**REAL rwhp** 2.7L vs 2.3L

[Razorback]

Ford Edge Sport 2.7L in the garage, same issue with the tiny fuel tank. I have no idea why Ford loves tiny fuel tanks. MPG ranges from 18 to 29 depending on your driving. ?

My theory on the tiny fuel tanks is weight. Larger tanks hold more fuel, therefore heavier, therefore less gas mileage. They look everywhere to try and shave off a few pounds thanks to the EPA.

Sponsored

 

[Studawg]

THAT'S the kind of analysis I like!

Well I had wondered about this exact thing, the fact that an automatic sucks more power than a manual tranny, and given I wanted a manual, it made me feel a little better because I would have to give up the V6 to get the manual, but I just never dug into it.

Im feeling more confident in my choice now

 

[Used2jeep]

I have the 2.3L in my Ranger, there are a few issues here:

1. HP / Torque curves always have peaks in any gas engine (naturally aspirated or turbocharged/supercharged). The peaks are not ever near the bottom of the RPM curve.

2. This is especially true for a turbocharged 4 cylinder (and even 6 cylinder). Torque at low RPMs is low because the turbochargers are not spooled up. Modern engine calibrations and auto transmissions try to disguise this “turbo lag.” Once the turbo is spinning you do get a rush of torque but a good calibration will keep it relatively flat through the rest of the rev range

3. If you’re driving below 2k RPM in any car you won’t have to worry about this because you’ll be going slow and sipping gas. My 5.0L Mustang is very sleepy and smooth at these RPMs. The 2.3L is no different. Unless you buy a Tesla you’re not going to hit a wall of torque when you first touch the gas pedal.

People say the Ecoboost is either “Eco” or “Boost” and my experience is this is true. For grannying around town it’s a very quiet and fuel efficient ride, but it has plenty of power when you need it.

I was tailing my husband (him in the Ranger, me in the Mustang) this morning as we were dropping the truck at a shop and he whipped it past a semi that cut us off, he boosted it _very quickly,_ it took me a lot longer to react with my manual transmission and by the time I did that Ranger was flying. It’s a surprisingly powerful engine.

Hmm...maybe I don't "need" the 2.7... But it felt really perky in the 150 I was a passenger in the other day. UGH, PERCEPTION YOU STINK!

 

[The Pope]

DOH! I knew it. Too good to be true.

Ok so lets say 14% loss in the auto and average of 10-14 puts it at a 12% loss in the manual.

So, math comes out to.......

266.6 RWHP in V6 Auto
237.6 RWHP in 2.3L Manual

So 29 HP difference between the 4 banger and the V6.

29/237.6 = 12.2%

So the V6 auto gives you a 12% increase in real HP over the 2.3L Manual.

For a "true" A to A comparison, you should be comparing a 2.7L AT to a 2.3L AT. Just saying.... as your comparison is basically the same as someone comparing a NA Engine vs. a FI (forced induction) engine and saying that the smaller FI Engine is better. Put them both on the same playing field, both NA or FI.... or both AT or both MT.... how do they compare? Again.... Just Saying.... smh...

 

[Gr8Hortoni]

Hmm...maybe I don't "need" the 2.7... But it felt really perky in the 150 I was a passenger in the other day. UGH, PERCEPTION YOU STINK!

It’s the same perception everyone seems to be having problems with. It’s not THAT drastic of a difference. Added bonus is the manual trans. Additional power is cheap and easily installed.

 

[MHand52]

DOH! I knew it. Too good to be true.

Ok so lets say 14% loss in the auto and average of 10-14 puts it at a 12% loss in the manual.

So, math comes out to.......

266.6 RWHP in V6 Auto
237.6 RWHP in 2.3L Manual

So 29 HP difference between the 4 banger and the V6.

29/237.6 = 12.2%

So the V6 auto gives you a 12% increase in real HP over the 2.3L Manual.

I would say you have sound numbers there, that seems closer to reality.

