Where can I get a torque curve chart for the ecoboost engine and the 6.2 engine? I am thinking about trading in my 2010 5.4 tow for a super tow. Thanks....chris3

 

I found what I needed here... First Test: 2011 Ford F-150 Full Line Photo Gallery

 

Nice find.

------------------------------

-click- the pic'
Goth 150
< This space intentionally -blank- >

 

seems a little off is that a ford back site? if so that is why its off. they tend to try to pump up the ego boost motor to raise sales of it!

 

Haterz r gonna hate.

 

This is pretty much what's been posted since the new engines came into play. The EB develops it's peak TQ at a lower RPM than the other three and holds it longer as well.

 

that chart hast to be for horsepower

the ecoboost makes 365hp. but it makes 420ft-lb @2500rpm.
unless that is a dyno chart at the wheels, in which case the ecoboost is being undrated by quite a bit, and the 6.2 is being over rated quite a bit.

the 6.2 is supposed to have more raw power output than the ecoboost.

all that being said, look at "the little engine that can"
the 3.7's curve is about as flat as a pancake. i'll bet that feels like quite a bit more motor from the driver's seat.

 

^^^ If the 5.0 or 6.2 were packin' twins Im sure we'd be extolling the virtues of those instead.


But they doezent...

 

Can you define the difference between Raw Power and actual power?

The ecboost will have more area under the curve. I would consider that the cumulative RAW power.

Where as the 6.2 has more peak power which only good for boosting ego...hahah..

But seriously the 6.2 would be a fun motor in the F-150. I wish i could see some actual 1/4 mile times of each of the engines in the same build up of truck to compare power. as in there 0-60, 60ft, 1/8, and 1/4 mile times/mph.

Would be interesting to see at what points what engines take over.

 

I have had both motors, the one thing i can say, on the butt dyno the 6.2 feels "WAY" faster. Very strange.... in a race these motors are neck and neck. Guess the way the power comes on the ecoboost is smoother. One difference i notice is if i floor my 6.2@20mph it will spin the tires, never happened with the ecoboost

 

Etal ...

If you read the article that preceeds the photo gallery you will notice that the #s are those from a dyno'. Meaning - rear wheel #s, not flywheel.

------------------------------

-click- the pic'
Goth 150
< This space intentionally -blank- >

 

I must be somewhat grumpy because arguing semantics is actually not appealing. But here's how i've always used the terms:

RAW power is indicative of the RAW number, or peak without regard to powerband.

ACTUAL power is indicative of the total output across the powerband. That is to say that an engine that makes 90% of it's peak torque ft-lbs from 2000-5000rpm, may ACTUALLY have more power than an engine that makes 90% of its peak torque for only 500rpm.

This was my gut reaction, and if it is true then 6.2 owners are getting SCREWED. a 6.2 is rated at 434ft-lbs@ 4500rpm. from the graph, at the wheels, the 6.2 is below the ecoboost at every data point below 5000rpm.

which is why i said that the 6.2 is being somewhat over-rated, and the ecoboost is being somewhat under-rated. That being said, there could be some internal differences in the powertrain which would consume more power; if, say, the transmission behind the 6.2 uses more friction plates, it is possible for it to consume more power, thus being behind on a chassis dyno.

although, i find it hard to belive that you would need to do beef up a trans to go from 420 ft-lbs to 430 ft-lbs.... especially when the 420 is from 2500 to about 5000 rpm.

 

The link for the article:

2011 Ford F-150 Full Line First Test - Motor Trend

A clip from it:

A SuperFlow eddy current dyno was used for testing all trucks. (Eddy current dynos generally show lower numbers than inertia dynos.) Although it is possible to theoretically calculate crank horsepower numbers from wheel horsepower numbers, we're using the wheel horsepower numbers to measure the trucks against each other and not against factory claims.

 

I would think the trans would be the same for at least the 3 top performers, if not all motors, so parasitic loss should remain constant for all of them. That being said, I am again impressed by the Ecoboost. It out pulled all others in the useable RPM range. Honestly, how many people get above 5,000 RPMs unless they are racing? Especially in a truck, those low RPM numbers are nice to see. Might just have to think more seriously about trading in my '10 5.4...

 

That's odd, at 15-20 MPH I can spin the drive wheel pretty darned good till the TC kicks in.