Difference between 17' 5.0 & 18' 5.0
#3
#5
#6
#7
Trending Topics
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
I would love to see a good dyno comparison, which is tough to do without a deliberate comparison on the same dyno. Or access to proprietary Ford information, which is a little hard to come by.
#14
But just focusing on peaks can be extremely misleading, as we have no idea what the rest of the curve looks like. We don't know that it doesn't make 387 lb-ft at 3850. Just that it makes more at 4500.
I would love to see a good dyno comparison, which is tough to do without a deliberate comparison on the same dyno. Or access to proprietary Ford information, which is a little hard to come by.
I would love to see a good dyno comparison, which is tough to do without a deliberate comparison on the same dyno. Or access to proprietary Ford information, which is a little hard to come by.
#15
Yes. Torque "values" can be very misleading, whereas torque curves give you a much better picture (no pun intended) of what to expect.
I am reminded of the torque curve below published maybe about 3 or 4 years ago. You get a far better idea what an engine is capable of from this. One immediate thing that pops out is that the 6.2L V8 had higher torque than the 3.5L EB (438 vs 420), but that the 3.5L EB was ahead in the curve all the way until about 4300 RPM.
I am reminded of the torque curve below published maybe about 3 or 4 years ago. You get a far better idea what an engine is capable of from this. One immediate thing that pops out is that the 6.2L V8 had higher torque than the 3.5L EB (438 vs 420), but that the 3.5L EB was ahead in the curve all the way until about 4300 RPM.