EB V6 Horsepower without turbos?
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 503
From: Tonopah. AZ.
There is no such thing as a non turbo ecoboost engine the eb might share the the same displacement and cylender lay out as a duratech but that is where it ends. there is no way to messure the the output of an engine tha doesnt exist. You might put turbos, DGI,independant variable cams on a duratech and and watch it self destruct or you could just use the numbers from the 3.7 and be pretty close.bubbabud
Member
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 329
Likes: 7
You know, I did a search with multiple terms. Nothing about this came up, or there were more than 100 threads to search. So, I posted a simple question to hopefully gain a little more knowledge about how much the technology has improved this little engine. I am not an engineer, just someone who is interested in performance and the changes that technology brings to this vehicle.So I looked at the numbers, posted what I found and posed the question. Now, this may have been discussed several hundred threads ago, earlier this summer, or last year when the engine came out. I didn't find anything. So I posted the question.
There are more than 500,000 EB owners. Some of them are new owners with questions. I know that multiple threads discussing the identical issues can be annoying. But, like I said, I didn't find anything.
If I write like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. Sometimes I think this forum is dominated by self-annoited know-it-alls who simply endure the rest of us even though it annoys the crap out of them. If you fit this profile, get over it. If not then don't post if you do not wish to add something of substance. Simply hit the back button and read something else.
There... I fell better!
Thread Starter
Opinionated Blowhard
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 165
From: Knoxville, TN
Whoops, my bad on the sales figure. I was thinking Ford sold more than that based on total F150 sales.While it was designed from the ground up to use twin turbos, it would not be impossible to test the engine as designed without turbos. Ford had a 1.3L GDI engine in Europe in 2001 that did not utilize turbos. It seems to me that having baseline power figures without turbos would be part of the development of the engine.
I agree that the power output is probably inline with the 3.7. Torque would rise dramatically if the 3.7 had the benefit of turbos (I wonder when someone will strap one on a 3.7?)
At any rate, I'm glad that Ford is out front on the small displacement turbo. With other innovations I think there are more efficiencies to be gained from gasoline engines. New materials could make lean burn engines practical.
Official Member: Vast RWC
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 35
From: SoCal
....While it was designed from the ground up to use twin turbos, it would not be impossible to test the engine as designed without turbos. Ford had a 1.3L GDI engine in Europe in 2001 that did not utilize turbos. It seems to me that having baseline power figures without turbos would be part of the development of the engine.
....
....
Sure it would be possible but it would also be pointless and a waste of time. As you put in your first sentence, this engine was designed to use foced induction.
Forced induction motors generate their own atmospheric pressure so there is no need to focus on precise cylinder head design or to design the most efficient intake manifold because the motor DOES NOT need to work to pull in air.
With that said--the cams, valve timing and ignition timing, exhaust design (size and routing), compression ratio, and many other components that are critical in their design in making horseopwer in NA applications are built/desinged to work together and around turbo useage on the EB.
If you were to simply pull the turbos and dyno the motor it would be a complete dog and be lucky make 200hp.
To be fair, you'd have to outfit the motor with more aggressive cams (3.7?), higher compression, lighter rods and pistons for a higher rev range, free flowing exhaust, and a slew of other NA parts to get it to perform without turbos.
Thread Starter
Opinionated Blowhard
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 165
From: Knoxville, TN
Sure it would be possible but it would also be pointless and a waste of time. As you put in your first sentence, this engine was designed to use foced induction.
Forced induction motors generate their own atmospheric pressure so there is no need to focus on precise cylinder head design or to design the most efficient intake manifold because the motor DOES NOT need to work to pull in air.
With that said--the cams, valve timing and ignition timing, exhaust design (size and routing), compression ratio, and many other components that are critical in their design in making horseopwer in NA applications are built/desinged to work together and around turbo useage on the EB.
If you were to simply pull the turbos and dyno the motor it would be a complete dog and be lucky make 200hp.
To be fair, you'd have to outfit the motor with more aggressive cams (3.7?), higher compression, lighter rods and pistons for a higher rev range, free flowing exhaust, and a slew of other NA parts to get it to perform without turbos.
Forced induction motors generate their own atmospheric pressure so there is no need to focus on precise cylinder head design or to design the most efficient intake manifold because the motor DOES NOT need to work to pull in air.
With that said--the cams, valve timing and ignition timing, exhaust design (size and routing), compression ratio, and many other components that are critical in their design in making horseopwer in NA applications are built/desinged to work together and around turbo useage on the EB.
If you were to simply pull the turbos and dyno the motor it would be a complete dog and be lucky make 200hp.
