2.7 vs coyote power curve

[Drex]

Except it doesn't, it's crossing over at ~4600. I think their rpm scaling is off.

It is fine, if you look at 5252, the torque scale on the left intersects with the power on the right. Different scale for TQ and Power. The curve looks perfect for a truck.

Sponsored

 

[Spooled]

@frinesi2 that graphic is correct. It's a pretty neat design. The 2 pieces bolt together. There are bolts going to the block itself and also bolts that fasten the aluminum girdle to the main caps.

 

[frinesi2]

@frinesi2 that graphic is correct. It's a pretty neat design. The 2 pieces bolt together. There are bolts going to the block itself and also bolts that fasten the aluminum girdle to the main caps.

That's awesome. I'm getting kind of excited for this motor.

 

[Jalisurr]

Looks like dry weight of the 2.7 is 440 lbs, which is slightly lighter than the 3.5 at 449lbs or the 5.0 at 444, so they did a pretty good job of keeping the weight down for an iron block with turbos. I can't find a number for the 3.0, I would expect it's slightly lighter still.

 

[OX1]

1. 2.7 is great motor and will put out more peak torque than a 5.0 tuned.
2. 5.0 is almost definitely not going in the new bronco (at least not any time soon).

That said, what you don't get with the 2.7 is shown @ 1200 RPM.
And that torque is available instantly, on and off the throttle consistently,
and will vary very little, even in really high temps.

And that is mustang cam/tune, truck will be even better.

 

[Spooled]

Looks like dry weight of the 2.7 is 440 lbs, which is slightly lighter than the 3.5 at 449lbs or the 5.0 at 444, so they did a pretty good job of keeping the weight down for an iron block with turbos. I can't find a number for the 3.0, I would expect it's slightly lighter still.

I haven't had luck finding it either. The 2.3 is listed as approximately 340lbs. The 2.3 is aluminum block and head. I bet the 3.0 is around 400lbs.

So the question is does Ford want to give the Bronco a more rugged engine that's a bit heavier (2.7 EB), or a more powerful engine that's lighter and less rugged (on paper) with the 3.0 EB.

 

[blksn8k]

I think you are more likely to see the 3.0 than the 2.7 in the Bronco. One of the reasons I say that is because the Bronco will probably be using the same drivetrains as the next gen Ranger and Ford seems to have some aversion to using the same drivetrain in the Ranger as the F-150. Always has and probably always will.
I just hope they don't restrict the Bronco to the 2.3 only the way they have so far with the Ranger. That's the biggest reason I'm driving an F-150 today and not a Ranger and that is exactly the way Ford wants it.

 

[Jalisurr]

I think you are more likely to see the 3.0 than the 2.7 in the Bronco. One of the reasons I say that is because the Bronco will probably be using the same drivetrains as the next gen Ranger and Ford seems to have some aversion to using the same drivetrain in the Ranger as the F-150. Always has and probably always will.
I just hope they don't restrict the Bronco to the 2.3 only the way they have so far with the Ranger. That's the biggest reason I'm driving an F-150 today and not a Ranger and that is exactly the way Ford wants it.

The current ranger was adapted from the global T6 Ranger, it was never designed to fit larger engines so the 2.3 is the best they can put in it. The Bronco will be on the next-gen T6 platform, as will the next gen Ranger. It will be designed to fit larger engines, they were testing a 2.7 Ecoboost in Australia in a ranger mule a while ago. That coupled with the Bronco R having a V6 means it's all but confirmed we'll get a TTV6 of some form

 

[evoaire]

1. 2.7 is great motor and will put out more peak torque than a 5.0 tuned.
2. 5.0 is almost definitely not going in the new bronco (at least not any time soon).

That said, what you don't get with the 2.7 is shown @ 1200 RPM.
And that torque is available instantly, on and off the throttle consistently,
and will vary very little, even in really high temps.

And that is mustang cam/tune, truck will be even better.

This is what I’m trying to figure out short of getting some test vehicles dirty. I expect the v8 to provide me a level of power early that it consistently growing but steady. I’m assuming the turbo will feel like a dirt bike with a power band, Im approaching something that needs a steady power source, then a little more throttle should do it, then Wamo, and that usually turns out ugly, or physically painful.

Is this typical of turbo vehicles, when trailing.

 

[Jalisurr]

This is what I’m trying to figure out short of getting some test vehicles dirty. I expect the v8 to provide me a level of power early that it consistently growing but steady. I’m assuming the turbo will feel like a dirt bike with a power band, Im approaching something that needs a steady power source, then a little more throttle should do it, then Wamo, and that usually turns out ugly, or physically painful.

Is this typical of turbo vehicles, when trailing.

If by turbo vehicles you mean something like a modified subaru then yes. Giant, single scroll turbos have a lot of lag and you get that 'nothing, nothing, nothing, OMGEVERYTHING' feeling.

The V6 ecoboost engines have fairly small turbos that spool up very quickly. It's never going to have the instant throttle response of a big N/A motor but they're getting pretty close. Especially if you're above 2000 rpm or so so that the turbos are spooled a bit already.

 

[OX1]

This is what I’m trying to figure out short of getting some test vehicles dirty. I expect the v8 to provide me a level of power early that it consistently growing but steady. I’m assuming the turbo will feel like a dirt bike with a power band, Im approaching something that needs a steady power source, then a little more throttle should do it, then Wamo, and that usually turns out ugly, or physically painful.

Is this typical of turbo vehicles, when trailing.

I've datalogged my 2.7 and it takes about 1 second to reach full boost, at speed already. Very quick compared to turbo setups of old. But an eternity if, lets say, you were trying to reverse gears and stop an endo. Overall most are going to be very happy with the spool times on the 2,7. Many will say there is no lag at all.

One thing I don't like though, and it doesn't happen that often, is part of Fords strategy to build boost, is to close the throttle (especially when you command a high throttle) to pre-spool the turbo. So if you are stopped, and get into it hard, but for whatever reason, you have to get out of it and then you get right back in it hard again. You can catch it sleeping, and get nothing. I've had this happen once in a while I was moving at say 35, I think I see an opening to pass and hammer down, but at last split second, you thought you saw something in mirror and back out. You realize quick it was your imagination and get back into it. And THUD, the thing feels like my low compression EVO out of boost.

Big balancing act trying to balance MAP/TIP/BPV/Wastgate, and throttle. Most of the time though, Ford does great job on that programming.

Great article on some of that here.

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/ecoboost-tech-are-throttle-closures-bad/

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

Adjusted Dynos based on crank peak power and torque (both off of 2018+ f150)

once those turbos spool you get a good amount of torque

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

HP and Torque for the
2.3 Ecoboost (19+ Ranger)
2.7 EcoBoost (18+ F-150)
3.0 Powerstroke (18+ F-150)
5.0 Coyote (18+ F-150) ( Just as Reference)

 

[evoaire]

HP and Torque for the
2.3 Ecoboost (19+ Ranger)
2.7 EcoBoost (18+ F-150)
3.0 Powerstroke (18+ F-150)
5.0 Coyote (18+ F-150) ( Just as Reference)

Ugh, all I see are a bunch of colored lines with no distinction between who’s who.

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

Ugh, all I see are a bunch of colored lines with no distinction between who’s who.

top of the the graph. (Circles are hp triangles torque) Green 2.3. Red 2.7 Blue 3.0 Diesel Yellow 5.0

Sponsored