GT vs. EB high performance for city driving

[shogun32]

18-19 EB:
1st 4.236

I wish it was a little bit taller, maybe 3.8 or no more than 4.

Sponsored

 

[ctandc72]

I wish it was a little bit taller, maybe 3.8 or no more than 4.

That's what she said.

 

[ForYourOwnGood]

That's what she said.

Hah. Manlet jokes never get old.

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

"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.




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.




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."

Just to clarify, the bolded statement only holds true if the turbo boost equals atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia (at sea level). If the boost is above that, the displacement more than doubles. If the boost is below that, the displacement is less than double. There's caveats to all of that like the pressure loss through the intercooler, manifold, etc. that affect the artificial displacement, but it can be used as a general rule of thumb.

In a perfect world, boost is far more than atmospheric pressure, so the displacement more than doubles.

 

[ctandc72]

Just to clarify, the bolded statement only holds true if the turbo boost equals atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia (at sea level). If the boost is above that, the displacement more than doubles. If the boost is below that, the displacement is less than double. There's caveats to all of that like the pressure loss through the intercooler, manifold, etc. that affect the artificial displacement, but it can be used as a general rule of thumb.

In a perfect world, boost is far more than atmospheric pressure, so the displacement more than doubles.

Duly noted. I was trying to keep it in "layman's terms"

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

"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.

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?


"There is no replacement for displacement."
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.

A few more thoughts: displacement is a factor in torque, but not the only one. I think you probably realize that but just wanted to make sure. The 5.0 Gen 3 coyote makes more peak torque per liter (84 ft-lbs) than the larger displacement 6.2 liter Camaro SS LT1 engine (74 ft-lbs). But that's due to the design differences between the engines. All else being equal, sure a larger displacement engine will make more than it's smaller displacement counterpart.

And the lower gearing combined with the mind trick a turbo engine plays when building boost combined with the part throttle boost leading to closer peak torque output could explain why many people think the Ecoboost feels like it has more low end torque than the Gen 3 Coyote, even though we know under full throttle it does not. It's a perception thing. I think the biggest difference is the part throttle torque output of a turbocharged engine being closer to the engine peak output for a given rpm when compared to a naturally aspirated engine under part throttle.

It is correct that acceleration follows the torque output of an engine. In a given gear, peak acceleration occurs at peak torque output. For the Gen 3 Coyote, that's 4,600 rpm IIRC. The reason we stay in gears until 7,500 rpm is because of the torque multiplication at the wheels. The gearing drops the torque off faster than the engine torque output is falling off, so we stay in gear until the torque output of the engine starts to fall on its face. It's a point of diminishing returns. My GT accelerates harder in 2nd gear at 6,000 rpm even though there is less engine torque output at that engine speed than in 3rd gear at 4,600 rpm because 2nd gear has more torque multiplication that makes up for the loss in engine torque output at those engine speeds.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I just wish people would remember. That boost pressure is just measuring a restriction. The inportant thing is how many cubic feet of air is being moved. Not how much presure it takes to move it. High pressure could just mean a poorly designed system.

 

[Jmtoast]

I just wish people would remember. That boost pressure is just measuring a restriction. The inportant thing is how many cubic feet of air is being moved. Not how much presure it takes to move it. High pressure could just mean a poorly designed system.

Sounds all very technical. Sounds like in layman's terms.. it's not the size of the boat it's the motion of the ocean. or something like that.

 

[NoVaGT]

I just wish people would remember. That boost pressure is just measuring a restriction. The inportant thing is how many cubic feet of air is being moved. Not how much presure it takes to move it. High pressure could just mean a poorly designed system.

I'm.....confused......this is what I'm grasping;

 

[w3rkn]

"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.




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.




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.

Yes, to answer your first question.

And as you can see, I don't not need to get technical to explain how the forces of an engine, are applied to a transmission, in the form of power, and power delivery. (btw, dyno-graphs don't show gearing) And the v8 has a wider/longer powerband, than the 1,500rpm less, EB, thus it's gearing will be different.


This is simple stuff, you are trying to complicate it. Nothing you posted, dismisses what I've said.

 

[slink]

Has anyone driven these two (GT and the NEW High Performance EB) and see which has a better take off power?
Thanks!

Getting back to the OP's original question, which has better take off power, I looked up the 0-30 specs for the 2 cars in question. Of course, I could not find the new HP EB numbers.

A10 GT 0-30 1.7 seconds
6sp GT 0-30 1.9 seconds

A10 EB 0-30 2.3 seconds

I'm not versed in all that higher learning , but this tells me the GT is what he wants.

 

[ctandc72]

Yes, to answer your first question.

And as you can see, I don't not need to get technical to explain how the forces of an engine, are applied to a transmission, in the form of power, and power delivery. (btw, dyno-graphs don't show gearing) And the v8 has a wider/longer powerband, than the 1,500rpm less, EB, thus it's gearing will be different.


This is simple stuff, you are trying to complicate it. Nothing you posted, dismisses what I've said.

Dear God.

Good luck

 

[tw557]

I Assume the op was talking about daily around town take off. In that situation the ecoboost simply just has more "take off" with zero turbo lag. At normal driving conditions, 1/2 throttle or less the eco is faster. I so wanted a gt and had one for a day and just couldn't understand why it felt slower. Because it was slower unless close to full throttle. With the auto I like the acceleration with just one down shift. The gt I needed to give more throttle, it would down shift multiple gears to match the eco acceleration. Fun for weekend riping around, but not so much for everyday for me.

 

[ForYourOwnGood]

Here we are, the glorious part throttle wars where feelings are more important than quantitative measurement.

 

[tw557]

Yeah. Believe it or not just a few of us Dont drive flat to the floor all day long. We are not talking about racing. I don't want to sound like a goon driving around town in second gear at 5000 or so rpm to get in the power. And with an automatic it will be constantly down shifting multiple gears. That's fine if many don't care about power at part throttle. It turns out others do and enjoy torque which unfortunately the Gt doesn't perform that great unless on the throttle heavy. To downshift one gear and accelerate 60 to 90 was better with the ecoboost. I didn't expect that. I was hoping the Gt was going to be a short shifting monster. In stocks form it certainly isn't.

Sponsored