GT vs. EB high performance for city driving

[Nickel]

Most grays are terribly boring. I had a grey Focus once.....it was the only car I had no connection to. There have been some recent grays that are beautiful though,

FYI, I had to Google "grey or gray"......

I have the Metallic Metal color. It has a beautiful finish and shine to it.

Sponsored

 

[IronG]

"Destroyer Grey" just sounds bitchin'. And it does look good;

That does look good, but I still like Plum Crazy Purple the best. I've said it before, but Dodge is the best for color choice among the 3.

 

[ctandc72]

Love this color wrap

 

[UserName]

https://www.suburbanchryslerdodgeje...plink&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=cars.com

Redeye for $71K. They have multiple in destroyer grey fro $70k

my buddy just got a hellcat and got a $10 per horsepower rebate. Not sure if that’s still going. If I had a larger garage I’d consider one. Nothing like driving a 700 plus horsepower lazy boy.

 

[Jmtoast]

my buddy just got a hellcat and got a $10 per horsepower rebate. Not sure if that’s still going. If I had a larger garage I’d consider one. Nothing like driving a 700 plus horsepower lazy boy.

Yeah that one was like $15k off. $8k for the horsepower rebate and another $7k in other rebates.

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

The 5.0 makes more torque everywhere, feeling like its sluggish is your brain playing tricks on you because you don't ride that boost surge down low. A stock EB makes like 260 ft-lb at 2500 rpm while a 5.0 is making well over 300 at that point.

I second this but will provide additional perspective. The myth that the ecoboost somehow produces more torque down low compared to the Gen 3 Coyote under full throttle is certainly just a myth. However, I'll add to this: the trick he mentions is due in part to the fact that under part throttle the turbo charged engine is likely closer to full torque output compared to a naturally aspirated engine at a similar throttle input. So, I can see how some people think the ecoboost makes more torque, because under light throttle it might be making more torque than the coyote under light throttle (I'm not certain about this - just a theory). There is no dyno test showing a 5.0 Gen 3 coyote under partial throttle (or for an ecoboost for that matter). My theory is based on my Mazdaspeed3 turbo 4 that I owned and drove almost daily for over 11 years. I remember if I was at, say, 1/2 throttle and nailed it full throttle, the difference wasn't that great compared to the same exercise in my GT. That difference could be what people are feeling under part throttle applications.

 

[Linkster1666]

I put a 289 in an 80 Fox body and drove it pretty much 8 years, bought a 97 V6 I drove for 8 years, drove a 2005 V6 for 3 years, a 2012 V6 for a year.

I have Not drove an ecoboost Mustang, but I have driven a F-150 Ecobeast for a year. I think the 4 Banger would be a blast for 10-15 mile commute in town.

Edit: to add my foot was on the floor alot in the V6 'Stangs.

 

[88lx50]

That's what make it hard to decide. The goodness of V8 vs. the low end TQ of Turbo. This new EB isn't like the old one.
Just saw a video of new EB driving and the Exhaust (not engine) sound was close to GT.

LOL No it is definitely not even close in sound to a gt.

 

[Norm Peterson]

To use the Yote3's horsepower, you have to step a little into the revs (4,500RPMs~) to have some thrust (ie: coaxing your car out into traffic and up to speed -vs- riding the bubble of torque that the EB effortlessly provides and at lower rpms.)

Simple stuff..

That's really not a very useful comparison. HP is an indication of maximum acceleration, torque is an indication of maximum acceleration in a given gear. They are not the same thing, and you're looking at the Coyote for the first and the EB for the second.

Put them on the same playing field, please. Better yet, put them both in both scenarios.

Looking at dyno curves does not tell the whole story. With turbocharging, the element of time as measured from the time you tip into the throttle is more significant, and off boost a turbo 2.3 is only a NA 2.3. Boost takes time to arrive, and the steepness of the EB torque curves posted in this thread clearly depicts this. Why? Because torque output is a function of both engine displacement and boost, and torque as a function of displacement only does not rise nearly as fast between 1500 and 2500 as the EB torque curves do. Keep in mind that the rpm axis of a dyno plot also amounts to being a time axis (though the relationship between rpm and time need not be either constant or linear).

We're on our second turbocharged car, so yes, I am fully aware that not all turbocharged engines behave identically. But the transition from the off-boost condition (or from a low-boost condition) for different turbocharged engines is going to be more similar than different, where a NA engine is not subject to this effect at all.