To be fair, you'd have to outfit the motor with more aggressive cams (3.7?), higher compression, lighter rods and pistons for a higher rev range, free flowing exhaust, and a slew of other NA parts to get it to perform without turbos.
I guess I have to change my mindset when thinking about these things.
Better OUT then IN
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,343
Likes: 255
From: South Florida (Ft. Lauderdale area)
You know, I did a search with multiple terms. Nothing about this came up, or there were more than 100 threads to search. So, I posted a simple question to hopefully gain a little more knowledge about how much the technology has improved this little engine. I am not an engineer, just someone who is interested in performance and the changes that technology brings to this vehicle.So I looked at the numbers, posted what I found and posed the question. Now, this may have been discussed several hundred threads ago, earlier this summer, or last year when the engine came out. I didn't find anything. So I posted the question.
There are more than 500,000 EB owners. Some of them are new owners with questions. I know that multiple threads discussing the identical issues can be annoying. But, like I said, I didn't find anything.
If I write like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. Sometimes I think this forum is dominated by self-annoited know-it-alls who simply endure the rest of us even though it annoys the crap out of them. If you fit this profile, get over it. If not then don't post if you do not wish to add something of substance. Simply hit the back button and read something else.
There... I fell better!
I always search and most of the time, get no results or so many results, I'd have to quit my job just to read everything.
Other issue I have are posts that have hundreds of responses. Really? Are we to read every page and still be expected to have a life?
Case in point... Tranny shudder issue.
Nuff said.
(I feel better too)
Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 54
Likes: 1
When an airplane piston motor loses a turbo, it loses a LOT of its power. This Is to say:
The engine was designed with the turbos in mind, it wasn't just an existing motor they threw some turbos on and said 'DAYUM LOOKIT DAT SUMMBITCH RUN!'
So if it's making 380/4something with the turbos, and you lost one or both, that number would drop drastically... Like... Probably wouldn't make it to a shop to fix it.
The engine was designed with the turbos in mind, it wasn't just an existing motor they threw some turbos on and said 'DAYUM LOOKIT DAT SUMMBITCH RUN!'
So if it's making 380/4something with the turbos, and you lost one or both, that number would drop drastically... Like... Probably wouldn't make it to a shop to fix it.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 543
Likes: 15
From: Calgary, AB Canada
You know, I did a search with multiple terms. Nothing about this came up, or there were more than 100 threads to search. So, I posted a simple question to hopefully gain a little more knowledge about how much the technology has improved this little engine. I am not an engineer, just someone who is interested in performance and the changes that technology brings to this vehicle.So I looked at the numbers, posted what I found and posed the question. Now, this may have been discussed several hundred threads ago, earlier this summer, or last year when the engine came out. I didn't find anything. So I posted the question.
There are more than 500,000 EB owners. Some of them are new owners with questions. I know that multiple threads discussing the identical issues can be annoying. But, like I said, I didn't find anything.
If I write like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. Sometimes I think this forum is dominated by self-annoited know-it-alls who simply endure the rest of us even though it annoys the crap out of them. If you fit this profile, get over it. If not then don't post if you do not wish to add something of substance. Simply hit the back button and read something else.
There... I fell better!
https://www.f150forum.com/f38/ecoboo...-turbo-104833/
To answer your question I would estimate around 300hp with direct injection and 290 ft/lbs of torque. Without DI I think it would drop a bit to about 275 hp and 260 ft lbs of torque.
Anyways no hard feelings...
Official Member: Vast RWC
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 35
From: SoCal
Good points. I guess I was thinking in terms of the way turbo systems have been added to NA engines in the past. With modern materials, design, and computer technology a gas engine can be purpose built from day 1 to be a turbo engine. This, I suppose, is the change that makes Ford's turbo program so different. They are not simply adapting turbos to existing designs; they are designing mass production engines based on old and new technology.
I guess I have to change my mindset when thinking about these things.
I guess I have to change my mindset when thinking about these things.
Exactly!
In the mid nineties Mitsubishi offered their 4g63 4 cylinder 2.0 in both NA and turbo form. The turbo motor in U.S. spec made 195 hp and the NA 135. But again... the NA motor had different cams, a different compession ratio, different fuel injectors.. .and on and on and on.
But ya... factory turbo motors are beautiful in that the expensive R/D has already been done by those with big money (Ford)! You can rest assured the motors are built STOUT!
Thread Starter
Opinionated Blowhard
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 165
From: Knoxville, TN
I found the info I was looking for here. Massaging and changes were made for the turbo, but the baseline engine produced 265 HP and 250 lb/ft torque. So the massaging and the turbos add beau coup power to the 3.5. Great job Ford! I would like to see what they could do with a small V8, maybe a 4L.