Whats the fuss over the ecoboost?
03-14-2011, 09:57 PM
#41
Senior Member
It seems like Ford always under rates their motors these days. The 2003 Cobra came out rated 390 HP 390 TQ and when guys had it dynoed bone stock they were seeing as high as 420 RWHP. I hear the new 5.0 Mustang is also under rated at 412 HP, I hear guys dynoing in at 400 RWHP stock.
03-14-2011, 10:09 PM
#42
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wettern Washington
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW I would like to see that mine was 368 RWHP, But I did see 400 rwhp with a drop in filter and muffler.
03-15-2011, 07:53 PM
#44
Senior Member
03-15-2011, 07:54 PM
#45
Senior Member
03-16-2011, 08:31 PM
#46
Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: N. Alabama
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below are some screen snapshots from the HERO 448AA EcoBoost Torture Test Dyno readings after all the testing was completed just before it was shipped to the international auto show for tear down.
Be nice to see ACTUAL data values for several runs from idle to WOT
Note the Performance Numbers:
Be nice to see ACTUAL data values for several runs from idle to WOT
Note the Performance Numbers:
03-17-2011, 12:46 AM
#47
I have always wonder about the torque gets you moving statement. I have heard Ford state it on the radio. I thought torque keeps you moving and hp gets you moving. Torque is a measurement of force needed to slow an engine at one given rpm. Is this the reason a engine dyno drags the motor down?
Why I ask is my Caterpillar makes 1620ft/qt and only 400 hp. with that kind of torque with out the trailer it should be a rocket. Even at 16K lbs it is 9lbs per ft/tq. vs a eb f150 14lbs per ft/tq
I was thinking horsepower is a measurement of power to accelerate a given weight to maximum RPM.
03-17-2011, 01:46 AM
#48
Senior Member
I'm not trying to start an argument maybe I'm wrong. It's been known to happen. But,,
I have always wonder about the torque gets you moving statement. I have heard Ford state it on the radio. I thought torque keeps you moving and hp gets you moving. Torque is a measurement of force needed to slow an engine at one given rpm. Is this the reason a engine dyno drags the motor down?
Why I ask is my Caterpillar makes 1620ft/qt and only 400 hp. with that kind of torque with out the trailer it should be a rocket. Even at 16K lbs it is 9lbs per ft/tq. vs a eb f150 14lbs per ft/tq
I was thinking horsepower is a measurement of power to accelerate a given weight to maximum RPM.
I have always wonder about the torque gets you moving statement. I have heard Ford state it on the radio. I thought torque keeps you moving and hp gets you moving. Torque is a measurement of force needed to slow an engine at one given rpm. Is this the reason a engine dyno drags the motor down?
Why I ask is my Caterpillar makes 1620ft/qt and only 400 hp. with that kind of torque with out the trailer it should be a rocket. Even at 16K lbs it is 9lbs per ft/tq. vs a eb f150 14lbs per ft/tq
I was thinking horsepower is a measurement of power to accelerate a given weight to maximum RPM.
03-17-2011, 09:08 AM
#49
So this is my first post here, and ill be honest ive never been a fan of ford trucks. I think the 5.4 is what really turned me off of them, and ive always been a Ram guy. But, i was quite impressed by the new v8's ford is putting out. But i cant wrap my head around the new ecoboost.
Dont get me wrong, im sure it performs great along side other larger engines. But the numbers dont add up for me. A twin turbo 3.5 v6 putting out 365bhp and 420 tq just doesnt make sense. N/a v6's today can easily put out 300hp and im sure with some reworking (like done on the ecoboost compared to the other applications its in) some good torque could be produced. So to me adding 12 psi of boost via tt should produce better numbers on a 3.5.
For comparison, and i know this is different, an 18 year old toyota supra twin turbo puts out 326hp and 305 tq via less boost and a 3.0 displacement. It seems to me that stroking the 3.0 and reworking the motor could easily attain the hp figures and come close to the tq figures. Remember the 18 year difference.
It seems to me that with todays standards and tech, this new "premium" motor should put out some better numbers. I totally agree with fords direction
on this new engine, but i think its lackluster.
Am i missing something or what? Any thoughts are apreciated.
Dont get me wrong, im sure it performs great along side other larger engines. But the numbers dont add up for me. A twin turbo 3.5 v6 putting out 365bhp and 420 tq just doesnt make sense. N/a v6's today can easily put out 300hp and im sure with some reworking (like done on the ecoboost compared to the other applications its in) some good torque could be produced. So to me adding 12 psi of boost via tt should produce better numbers on a 3.5.
For comparison, and i know this is different, an 18 year old toyota supra twin turbo puts out 326hp and 305 tq via less boost and a 3.0 displacement. It seems to me that stroking the 3.0 and reworking the motor could easily attain the hp figures and come close to the tq figures. Remember the 18 year difference.
It seems to me that with todays standards and tech, this new "premium" motor should put out some better numbers. I totally agree with fords direction
on this new engine, but i think its lackluster.
Am i missing something or what? Any thoughts are apreciated.
Furthermore, I am still waiting for dyno numbers for an ecoboost running premium.
03-17-2011, 01:24 PM
#50
I still don't understand why my work truck doesn't run a 13's in the quarter. The torque to weight ratio is better than most sports cars.
