**REAL rwhp** 2.7L vs 2.3L

BuddysB6g

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
JAMES
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
68
Location
71446
Vehicle(s)
Porsche Cayenne
Clubs
 
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?





Advertisement

 
OP
BuddysB6g

BuddysB6g

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
JAMES
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
68
Location
71446
Vehicle(s)
Porsche Cayenne
Clubs
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #2
Welp, should've Googled first : If you go with 15% for manual and 20% for auto, divide the rwhp by .85 for manual and .80 for auto.

So- 2.7 = 310 x 20% = 62 310-62 = 248 rwhp and 2.3 = 270 x 15% = 40.5 270-40.5= 229 rwhp

add: 2.3/auto = 216 rwhp
 
Last edited:

Used2jeep

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
3,146
Location
Massachuvian
Vehicle(s)
2007 Crown Vic P71
Clubs
 
But is the curve "peaky"? I'm a granny I admit. Most of my driving is sub-2k rpm which is where the graphs typically start.
 

Zinn

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
203
Reaction score
464
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT, 2020 Ranger Lariat
But is the curve "peaky"? I'm a granny I admit. Most of my driving is sub-2k rpm which is where the graphs typically start.
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.
 

SuckItMcGee

Active Member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
128
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
2013 Ford Flex EB, 2003 Lexus LS430
Clubs
 
I can confirm. This statement cannot be anymore true.
Yep, same for our 3.5 EB Flex. It doesn't help that the Flex is HEAVY and shaped like a brick, but it gets horrendous gas mileage and has a tiny-ass tank.
 

SoccerDude

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
284
Reaction score
830
Location
West Texas
Vehicle(s)
4Runner
Yep, same for our 3.5 EB Flex. It doesn't help that the Flex is HEAVY and shaped like a brick, but it gets horrendous gas mileage and has a tiny-ass tank.
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. 😄
 

Andrew_EOD

Badlands
Active Member
First Name
Andrew
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
33
Reaction score
61
Location
Panama City
Vehicle(s)
Ford Focus ST
My current ride is the 2.0L ecoboost Focus ST. I still manage over 29 mpg... for what it's worth.
 

SuckItMcGee

Active Member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
128
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
2013 Ford Flex EB, 2003 Lexus LS430
Clubs
 
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. 😄
It seems Ford only cares about the range in the F-150 (which to their point, is the #1 vehicle in sales in the US). I don't really care about gas mileage myself (as long as it's not in the teens and doesn't spit out an unreasonable amount of emissions), but I DO care about not having to fill up 3 times on my way to the beach. I'd love to be able to option an auxiliary gas tank for the Bronco.
 

Studawg

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
798
Reaction score
1,659
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
02 Excursion, 96 Land Cruiser, 13 Land Cruiser
Welp, should've Googled first : If you go with 15% for manual and 20% for auto, divide the rwhp by .85 for manual and .80 for auto.

So- 2.7 = 310 x 20% = 62 310-62 = 248 rwhp and 2.3 = 270 x 15% = 40.5 270-40.5= 229 rwhp

add: 2.3/auto = 216 rwhp
Sweet, my manual 2.3L is looking better and better all the time. Never thought Id be so excited about a 4 banger.
 

MHand52

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Matt
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
57
Location
Colorado Springs
Vehicle(s)
2014 Mustang GT/CS
Clubs
 
Welp, should've Googled first : If you go with 15% for manual and 20% for auto, divide the rwhp by .85 for manual and .80 for auto.

So- 2.7 = 310 x 20% = 62 310-62 = 248 rwhp and 2.3 = 270 x 15% = 40.5 270-40.5= 229 rwhp

add: 2.3/auto = 216 rwhp
I wouldn't base your calculation on the "dated" 20% loss for auto and 15% loss for a manual. Manuals do have less DT loss than an auto, but the 10R80 has been noted to have historically low loss compared to other auto transmissions of the past, and certainly is closer to the 15% number than it is 20%. I was deep in nerd mode when the 18 Mustang came out and I spent months comparing auto Dyno numbers to Manual dyno numbers.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...veals-coyote-v8-produces-415-rwhp-121385.html

Many tests like these show the 10R80 cars making between 405 and 415 stock, estimating DT loss between 12-15%! Even if the 2018s are underrated (which I dont think so from experience in Mexico), 480HP puts DT loss on the Auto at 14%. MT82s Are bringing only slightly lower than that, 10-14% DT Loss.
 

Studawg

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
798
Reaction score
1,659
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
02 Excursion, 96 Land Cruiser, 13 Land Cruiser
Welp, should've Googled first : If you go with 15% for manual and 20% for auto, divide the rwhp by .85 for manual and .80 for auto.

So- 2.7 = 310 x 20% = 62 310-62 = 248 rwhp and 2.3 = 270 x 15% = 40.5 270-40.5= 229 rwhp
Major mistake in your math here. The 2.3L manual will have 229.5 HP at the wheels! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

But seriously, only a difference of 18.5 RWHP between the 2.3L manual and the V6 Automatic?

Thats only a gain of 8%!

Wait, what's this?.........

Screen Shot 2020-09-17 at 11.59.05 AM.png



https://www.knfilters.com/blog/gain...ower-for-your-2018-2019-ford-mustang-2-3l-l4/

Boom. Done. :cool:

Come on, where am I going wrong here? Somebody burst my bubble.
 

Gr8Hortoni

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
356
Reaction score
1,009
Location
Whitehall, Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler, Ram Rebel. Previously 2 wranglers and 4 Broncos
Clubs
 
by 5 stars chassis dyno, real power is about 255/280 tq, not sure where I saw it but the 2.7 was around 265-270 I believe. Both numbers were from chassis dynos. Seems like the turbo engines (in these cases anyways) didn’t have as drastic of a drop off as is the usual case.
 

Studawg

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
798
Reaction score
1,659
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
02 Excursion, 96 Land Cruiser, 13 Land Cruiser
I wouldn't base your calculation on the "dated" 20% loss for auto and 15% loss for a manual. Manuals do have less DT loss than an auto, but the 10R80 has been noted to have historically low loss compared to other auto transmissions of the past, and certainly is closer to the 15% number than it is 20%. I was deep in nerd mode when the 18 Mustang came out and I spent months comparing auto Dyno numbers to Manual dyno numbers.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...veals-coyote-v8-produces-415-rwhp-121385.html

Many tests like these show the 10R80 cars making between 405 and 415 stock, estimating DT loss between 12-15%! Even if the 2018s are underrated (which I dont think so from experience in Mexico), 480HP puts DT loss on the Auto at 14%. MT82s Are bringing only slightly lower than that, 10-14% DT Loss.
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.
 
OP
BuddysB6g

BuddysB6g

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
JAMES
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
68
Location
71446
Vehicle(s)
Porsche Cayenne
Clubs
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #15

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top