OBJECTIVE comparisons of engines?

[Humptydumpty]

Hi all - I apologize if the question I am about to ask is already answered somewhere in this forum, but I have spent a fair amount of time searching the web, and I have not been able to find what I am looking for.

I am looking for OBJECTIVE measurements of the different engines, i.e., dyno charts, especially for the GT vs. the Eco, done on the SAME DYNO, preferably on the same day, but especially applying identical corrections for atmospheric conditions, power train loss, etc. And preferably both the same transmission, i.e., either both manual or both auto.

It is frustrating for me that it still is so difficult to find this. Of course there are myriad dyno charts for one engine or the other, where what is shown are differences between stock and the after-market setup that someone wants to sell. There is an abundance of that sort of thing, and even if you trust the results they show, these tests are practically useless for comparing the GT vs. the Eco (for example), because of the differences in the dyno setup, and the correction for power train loss, and for atmospheric conditions, etc.

I IMPLORE everyone who happens to read this to NOT pollute this thread with testimonials and subjective opinions about how they are happy with their Eco, or how much they think the Eco doesn't measure up to the GT, etc., or with 'tube videos that do much the same thing. Again, I BEG you to NOT do this!!! The ONLY thing that testimonials of that sort actually accomplish is to make it even more difficult for anyone looking for OBJECTIVE measurements to find any! They make an inherently difficult task even more difficult! I reiterate: PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS THREAD FOR EXPRESSING YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS ABOUT THE ECO VS. THE GT VS. THE V6!!! Please, please please allow this to be one thread that is NOT jammed packed with that sort of thing!!!

This thread should contain ONLY posts that provide links (or image files) to sites where objective measurements have been performed, that objectively and reliably compare the engine performance of the different engines, especially the GT vs. the Eco! NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT SHOULD APPEAR IN THIS THREAD!! If it happens that information of this sort does not exist, and this thread ends up with nothing beyond this post, then so be it.


Thanks in advance for any genuine information that anyone may have and may care to share.

Sponsored

 

[Blacksheep]

Posted numbers from magazines are objective.

 

[OppoLock]

Literally the only comparison I could find between the EB and GT from an objective third party source, and it doesn't include dyno info, just performance numbers. Doesn't state if testing was done on the same day.

I used basically every possible search term. Doubt you'll find much beyond this.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/perfor...mustang-gt-versus-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

 

[cbrookre]

Looking at that article, one thing sticks out and that is the top gear acceleration:
ecoboost V8
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.0 sec 4.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec 9.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.9 sec 9.0 sec

Why is the 5.0 that much slower? Is it the torque curve (Turbo has instant power where V8 needs more RPM)?

Sorry if this is hijacking the thread...

 

[OppoLock]

Are you asking because you are trying to decide which one you will be happy enough with the power output of?
I could afford either a base 5.0 or a perf pack 2.3.
Although they are both fantastic engines, i chose the 5.0 based on the fact that i need to keep the engine stock for my warranty. After test driving both, i felt with the 2.3t that i would want more power too soon. With the base 5.0 i figured i could upgrade the suspension later without losing my warranty, which is why i went that route.
I apologize if im way off base here as i know it has nothing to do with dyno numbers

I think this is exactly what he was hoping to not hear about lol.

Looking at that article, one thing sticks out and that is the top gear acceleration:
ecoboost V8
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.0 sec 4.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec 9.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.9 sec 9.0 sec

Why is the 5.0 that much slower? Is it the torque curve (Turbo has instant power where V8 needs more RPM)?

Sorry if this is hijacking the thread...

The EB was an auto. C/D's "top gear acceleration" testing always involves automatic overriding if applicable. So it's an invalid test to say the least.

 

[Humptydumpty]

Literally the only comparison I could find between the EB and GT from an objective third party source, and it doesn't include dyno info, just performance numbers. Doesn't state if testing was done on the same day.

I used basically every possible search term. Doubt you'll find much beyond this.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/perfor...mustang-gt-versus-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

That is the closest thing to an objective comparison that I was able to find. It is useful, but only moderately so. Comparing the performance of the Ecoboost engine @ 3000 rpm with the performance of the GT engine @ 4250 rpm isn't especially useful. Nor is it particularly useful to compare the power of one engine at 5500 rpm with the other at 6500 rpm. The automotive magazines seem not to be fully aware that it is not very useful to compare the performance of one engine at one rpm with the performance of another engine at a very different rpm.

The best estimate that I have been able to come up with is that at 5,000 rpm the GT is about 20% to 25% stronger than the Eco, and that this difference only starts to materialize above 3,000 rpm. But this crude estimate just isn't satisfactory to me. It looks like that by now, someone, somewhere would have done a proper comparison of the two. As many articles as have been written about the 2015 Mustang, and after all the hoopla leading up to it, none of the magazines have bothered to conduct a proper quantitative comparison of the two engines. You can find dozens and dozens of subjective comparisons done by highly pretentious people who missed their life calling by not becoming professional wine tasters, but not a single proper, quantitative comparison.

