2011 5.0L and Ecoboost Dyno Charts (Both Very Impressive)!
#1
2011 5.0L and Ecoboost Dyno Charts (Both Very Impressive)!
Hey everyone Pickuptrucks.com is doing a full review of the F-150 Ecoboost this week. So far they have only posted the Dyno results they have. I have to admit I was kind of shocked that the 5.0L has a very similer torque curve to the Ecoboost V6. I'll be sure and post their results later this week for you guys. They are going to a long distance drive with two Ecoboost trucks. One unloaded and the other pulling a tralier. Either way, both these engines are HOT!
(2011 F-150 Ecoboost and 5.0L Dyno Charts)
What We're Testing This Week: 2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6 - PickupTrucks.com News
(2011 F-150 Ecoboost and 5.0L Dyno Charts)
What We're Testing This Week: 2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6 - PickupTrucks.com News
#3
I'm only partially interested in the results and very disappointed it's not a 4WD with 3.73 gears. Granted, can't satisfy everyone's testing desires, but this is an apples to oranges comparison from a gearing and drivetrain (2wd vs 4wd perspective). If anything, this type of test will only confuse and/or frustrate prospective buyers because it's not going to show the real differences between both engines in a similar configuration.
#4
I'm only partially interested in the results and very disappointed it's not a 4WD with 3.73 gears. Granted, can't satisfy everyone's testing desires, but this is an apples to oranges comparison from a gearing and drivetrain (2wd vs 4wd perspective). If anything, this type of test will only confuse and/or frustrate prospective buyers because it's not going to show the real differences between both engines in a similar configuration.
Personally its not changing my mind...I'm dead set on the 5.0L V8. I'm sure the Ecoboost is great and the one I test drove was plenty powerful. But the 5.0L is the one for me.
#6
#7
Except it is believed by many that Ford has sandbagged the 5.0 numbers. A 5 HP difference when the 5.0 was tested in a 4WD clearly shows the 5.0 puts out more peak HP. Parasitic driveline losses are usually considered to be around 30% for a 4WD and around 15% for a 2WD. In the K&N printout they are showing Parasitic torque loss greater with a 2WD , now who really believes that. Their Parasitic driveline loss numbers pretty much prove Ford sandbagged the published published 5.0 numbers IMO.
Trending Topics
#8
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.
I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.
Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.
Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
#9
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.
I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.
Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.
Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
Here is a dyno comparison of 2011 6.2 in a 4wd that edmunds reports showing"
- Torque: 405 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm
- Horsepower: 385 hp @ 5500 rpm"
I am not knocking the 3.5, it appears to be a great engine, but it is not the only engine to consider especially if you are considering modifications. I am waiting for a TRUE & FAIR Dyno comparison, I have yet to see one.
#10
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.
#11
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.
I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.
Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.
Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
#13
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_M9nViCiSYVM/TT...800/50vs62.jpg
Here is a dyno comparison of 2011 6.2 in a 4wd that edmunds reports showing"
I am not knocking the 3.5, it appears to be a great engine, but it is not the only engine to consider especially if you are considering modifications. I am waiting for a TRUE & FAIR Dyno comparison, I have yet to see one.
Here is a dyno comparison of 2011 6.2 in a 4wd that edmunds reports showing"
- Torque: 405 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm
- Horsepower: 385 hp @ 5500 rpm"
I am not knocking the 3.5, it appears to be a great engine, but it is not the only engine to consider especially if you are considering modifications. I am waiting for a TRUE & FAIR Dyno comparison, I have yet to see one.
I agree with you though that there hasn't been any fair Dyno comparisons of the 5.0 and the 3.5 yet.
#15
Its not really accurate to compare a 4wd Super duty to a 2wd F-150 and conclude that 4wd has twice the loss of 2wd. The Super duty has a very different drivetrain with substantially higher loss numbers.
I agree with you though that there hasn't been any fair Dyno comparisons of the 5.0 and the 3.5 yet.
I agree with you though that there hasn't been any fair Dyno comparisons of the 5.0 and the 3.5 yet.