- Thread starter
- #1
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?
Sponsored
I have the 2.3L in my Ranger, there are a few issues here: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 can confirm. This statement cannot be anymore true.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.
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.I can confirm. This statement cannot be anymore true.
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. ?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.
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.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. ?
Sweet, my manual 2.3L is looking better and better all the time. Never thought Id be so excited about a 4 banger.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.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
Major mistake in your math here. The 2.3L manual will have 229.5 HP at the wheels!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
DOH! I knew it. Too good to be true.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.
THAT'S the kind of analysis I like!Major mistake in your math here. The 2.3L manual will have 229.5 HP at the wheels!
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?.........
https://www.knfilters.com/blog/gain...ower-for-your-2018-2019-ford-mustang-2-3l-l4/
Boom. Done.
Come on, where am I going wrong here? Somebody burst my bubble.