Which has more lower TQ?

[NightmareMoon]

Dyno graphs posted on this page show that the GT has more torque (300+ ft/lbs) above 3k, and the EB wins below 2.5k with about 280/290 ft lbs (they're about even between 2500 and 3000).

So if you're jumping on the throttle from idle or low-RPM cruise, the EB will kick a little harder for a brief second until RPMs rise and the GT takes over.

"Faster" is all GT though. Torque at low RPM doesn't help much. Its Torque at high-RPM that wins races (The same torque applied to faster engine RPM accelerates a car faster than the same torque applied to a lower RPM). Besides if you want to suddenly go fast, you shouldn't be cruising at < 2500 RPM

Sponsored

 

[tw557]

What you are feeling is all throttle modulation. The GT makes more HP and TQ throughout the entire powerband. This is the same reason people claim their cars "feel" faster when the put on a pedal commander and reduce their modulation. Of course if you turn your throttle into more of an on/off switch it's going to feel faster. If you smash the throttle to the floor at any RPM, the GT will be laying far more torque to the ground period...and this can absolutely be felt.

I never understood peoples fetish with reducing their modulation. If I want to go faster, I push the pedal down harder plain and simple.

I have done both. Part throttle power which is where I feel the most difference compared to the GT. But I have also pressed the pedal to the floor at 2500 is 4th 5th and 6th gear and unfortunately the GT simply does not accelerate much at all. I have measured the difference and in the one test from 2500 rpm over the same distance the ecoboost was almost 10 mph faster. Sure there could be measurement error but still a decent difference. I then did a run from 4500 rpm and the GT got there a lot faster the ecoboost. Both tests I did were flat to the floor.

 

[tw557]

Just to be clear for my own comments, the GT is a faster car. I have realized I wanted a quicker car for my everyday use. And I need an automatic for the rest of the family to use. The automatic keeps the shifts in the 2000 to 3000 range all day long and in that range the GT just isn't impressive. Redline to redline the GT is significantly more fun. The ecoboost really is pretty boring when doing this.

 

[ForYourOwnGood]

Um, no. I used to own a 2000 GT with the 2V 4.6L that I bought new and it only weighed 3180 lbs. Pure stock it ran the 1/4 mile in 13.85 @ 100 mph. Pure stock, a new EB 2.3L runs about that quick. I also bought a new 2007 GT that went a little quicker than my 2000 GT pure stock.

The new EB Mustangs are good performers, but they don't cream the 4.6L Mustangs. They simply match the acceleration, while being much more civilized and fuel efficient.

You are absolutely smoking something amazing if you think this is true. Typical 2V 1/4 mile was in the mid 14's. If you were a good driver with sticky tires and launched the piss out of it you could tip into the high 13's like you did, but that is absolutely not the stock "norm".

 

[slag1911]

lol... this thread is making me chuckle.

 

[foghat]

I have done both. Part throttle power which is where I feel the most difference compared to the GT. But I have also pressed the pedal to the floor at 2500 is 4th 5th and 6th gear and unfortunately the GT simply does not accelerate much at all. I have measured the difference and in the one test from 2500 rpm over the same distance the ecoboost was almost 10 mph faster. Sure there could be measurement error but still a decent difference. I then did a run from 4500 rpm and the GT got there a lot faster the ecoboost. Both tests I did were flat to the floor.

Were both cars using the same transmission and rear end gearing?

 

[tw557]

Were both cars using the same transmission and rear end gearing?

My car as far as I can tell my car is 3:15 gearing as a premium auto non PP car. The auto I compared was also a base 3:15 and the manual was 3:55 that I did my little comparisions. I drove another auto that I think 3:55 and the other manual was 3:73. The first auto ride I didn't think to do a comparison because quite honestly I was expected to be blown away. I kept going slow with the first one at first afraid of spinning it up. By the end I was full throttle only up to about 70 mph though. The 3:73 manual the salesman went with me and it was a really crap friday night traffic test drive. With the only highway run in a construction zone. That did "feel" the best though. Still getting on it hard at 3500 I was wanting more.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I feel like there's a significant amount of science missing from this thread.

And common sense. I used to own a 400whp SRT-4 back in the day. This talk about part throttle pull is just more EB owner nonsense. Basically they are saying my car is exactly as fast as yours. As long as we don't open the throttle.
:doh:

 

[millhouse]

You are absolutely smoking something amazing if you think this is true. Typical 2V 1/4 mile was in the mid 14's. If you were a good driver with sticky tires and launched the piss out of it you could tip into the high 13's like you did, but that is absolutely not the stock "norm".

I'm sorry, he was correct. New edge GTs were a pretty easy high 13 second car factory stock. I've driven them this way many times and have many friends that did the same.

 

[millhouse]

Dyno graphs posted on this page show that the GT has more torque (300+ ft/lbs) above 3k, and the EB wins below 2.5k with about 280/290 ft lbs (they're about even between 2500 and 3000).

So if you're jumping on the throttle from idle or low-RPM cruise, the EB will kick a little harder for a brief second until RPMs rise and the GT takes over.

"Faster" is all GT though. Torque at low RPM doesn't help much. Its Torque at high-RPM that wins races (The same torque applied to faster engine RPM accelerates a car faster than the same torque applied to a lower RPM). Besides if you want to suddenly go fast, you shouldn't be cruising at < 2500 RPM

Do you have a link? Every single dyno I have seen for the 5.0 shows more torque everywhere, even down to 2k rpm.

Even at 2k rpm however, if you need to go WOT you should be downshifting.

 

[tw557]

Yep, as hard as I tried to make sense of it I have yet to see a dyno chart that at any given point that it was less then the ecoboost. Now a tuned ecoboost can show a whole different story on the dyno. If only I could trust the internals.

 

[JohnD]

lol... this thread is making me chuckle.

Makes me shake my head and sigh. Ya pays your money and ya makes your choice and if it makes you happy then good for you. The rest is irrelevant. Somebody's is always going to be bigger than yours, that's just life.

 

[thehunterooo]

Just to be clear for my own comments, the GT is a faster car. I have realized I wanted a quicker car for my everyday use. And I need an automatic for the rest of the family to use. The automatic keeps the shifts in the 2000 to 3000 range all day long and in that range the GT just isn't impressive. Redline to redline the GT is significantly more fun. The ecoboost really is pretty boring when doing this.

LOL

 

[slag1911]

I have done both. Part throttle power which is where I feel the most difference compared to the GT. But I have also pressed the pedal to the floor at 2500 is 4th 5th and 6th gear and unfortunately the GT simply does not accelerate much at all. I have measured the difference and in the one test from 2500 rpm over the same distance the ecoboost was almost 10 mph faster. Sure there could be measurement error but still a decent difference. I then did a run from 4500 rpm and the GT got there a lot faster the ecoboost. Both tests I did were flat to the floor.

wow.... I'm convinced. I for one will not line up for any "part throttle" race with that torque monster. :lol:

 

[MagGT]

so the computer throttle input is what makes the car faster? huh, ill just put my foot down more then

Sponsored