I personally wouldn't be worried about a lack of power in the 2.3. The K&N post is a good example, although slightly misleading because you will not gain 18 "PEAK" horsepower, you gain a max of 18HP somewhere "under the curve". Peak gains are closer to 8 HP. However, with simply a tune, possibly changing the thermostat and plugs with your K&N filter, you're looking to surpass the stock 2.7 numbers with ease.

Don't be surprised to stomp all over 4Runners and Tacos in a 2 door 2.3. Turbo power is not the same as NA power, and the Ecoboosts bring on max torque early (2800RPM) which will get you out of the hole faster. The 2.7 is a monster and would be "nice to have", but I would debate more on the Auto vs Manual before I would say it needs to have a 2.7.

 

[The Driving Viking]

Seeing dynos in videos online the 2.3 usually has around 245 rwhp and 275 rwtq stock and tuned 310 rwhp and 375 rwtq.

You can throw out that 18 to 20% estimate with this engine as it holds its power really good and close to the stock ratings. Also Its actually a Beast tuned.

 

[Zinn]

Hmm...maybe I don't "need" the 2.7... But it felt really perky in the 150 I was a passenger in the other day. UGH, PERCEPTION YOU STINK!

It’s an extra .4L of displacement. Not insignificant but not game-changing either. I’m sure if you rode in a 2.3L you would perceive similar but slightly less exciting results.

Frankly I miss having a turbocharger in my daily driver. The Mustang is super powerful but you have to wring it out to reach its full power. That feeling of sudden torque from a turbo spooling up is addictive, and I can confirm that it definitely excites the senses even in the lowly 2.3L

For me it’s manual all the way and I’ll make up the HP difference with a 91 octane tune.

 

[Used2jeep]

It’s the same perception everyone seems to be having problems with. It’s not THAT drastic of a difference. Added bonus is the manual trans. Additional power is cheap and easily installed.

And the bulk of the gains are where I would, comparing to how I drive now, would never get to and use (4K+ rpm).

 

[Andrew_EOD]

So, there is proof that say a tuned 2.3 is great. Wouldn't that mean though, that a turned 2.7 is greater-er?

 

[Studawg]

For a "true" A to A comparison, you should be comparing a 2.7L AT to a 2.3L AT. Just saying.... as your comparison is basically the same as someone comparing a NA Engine vs. a FI (forced induction) engine and saying that the smaller FI Engine is better. Put them both on the same playing field, both NA or FI.... or both AT or both MT.... how do they compare? Again.... Just Saying.... smh...

No, because that's not what we are trying to compare. Im not interested in a 4 cylinder Automatic. My options are 2.3 manual and 2.7 auto. Thats the point of this discussion. The OPs very first post is talking about power scavenging from an Automatic transmission and if you compare the V6 Auto to the 4 cyl manual, how much pure HP do you actually give up by going down 2 cylinders, considering you are taking the extra power loss from the Auto tranny out of the equation..

 

[jonwithanelcamino]

So, there is proof that say a tuned 2.3 is great. Wouldn't that mean though, that a turned 2.7 is greater-er?

Lol this.

I've tuned my last 3 turbo and supercharged cars. I will on the Bronco.

I don't need the 2.7....and tuned 2.3 is interesting (manual trans). but a tuned 2.7 on the 4 door is really appealing.

 

[lowmpg]

We know it's all speculation at this point, but manual trans has less power scavenge as auto, so does anyone have any analysis of 2.7L/auto vs 2.3/man RWHP?

Here is an article on the 2.7 stock dyno in 2015, imagine it is better now:

Ford 2.7 liter coming in at ~260 horsepower and ~325 ft-lb’s of torque.

https://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

Now take a look at the numbers with a tune

 

[Studawg]

Here is an article on the 2.7 stock dyno in 2015, imagine it is better now:

Ford 2.7 liter coming in at ~260 horsepower and ~325 ft-lb’s of torque.

https://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

Now take a look at the numbers with a tune

Again, I think you're missing the point of this discussion.

 

[lowmpg]

Again, I think you're missing the point of this discussion.

Stated what it is in an automatic, seems pretty relevant to " does anyone have any analysis of 2.7L/auto"

Sponsored