11k on a trailer regularly you need a 250 right?
I got the ecoboost because it does everything I need that the 5.0 does, but the amount of miles I drive a week mean the extra 1 to 3 mpg I get with the ecoboost gives me a huge savings if you look at year end, especially with the gas costs skyrocketing.
Seems to me, aside from some statistical measurements that 99% of the time only apply to the test environment, and dont really impact real world use enough to matter, it comes down to this.
The ecoboost gives you a bit more mpg, the 5.0 gives you the V8 rumble..........
That is unless your one of those spec wienies who sit in the parking lot spouting about how their truck can get way more rpm's on a racetrack than someone else's while the real truck drivers are putting their trucks through the
they were built to drive through and enjoying the F150 life.......
04-26-2011, 02:14 AM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
@Rhyder, did you read todays new article? You seem to be referring to the previous towing articles, that are going to be redone to address reader issues with the comparisons made unfairly between two different towing tests.
I can't find fault with PUT.C for trying to get a fair comparison done and address your concerns.
I can't find fault with PUT.C for trying to get a fair comparison done and address your concerns.
04-26-2011, 03:20 AM
#6
Go Blue
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hudsonville, MI
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the funniest thing was the fact that Levine continued to recommend the 5.0 and talk it up after the EB gave it a serious spanking in this test. The first step of solving a problem is admitting you have one, Levine isn't quite there yet.
Trending Topics
04-26-2011, 05:03 AM
#8
Reader comments. lol
3.5 EB lost 17% Hp
14% Torque
5L lost 20% Hp
25% Torque on exactly same Dyno test with exactly same transmission ?
Nice setup Ford technicians, but I am not buying that and any ford ever. Not to mention EB torque peek moved from 2500 Rpm to 2900 Rpm. Doesn't looks like diesel torque curve to me. Liars.
14% Torque
5L lost 20% Hp
25% Torque on exactly same Dyno test with exactly same transmission ?
Nice setup Ford technicians, but I am not buying that and any ford ever. Not to mention EB torque peek moved from 2500 Rpm to 2900 Rpm. Doesn't looks like diesel torque curve to me. Liars.
04-26-2011, 07:29 AM
#9
No surprise here as the EB unarguably is a beast. It it a accurate comparison? Hardly.
1. Different trucks. One is a supercrew and one is a supercab. They will weight the Dyno different and this will result in a variance in results.
2. Taking 6 hours to dial in the EB to and then using those settings to dyno the 5.0. Does anybody really think that yields a accurate reading?
3. EB lost 17% Hp, 14% Torque
5L lost 20% Hp, 25% Torque on exactly same Dyno test with exactly same transmission ? If the test was accurate this would be impossible .Doesn't this fact smell fishy, but are the EB guys crying foul like in the earlier test?
4 The Ford tech wouldn't run the pulls in third gear or higher as the EB generates to much exhaust temp and drops power. It's a good thing everybody tows in 2nd gear ,eh!
4. My 5.0 tows daily and it NEVER locks up in 2nd gear, it ALWAYS locks up in 3rd gear. Perhaps this is why Mike @ 5star runs his 5.0 dyno pulls in 3rd gear. Just sayin.
That said , if they took the same time to get accurate dyno pulls on the 5.0 it would still get beat across the board as the EB is a beast. If you are banking on this test as as a accurate comparison you would be wrong.
1. Different trucks. One is a supercrew and one is a supercab. They will weight the Dyno different and this will result in a variance in results.
2. Taking 6 hours to dial in the EB to and then using those settings to dyno the 5.0. Does anybody really think that yields a accurate reading?
3. EB lost 17% Hp, 14% Torque
5L lost 20% Hp, 25% Torque on exactly same Dyno test with exactly same transmission ? If the test was accurate this would be impossible .Doesn't this fact smell fishy, but are the EB guys crying foul like in the earlier test?