 

[Humptydumpty]

Are you asking because you are trying to decide which one you will be happy enough with the power output of?
I could afford either a base 5.0 or a perf pack 2.3.
Although they are both fantastic engines, i chose the 5.0 based on the fact that i need to keep the engine stock for my warranty. After test driving both, i felt with the 2.3t that i would want more power too soon. With the base 5.0 i figured i could upgrade the suspension later without losing my warranty, which is why i went that route.
I apologize if im way off base here as i know it has nothing to do with dyno numbers

Admins, could you please delete this useless post?

 

[arrow94]

Admins, could you please delete this useless post?

Deleted it myself.
My apologies sir!

 

[OH5GT 2 S550]

Admins, could you please delete this useless post?

Nothin wrong with that post! What is wrong with it?

 

[arrow94]

Nothin wrong with that post! What is wrong with it?

It doesnt really answer his question, just my interpretation of the reason he was asking. I deleted it to avoid him being upset about something i carefully worded in an attempt to avoid this, but oh well. So to him i wish good luck finding the numbers with the exact scientific measurements hes looking for.

 

[Humptydumpty]

Looking at that article, one thing sticks out and that is the top gear acceleration:
ecoboost V8
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.0 sec 4.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec 9.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.9 sec 9.0 sec

Why is the 5.0 that much slower? Is it the torque curve (Turbo has instant power where V8 needs more RPM)?

Sorry if this is hijacking the thread...

The post from Arrow94 was utterly useless, but at least you have something to say that isn't a personal opinion.

The top gear acceleration numbers are essentially useless unless it happens that overall gear ratios are identical for both. Otherwise, the comparison isn't very meaningful, because for all you could say with any certainty, at the speed range that applies, i.e., 30 to 50 or 50 to 70, you might not normally be using the top gear in either car, and most likely would not. This is the sort of thing that just leaves me scratching my head and wondering what it is that the car magazine thinks that it is supposed to prove. Unless, that is, the overall gearing for the two cars is identical. And it is very obvious from the difference in numbers that the overall gear ratio for the GT is much "taller" than it is for the Eco, i.e., the GT engine is running at much lower rpm in this test.

Also the GT being tested here is manual, whereas the Eco is the auto, which makes the time-to-speed tests not very useful.

The rolling start is a little more useful, but it as well suffers from the fact that they are not both manual (or both auto), and also it has the effect of nullifying the performance differences just off idle, which matters to me. In my opinion, the most useful data in this comparison is the zero-to-sixty time, but it as well is rendered somewhat less than fully useful due to the fact that both cars do not have the manual transmission (and I don't know whether they both have the performance package, which also matters, since I believe that the performance package for one of the two cars, maybe both, alters the final drive ratio).

As I said, this is the closest thing that there is, evidently, to a proper quantitative comparison of the two cars, but it suffers a slew of shortcomings. It is apparently true that there is no particularly good, quantitative comparison of the two engines, both with the manual transmission and both with the respective performance packages. It just does not seem to exist.

 

[Humptydumpty]

It doesnt really answer his question, just my interpretation of the reason he was asking. I deleted it to avoid him being upset about something i carefully worded in an attempt to avoid this, but oh well. So to him i wish good luck finding the numbers with the exact scientific measurements hes looking for.

i did not mean to be rude. I just do not have any use whatsoever for testimonials, and would just like to have a thread that is devoid of the usual testimonials, which is something that already exists in abundance, for anyone who is interested in that.

Let's just move on. This thread may already have run its course, since there doesn't seem to be any real information on this question beyond the one magazine article, and we have already pointed out the various reasons why it is only moderately of value. But, if anything that is truly useful comes along in the not-so-distant future, perhaps this thread will re-emerge and will be a thread where interested people can find meaningful, quantitative information on this question, without having to sort through a pile of the usual opinions and testimonials.

 

[arrow94]

I think its going to take some time till more owners start dyno testing and posting their results. At that point it will take someone to gather the numbers from say 25 5.0's and 25 2.3's run on the same type of dyno in the same general area/climate/sea level, and average the results of each together at a specific rpm.
It may not be exact but it will be very close and the best youl be able to find without taking two cars and doing the testing yourself

 

[VIN666]

I tried getting dyno data between the V6 and the EB.
No dice.
There just isn't anything out yet.

 

[thehunterooo]

Wow this thread....

I do not think anyone will ever have the need to dyno the three engine configurations back to back to back on the same dyno on the same day, there is just no need for it, we all know what each one is capable of. The best you could do for those is to find the stock graphs for all three and go from there, it will not be 100% ideal for what you want but you will get close enough. The magazines linked will be your best bet when it comes to times but even those do not always represent the real world numbers.

If you want to buy one of these beast cars, test drive all three and see how you like each of them.

Sponsored