Eco vs 5.0 @ 5000'

[spanner]

Sorry if this has already been discussed.

Living at around 5000' altitude, the 5.0 numbers are diminished approx 15%

According to my math.. A 330hp ecoboost would be 280hp with driveline loss, yet the 5.0 needs a 30% reduction (driveline loss + altitude) (guessing 430hp) Sobering the V-8 down to 301hp? :help:

So, 7% is all the eight is able to offer over the EB; yet cost approx 20% more?

Does this sound correct?:shrug:

Sponsored

 

[scottpe]

I think you might be oversimplifying it just a bit. Though a turbo does compensate for altitude a lot, it does so at the cost of some efficiency and heat. You have to apply some sort of % losses to a turbocharged car as altitude increases as well. Unfortunately I don't know what that number is.

Also, I think 15% drive line loss is too much. IMO 10-12% is more realistic these days.

But the basic overall idea you've presented is accurate. The GT has a considerably smaller performance advantage over the Ecoboost at higher altitude.

 

[aspensilver]

I think scott has it right. Personally at that altitude I would get the EB, throw a tune on it, and give barely a thought to the GT.

 

[spanner]

Yea, my numbers will surely be a bit off, however, Im starting to realize that if you live in the Rockies, etc, you are NOT getting all the ponies you paid for! :tsk:

Gonna be difficult for me to justify the HARD #'s ...20% more $$ for 10% more power...15% less efficient....

 

[scottpe]

Yea, my numbers will surely be a bit off, however, Im starting to realize that if you live in the Rockies, etc, you are NOT getting all the ponies you paid for! :tsk:

Yep, that's the bottom line.

 

[Brent302]

You forget to factor in....Sound

 

[scottpe]

You forget to factor in....Sound

Sound is no doubt a factor in the final decision between the two motors, but one that every individual weighs differently. If power is not that much different, how many thousands of dollars more is 'sound' worth? The answer of course is that there is no right answer, but getting a lot less horsepower for your money definitely makes that decision a lot harder... or easier depending on which way someone is already leaning.

I live pretty close to sea level, so it's a V8 for me, no contest. I'll get that great V8 sound AND a lot more horsepower for the extra money spent. But if I lived at high altitude as the OP does, the decision would be a lot harder. At altitude, it probably wouldn't be very difficult to modify an Ecoboost to outperform a GT. Unfortunately that V8 sound isn't as much of a consolation if you're chasing a lightly modified 4 cylinder's taillights... ;)

 

[StangBANG]

My dealer said that initial tests of the eco boost hp was north of 360hp and said may have been over 400. And that they are dumbing it down so it does not make the GT seem like a fat pig with a few more horses. He also eluded to it performing better all around. With minor tweaking it could be faster than a gt. I did not belive him but its food for thought . It could also push the gt hp far higher then we expect to compensate . Either way I think we have a whole new animal on our hands.

 

[scottpe]

My dealer said that initial tests of the eco boost hp was north of 360hp and said may have been over 400. And that they are dumbing it down so it does not make the GT seem like a fat pig with a few more horses. He also eluded to it performing better all around. With minor tweaking it could be faster than a gt. I did not belive him but its food for thought . It could also push the gt hp far higher then we expect to compensate . Either way I think we have a whole new animal on our hands.

Yeah, I don't believe him either. I doubt any dealer really knows that information.

I certainly do not think that the GT will be a 'fat pig' in comparison to the EB.

Obviously time will tell what the true overall performance difference is between the two, but I'm pretty confident that the GT is still going maintain a pretty significant advantage over its lower-tier counterparts. But to tie back to the original point of this thread, unfortunately for those living at high altitude, the GT's advantage will not be as substantial in that environment as it will at lower elevations.

Regardless, I definitely look forward to all of the test drives and track comparisons between the various configurations. Should be interesting stuff for sure...

 

[spanner]

I certainly do not think that the GT will be a 'fat pig' in comparison to the EB.

I sure dont look at the GT in this manner either. But after pondering the high altitude drawbacks of NA, compounded with this next generation of tech; reality could surprise us sooner than later!

 

[deven2015GT]

My dealer said that initial tests of the eco boost hp was north of 360hp and said may have been over 400. And that they are dumbing it down so it does not make the GT seem like a fat pig with a few more horses. He also eluded to it performing better all around. With minor tweaking it could be faster than a gt. I did not belive him but its food for thought . It could also push the gt hp far higher then we expect to compensate . Either way I think we have a whole new animal on our hands.

What everyone else said. I wouldn't trust the dealer with that type of information. Right now, they know as much as us. I would trust the manufacturer with the specifics.

For example, my dealer has the order guide, price guide, and my order for what I want, yet they say they are still waiting to officially put the order in for some unknown reason (we all know order banks are open). It's a little frustrating, but for the first car that I am buying/ordering brand new, another week or two wait will not kill me, even though I see everyone else here with confirmations on their order and what not.

In conclusion, the dealer knows jack.

 

[spanner]

So, it looks like my 330hp figure for the EB wont happen..

-With that said, the 5.0 would have 12-16% over the 4cyl.

-Still not a huge advantage; having twice the cylinders and displacement

 

[Brent302]

Those of us at sea level will still enjoy the more powerful 5.0

Actually instead of comparing old 5.0 numbers you should be comparing the Boss 302 since that should be closer to the new engine upgrades...just a thought. Below is a article from edmunds

"But how big is the improvement relative to a 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0?

Big.

Ford claims a 32-hp difference between the peak output of these engines and we measured 36 hp. Perhaps more relevant is torque, which Ford claims to be 10 lb-ft lower in the Boss. Not according to our numbers. Sure, the torque peak comes 900 rpm later, but there are two more lb-ft to be had from the higher-revving engine. Of course, at 4,350 rpm, where the GT makes peak torque, the Boss trails by about 11 lb-ft.

What the data doesn't tell you is how transformational a 900-rpm increase in peak power is between these two engines. At the GT's power peak of 6,650 rpm, the Boss is alreay making 24 additional hp. And it continues over the next 900 rpm to pour on the coals and churn out another 12 hp."

 

[Rob WH]

Altitude plays a role, for sure. Short of settling for the 2.3L EB... add the supercharger or turbo to the GT! All better?? YUP!

 

[RoryTate]

The OP pointed out the 20% price difference between the EB and the GT, so add the cost of parts, labour, and a tune ontop of the GT's price premium for forced induction. Will it make a shit tonne more power? Yep. Will it cost? Yep.

Sponsored