Yeah, it feels good when the boost finally does come in. Just know that it's playing catch-up at that point, kind of like in the old days any time you felt the secondaries of a 4-barrel carb "kicking in".


Norm

going to be more alike than different.

 

[w3rkn]

That's really not a very useful comparison. HP is an indication of maximum acceleration, torque is an indication of maximum acceleration in a given gear. They are not the same thing, and you're looking at the Coyote for the first and the EB for the second.

Put them on the same playing field, please. Better yet, put them both in both scenarios.

Looking at dyno curves does not tell the whole story. With turbocharging, the element of time as measured from the time you tip into the throttle is more significant, and off boost a turbo 2.3 is only a NA 2.3. Boost takes time to arrive, and the steepness of the EB torque curves posted in this thread clearly depicts this. Why? Because torque output is a function of both engine displacement and boost, and torque as a function of displacement only does not rise nearly as fast between 1500 and 2500 as the EB torque curves do. Keep in mind that the rpm axis of a dyno plot also amounts to being a time axis (though the relationship between rpm and time need not be either constant or linear).

We're on our second turbocharged car, so yes, I am fully aware that not all turbocharged engines behave identically. But the transition from the off-boost condition (or from a low-boost condition) for different turbocharged engines is going to be more similar than different, where a NA engine is not subject to this effect at all.

Yeah, it feels good when the boost finally does come in. Just know that it's playing catch-up at that point, kind of like in the old days any time you felt the secondaries of a 4-barrel carb "kicking in".


Norm

going to be more alike than different.

Norm, in layman's terms, Horsepower is work done.

We have already had this discussion and I already pointed out something that most people do not know, that a car's acceleration follows the torque curve directly. More torque, more potential.

The reason why I said the v8 horsepower doesn't matter is because you never get to max horsepower when driving around town, so it's horsepower is insignificant. But it's torque delivery matters. So, we were talking directly about the correlation between a v8 and a turbo-4 and their dyno plots. Turbo lag, has nothing to do with a dyno plot, or horsepower, or torque. (You are talking about response time of an engine... throttle mapping, etc.)

You might of also missed what I said about a turbo-4 and a v8 having the same amount of torque, while the naturally aspirated engine only hits peak torque once, the turbocharged engine will maintain that same peak torque throughout most of it's powerband.




PS:
btw, have you ever driven a modern day turbo...? Do you understand what a twin-scroll turbo is & does..? Why are you talkijng about turbo lag in year 2019..? EB have positive boost at idle...! And can have full boost as low as 2,300 rpms. Meaning, the EB can have 420ft-lbs of thrust at 2,400~ rpms, with a tune, if you can build an engine that can handle the stress/load.

 

[shogun32]

city driving is spent between 2000 and 4000 rpm and both engines are extremely close.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I second this but will provide additional perspective. The myth that the ecoboost somehow produces more torque down low compared to the Gen 3 Coyote under full throttle is certainly just a myth. However, I'll add to this: the trick he mentions is due in part to the fact that under part throttle the turbo charged engine is likely closer to full torque output compared to a naturally aspirated engine at a similar throttle input. So, I can see how some people think the ecoboost makes more torque, because under light throttle it might be making more torque than the coyote under light throttle (I'm not certain about this - just a theory). There is no dyno test showing a 5.0 Gen 3 coyote under partial throttle (or for an ecoboost for that matter). My theory is based on my Mazdaspeed3 turbo 4 that I owned and drove almost daily for over 11 years. I remember if I was at, say, 1/2 throttle and nailed it full throttle, the difference wasn't that great compared to the same exercise in my GT. That difference could be what people are feeling under part throttle applications.

The trick you mention is always utilized. In the part throttle racing. That this forum has become famous for.

 

[Jmtoast]

The trick you mention is always utilized. In the part throttle racing. Thst this forum has become famous for.

Part throttle sounds so quarter ass. It's everything that's wrong with this country. murica

 

[Qcman17]

I came from a 2013 6.2 liter Camaro to my Coyote. And no question it felt faster than the GT around town due to its low end torque & I was initially frustrated by that. But then I started paying attention to the speedo and the Coyote was eating it's lunch in every way. The GT is deceptively quick/fast & does it so smoothly you almost don't even notice it. Once I realized that, that concern never returned and I love it! I also found the GT is pretty loud for a stock car & I was letting off the gas a bit due to the sound instead of letting off once I got to the speed I wanted to be at. I stopped doing that too & just let it make the noise it needs to.