4 The Ford tech wouldn't run the pulls in third gear or higher as the EB generates to much exhaust temp and drops power. It's a good thing everybody tows in 2nd gear ,eh!
4. My 5.0 tows daily and it NEVER locks up in 2nd gear, it ALWAYS locks up in 3rd gear. Perhaps this is why Mike @ 5star runs his 5.0 dyno pulls in 3rd gear. Just sayin.
That said , if they took the same time to get accurate dyno pulls on the 5.0 it would still get beat across the board as the EB is a beast. If you are banking on this test as as a accurate comparison you would be wrong.
04-26-2011, 08:10 AM
#10
Go Blue
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hudsonville, MI
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise here as the EB unarguably is a beast. It it a accurate comparison? Hardly.
1. Different trucks. One is a supercrew and one is a supercab. They will weight the Dyno different and this will result in a variance in results.
Same wheelbase, same rear end, same drivetrain (4x4). The weight difference will cause a larger difference on a DynoJunk dyno (like it did in their first test) but on an eddy current dyno the electromagnets controlling the resistance set the majority of the load so the slight difference in weight and weight distribution will have less of an effect.
2. Taking 6 hours to dial in the EB to and then using those settings to dyno the 5.0. Does anybody really think that yields a accurate reading?
IMHO this speaks more to the incompetence of K&N and PUT.com than it does the difference in engines. I have been to 50+ dyno days and have never seen someone have a problem with spinning the tires on a properly secured car, even ones with 600+bhp and 600+ lb/ft of torque. The only cars I have seen overwhelm their traction were pushing well over 800hp and 700lb/ft of torque. IMHO this calls ALL of their results into question and just reinforces what I have been saying from the beginning that they are FoS. I am more than happy to play the "Oh look at these results" just because you 5.0 fanboys were doing it so much with the earlier results but I still think all of PUTC's stuff is garbage.
3. EB lost 17% Hp, 14% Torque
5L lost 20% Hp, 25% Torque on exactly same Dyno test with exactly same transmission ? If the test was accurate this would be impossible .Doesn't this fact smell fishy, but are the EB guys crying foul like in the earlier test?
No, this is the difference between a garbage dyno like a DynoJunk and an Eddy Current dyno (although I prefer Mustang to SuperFlow). In years of watching turbocharged cars being tuned I have yet to see a good result from a car that was tuned solely on a DynoJet dyno. Because of their no-load environment the AFRs and EGTs are almost always wonky and need to be road-tuned to be safe. The results are definitely off a bit, but some of this is going to be due to the fact that turbos aren't nearly as efficient unloaded and that is less of an issue on an NA engine.
4 The Ford tech wouldn't run the pulls in third gear or higher as the EB generates to much exhaust temp and drops power. It's a good thing everybody tows in 2nd gear ,eh!
This is definitely a concern in the real world. If the EGTs are getting high it usually means the engine is running lean and that would not be conducive to reliability. That said, people have data logged AFRs on the EB and haven't shown this to be a problem in the real world where airflow around the engine and CAC are different than in a dyno where the only airflow is from fans. Only long term real world results will give us a true idea of how reliable or unreliable this engine is. I am hoping it trends more towards the TSI versions of the VWAG DI engines than the FSI versions. If my truck starts to act up like my FSI GTI I will dump it faster than a hooker with gonorrhea.
4. My 5.0 tows daily and it NEVER locks up in 2nd gear, it ALWAYS locks up in 3rd gear. Perhaps this is why Mike @ 5star runs his 5.0 dyno pulls in 3rd gear. Just sayin.
This could also throw the test off dramatically but likely not enough to put the 5.0 ahead like Mike Levine is still intimating. Again, to me, stuff like this speaks to the incompetence of K&N and PUT.com, and in a ways makes any of their results suspect (regardless of which motor they choose as winning). I want to see someone else run a test like this, someone like Truck Trend, or Peterson's 4WD who hasn't shown such obvious idiocy thus far.
