When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I doubt that.. I'd imagine a large displacement V8 makes as much or more low end torque than your 3.5 ecoboost.
The torque curve of the ecoboost is actually better than the 6.2L. Once you get past a tiny bit of initial lag the curve is extremely flat, almost diesel like. It's only at the top end where the 6.2L finally beats it.
Again, If you have never driven a 3.5 F150 Try one. and if your still not impressed drive one with a mild 5 star tune. They are beasts I am still amazed there are non believers out there. The 3.5 ecoboost shames all of my previous 5.4 3valve, 5.0, and 4.6 liter trucks. It could easily handle most any F250 level chore (extreme towing exempted)
I love the torque of the 7.3, 6.0, 6.4 and 6.7 but all of the headaches and crap that come with the newer diesels make that a non starter for me and the company I buy trucks for.
The torque curve of the ecoboost is actually better than the 6.2L. Once you get past a tiny bit of initial lag the curve is extremely flat, almost diesel like. It's only at the top end where the 6.2L finally beats it.
something is wrong there. No way a 6.2 n/a engine makes less torque than another n/a engine almost half its size at 1000 rpm.
something is wrong there. No way a 6.2 n/a engine makes less torque than another n/a engine almost half its size at 1000 rpm.
Here's another one I found from Ford:
...and here's one from Pickuptrucks.com (done on a wheel dyno):
Every graph I've found shows the 3.5L Ecoboost having a better torque and horsepower curve than the 6.2L up to almost 4,000rpms. When you consider that's the RPM range you spend most of your time driving and towing in, that's pretty significant.
Then you also have to consider that the Ecoboost weighs 131lb less than the 6.2L, giving it a slight edge in power-to-weight ratio.
All in all, It's no wonder the Ecoboost performs as well as it does.
...and here's one from Pickuptrucks.com (done on a wheel dyno):
Every graph I've found shows the 3.5L Ecoboost having a better torque and horsepower curve than the 6.2L up to almost 4,000rpms. When you consider that's the RPM range you spend most of your time driving and towing in, that's pretty significant.
Then you also have to consider that the Ecoboost weighs 131lb less than the 6.2L, giving it a slight edge in power-to-weight ratio.
All in all, It's no wonder the Ecoboost performs as well as it does.
yeah I am not disputing your point, just saying the first graph is effed up.
no way a small n/a engine could make good power and last long in these applications, but boost lets you make power at lower rpm as shown by the graph.
Anomic, I'm with you.. If it can't handle plowing duty, does it belong in a heavy duty truck?
I don't think so...
Show me the quarter million mile ecoboost that has worked its whole life and you might change my mind.. Heck, I don't even think the Coyote has the ***** to work hard for that many miles...
Originally Posted by i82much
yeah I am not disputing your point, just saying the first graph is effed up.
no way a small n/a engine could make good power and last long in these applications, but boost lets you make power at lower rpm as shown by the graph.
I'm with you... Quite literally impossible for it to be a NA engine.... I have no idea where these charts truly originated, but until there is some good solid independant testing done, this is just so much smoke...
Let's see one work hard for at least 100k miles - then you will have my attention.
I'm with you... Quite literally impossible for it to be a NA engine.... I have no idea where these charts truly originated, but until there is some good solid independant testing done, this is just so much smoke...
Let's see one work hard for at least 100k miles - then you will have my attention.
yeah i don't know about that. I can see how boost makes that possible but at the same time it has got to last and get better mpg under load than a larger n/a engine to really be a better value.
yeah i don't know about that. I can see how boost makes that possible but at the same time it has got to last and get better mpg under load than a larger n/a engine to really be a better value.
for my part, i am not much of an early adopter. I would definitely take a discounted current gen gasser over a turbocharged smaller engine in an aluminum next gen.
12-11-2014, 03:02 PM