But I will add it seems kind of odd to me that someone is trying to decide which one performs better in bumper to bumper traffic I would say neither in that case LOL. I have never driven an Eco but I have great respect for what they can do with that little motor!

 

[ctandc72]

Norm, in layman's terms, Horsepower is work done.

"Layman's terms." That statement makes the assumption that you are some trained expert in this field. Can you expound on your real world qualifications?

Hint: Reading the wikipedia definition of HP doesn't make you an expert.

Since we're getting "technical" - HP is computed mathematically, even with a dyno, by measuring torque (the force the wheels exert on the roller of the dyno). So you can't have one without the other. Should we get into smoothing factors? How individual dynos are set up - what type - what program - and what variables are 'tweaked' by the person operating it? Ever wondered why identical cars on the same type dyno (but physically a different location) with close to the same weather / temp factors can produce much different numbers? Yeah - well reread this paragraph.

In LAYMAN'S TERMS - the best dyno is trap speed. Sure, if you take a car and dyno it stock. Then dyno it again after a tunes or other modifications and it's the same day, same dyno, same conditions - you will definitely get a good idea of power gained and where you gained it.

Your posts literally remind me of an officer who taught a course when I was in the Army. The guy taught small infantry tactics. It took 15 minutes of listening to him to understand he'd never actually experienced ANY of things he "taught" in the real world. It was a running joke among the entire class. He eventually was reassigned.

We have already had this discussion and I already pointed out something that most people do not know, that a car's acceleration follows the torque curve directly. More torque, more potential.

The reason why I said the v8 horsepower doesn't matter is because you never get to max horsepower when driving around town, so it's horsepower is insignificant. But it's torque delivery matters. So, we were talking directly about the correlation between a v8 and a turbo-4 and their dyno plots. Turbo lag, has nothing to do with a dyno plot, or horsepower, or torque. (You are talking about response time of an engine... throttle mapping, etc.)

First off that's EXACTLY the data I put in front of you. You said "You have to get to 4500 RPMs with the Gen 3 Coyote to use its power" EVEN though at 2500 RPM and up - the Coyote puts out MORE torque than the EB. Which, being an expert, you should understand makes PERFECT SENSE. After all - torque is a direct product of DISPLACEMENT (cubic inches) since an IC engine is just an air pump. Suck, bang, blow. The more cubic inches / liters you have (volume of air the pistons can compress in the cylinders), the more displacement you have and the more torque you have.

Still with me?

All forced induction is - in layman's terms - is artificial displacement. And in a PERFECT world it essentially doubles an IC engine's displacement. But that's if the turbo hold peak boosts throughout the rev range. Not to mention elevation which also plays a part in the entire process. So in a perfect world the 2.3 is now a 4.6. What is the Coyote again?

And turbo lag is real. And 'response time' , throttle mapping etc - they all play a part in the VERY thing you've been harping on...USABLE power / torque.

You might of also missed what I said about a turbo-4 and a v8 having the same amount of torque, while the naturally aspirated engine only hits peak torque once, the turbocharged engine will maintain that same peak torque throughout most of it's powerband.

But if you look at the dyno graphs - POSTED in this thread - your statement is false. The EB doesn't "maintain it's peak torque throughout most of it's power band". Turbos in the real world are NOT a 1 to 1 replacement for displacement. In essence it still applies - the age old adage that I've been hearing since I started wrenching on small and big blocks 30+ years ago.

"There is no replacement for displacement."

And the HUGE factor in acceleration - the entire point of this bi polar excuse of a thread - that you have dismissed multiple times...is TORQUE MULTIPLICATION. As in the TRANSMISSION (Auto or Manual) and the gearing in the differential.

If your statements / beliefs are true and the EB produces more "usable torque" than the Gen 3 Coyote - then WHY do the EB Mustang and GT Mustang have DIFFERENT gears ratios when using the 6 speed manual?

18-19 EB:

1st 4.236
2nd 2.538
3rd 1.665
4th 1.238
5th 1.00
6th .834

18-19 GT

1st 3.24
2nd 2.10
3rd 1.42
4th 1.00
5th .81
6th .62

It's almost as if the Ford Engineers knew that the smaller displacement EB would need steeper gears (Especially 1st gear) to get the same car moving compared to the large displacement 5.0 in the GT.

You keep believing what you want. I know you're going dismiss everything that's posted (even dyno graphs) that doesn't agree with what you believe to be true. You do you.

Sponsored