That said , if they took the same time to get accurate dyno pulls on the 5.0 it would still get beat across the board as the EB is a beast. That is sure a different song than you were singing less than a week ago.
If you are banking on this test as as a accurate comparison you would be wrong. I don't bank on anything from PUT.com being worth the bandwidth it consumes.
1. Different trucks. One is a supercrew and one is a supercab. They will weight the Dyno different and this will result in a variance in results.
Same wheelbase, same rear end, same drivetrain (4x4). The weight difference will cause a larger difference on a DynoJunk dyno (like it did in their first test) but on an eddy current dyno the electromagnets controlling the resistance set the majority of the load so the slight difference in weight and weight distribution will have less of an effect.
2. Taking 6 hours to dial in the EB to and then using those settings to dyno the 5.0. Does anybody really think that yields a accurate reading?
IMHO this speaks more to the incompetence of K&N and PUT.com than it does the difference in engines. I have been to 50+ dyno days and have never seen someone have a problem with spinning the tires on a properly secured car, even ones with 600+bhp and 600+ lb/ft of torque. The only cars I have seen overwhelm their traction were pushing well over 800hp and 700lb/ft of torque. IMHO this calls ALL of their results into question and just reinforces what I have been saying from the beginning that they are FoS. I am more than happy to play the "Oh look at these results" just because you 5.0 fanboys were doing it so much with the earlier results but I still think all of PUTC's stuff is garbage.
3. EB lost 17% Hp, 14% Torque
5L lost 20% Hp, 25% Torque on exactly same Dyno test with exactly same transmission ? If the test was accurate this would be impossible .Doesn't this fact smell fishy, but are the EB guys crying foul like in the earlier test?
No, this is the difference between a garbage dyno like a DynoJunk and an Eddy Current dyno (although I prefer Mustang to SuperFlow). In years of watching turbocharged cars being tuned I have yet to see a good result from a car that was tuned solely on a DynoJet dyno. Because of their no-load environment the AFRs and EGTs are almost always wonky and need to be road-tuned to be safe. The results are definitely off a bit, but some of this is going to be due to the fact that turbos aren't nearly as efficient unloaded and that is less of an issue on an NA engine.
4 The Ford tech wouldn't run the pulls in third gear or higher as the EB generates to much exhaust temp and drops power. It's a good thing everybody tows in 2nd gear ,eh!
This is definitely a concern in the real world. If the EGTs are getting high it usually means the engine is running lean and that would not be conducive to reliability. That said, people have data logged AFRs on the EB and haven't shown this to be a problem in the real world where airflow around the engine and CAC are different than in a dyno where the only airflow is from fans. Only long term real world results will give us a true idea of how reliable or unreliable this engine is. I am hoping it trends more towards the TSI versions of the VWAG DI engines than the FSI versions. If my truck starts to act up like my FSI GTI I will dump it faster than a hooker with gonorrhea.
4. My 5.0 tows daily and it NEVER locks up in 2nd gear, it ALWAYS locks up in 3rd gear. Perhaps this is why Mike @ 5star runs his 5.0 dyno pulls in 3rd gear. Just sayin.
This could also throw the test off dramatically but likely not enough to put the 5.0 ahead like Mike Levine is still intimating. Again, to me, stuff like this speaks to the incompetence of K&N and PUT.com, and in a ways makes any of their results suspect (regardless of which motor they choose as winning). I want to see someone else run a test like this, someone like Truck Trend, or Peterson's 4WD who hasn't shown such obvious idiocy thus far.
That said , if they took the same time to get accurate dyno pulls on the 5.0 it would still get beat across the board as the EB is a beast. That is sure a different song than you were singing less than a week ago.
If you are banking on this test as as a accurate comparison you would be wrong. I don't bank on anything from PUT.com being worth the bandwidth it consumes.
Last edited by GRWolverineFan; 04-26-2011 at 08:40 AM.