OBJECTIVE comparisons of engines?

[Vile_the_Bastage]

I'm not Arrow94 so I won't be deleting anything myself. The kind of detailed, objective information you want will not be found between any two versions of stock cars. Period. You will get different outputs running the same car on the same dyno with an hour in between runs. Oh, and drivetrain loss? Impossible to nail down with the tools we have access to. I guess you can kind of do some math given your car's WHP output and what Ford rates the engine at, but guess what? Not every one of these engines are making what Ford says it does. Some are more powerful than others.

So even though it's not what you wanted to see, I'll stand by the original statement I made in jest, but I will elaborate.

The GT is faster. Period. The Eco is a great car in its stock configuration, is a bit better balanced when driving and has loads of potential. But it will not catch a GT.

Sponsored

 

[steve1107]

Looking at that article, one thing sticks out and that is the top gear acceleration:
ecoboost V8
Rolling start, 5-60 mph:6.0 sec4.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph:3.1 sec9.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph:3.9 sec9.0 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...

Top gear times are crap. Who the heck is gonna be rolling in sixth gear at 30 mph.

 

[HoustonMustang]

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.

IMO...you are being rude...please lighten up...this forum has lots of good info...most will find the the majority of postings to be very helpful...

Enjoy the ride...

 

[Five Oh Brian]

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.

If you simply want peak #'s from one source, then Ford Motor Company has already provided this. 310 hp for the Eco & 435 hp for the GT. Search over.

If you want to compare dyno curves, then that is a different story. Averaging a bunch of them from different sources is going to be your best bet. Vile_the_Bastage was absolutely correct when he mentioned that you'll never get an exact comparison because manufacturer's tolerances on the assembly line mean that two "identical" engines will produce slightly different amounts of power, rendering your comparison useless anyway.

I am often humored when someone throws a question out to the internet asking people to gather or prepare very involved data that is unlikely to have been done. Sometimes, you just have to go do the work yourself! They internet does not have all the answers.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

If you simply want peak #'s from one source, then Ford Motor Company has already provided this. 310 hp for the Eco & 435 hp for the GT. Search over.

If you want to compare dyno curves, then that is a different story. Averaging a bunch of them from different sources is going to be your best bet. Vile_the_Bastage was absolutely correct when he mentioned that you'll never get an exact comparison because manufacturer's tolerances on the assembly line mean that two "identical" engines will produce slightly different amounts of power, rendering your comparison useless anyway.

I am often humored when someone throws a question out to the internet asking people to gather or prepare very involved data that is unlikely to have been done. Sometimes, you just have to go do the work yourself! They internet does not have all the answers.

Well said, Brian!!

 

[Apwrx]

:lol:that totally caught me off guard, got a good chuckle out of it
Ive got an eco but don't need a scientific chart or dyno to tell me stock for stock the Gt has more power and is a lot faster.

 

[DivineStrike]

Admins, please delete this post and ban the joker.

First off lighten up

Second buy the Ecoboost, as it seems that this thread's existence is for you to justify buying it over the 5.0. I believe you will be happy with the Eco. It is plenty quick and you can mod it to your liking.

Facts are 5.0 is faster, you don't really need to know much else other than that beside driving each and seeing which you like better. As both have their unique characteristics.

Without that necessary info, you are just trying to justify your inclination to buying the Eco based off a few numbers you see online.

Happy hunting.

 

[Barrel]

I am often humored when someone throws a question out to the internet asking people to gather or prepare very involved data that is unlikely to have been done. Sometimes, you just have to go do the work yourself! They internet does not have all the answers.

But with his extensive use of a thesaurus and plethora of pleases and apologies...I don't see why we can't be bothered to get this done for him.

Why don't we get a kickstarter together to buy all three models made on the same day with the same options and get some dyno time in.

Or we can bounce back to reality. OP: your best bet is to have one of the car mags do it. If they haven't, write them to see if they will. Ya might get lucky.

#dontbeadouche

 

[Norm Peterson]

Just because I was bored, here's a set of curves using an admittedly crude mathematical fit from Ford's own peak HP and peak torque data. Why would you expect reality to be too much different? I'll let you figure out which curves belong with which engine.

Before you demand that I take my post down (which I'd be disinclined to do), consider whether it's any less useful than anything you've uncovered on your own . . . and feel free to work up your own curve fits having been given the hint. Just understand that mine have worked fairly well for acceleration and top speed simulations.

Yes, the low rpm range is artificial and a bit suspect, but that shouldn't matter too much unless you're into lugging your car's engine as opposed to keeping it running where it's happier.


Norm

 

[VIN666]

Sweet! Add the v6 please!

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm

 

[Humptydumpty]

I'm not Arrow94 so I won't be deleting anything myself. The kind of detailed, objective information you want will not be found between any two versions of stock cars. Period. You will get different outputs running the same car on the same dyno with an hour in between runs. Oh, and drivetrain loss? Impossible to nail down with the tools we have access to. I guess you can kind of do some math given your car's WHP output and what Ford rates the engine at, but guess what? Not every one of these engines are making what Ford says it does. Some are more powerful than others.

So even though it's not what you wanted to see, I'll stand by the original statement I made in jest, but I will elaborate.

The GT is faster. Period. The Eco is a great car in its stock configuration, is a bit better balanced when driving and has loads of potential. But it will not catch a GT.

The question that was asked in this thread was stated as clearly as any question could possibly be stated. Moreover, there was a clear plea to the effect that the thread not be used for sharing their opinions and testimonials.

 

[Humptydumpty]

Just because I was bored, here's a set of curves using an admittedly crude mathematical fit from Ford's own peak HP and peak torque data. Why would you expect reality to be too much different? I'll let you figure out which curves belong with which engine.

Before you demand that I take my post down (which I'd be disinclined to do), consider whether it's any less useful than anything you've uncovered on your own . . . and feel free to work up your own curve fits having been given the hint. Just understand that mine have worked fairly well for acceleration and top speed simulations.

Yes, the low rpm range is artificial and a bit suspect, but that shouldn't matter too much unless you're into lugging your car's engine as opposed to keeping it running where it's happier.


Norm

I would not ask you to take down anything that comes anywhere close to complying with the stated purpose of the thread. The only people that I had any issue with were people WHO DID THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what I asked, so that this thread might stand of chance of not becoming littered with the kind of garbage and testimonials that so many of the threads on this forum are packed full of.

 

[L8APEX]

Why not just drive an ecoboost Mustang, v6, and a GT on the same day?

 

[Humptydumpty]

Norm

I had not seen this before, and it is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to find! But, it would be nice to know some of the specifics. Where exactly did you find this?

Sponsored