Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[HM-2]

6 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Point is you need turbos to spool to make torque

Most modern turbo engines make peak torque from below 2000RPM to almost all the way to the redline. If you're flooring it from idle then yeah, in that bottom 1400rpm a larger displacement N/A motor might briefly feel quicker off the line. But odds are the actual empirical figures would suggest otherwise.

 

Something like a 3.0 turbo BMW B58 makes more power and torque than a 4.4 N/A N62 at every single point in the rev range above 1200rpm. 

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, HM-2 said:

Most modern turbo engines make peak torque from below 2000RPM to almost all the way to the redline. If you're flooring it from idle then yeah, in that bottom 1400rpm a larger displacement N/A motor might briefly feel quicker off the line. But odds are the actual empirical figures would suggest otherwise.

Topic was about rock crawling and things like that, you blip the throttle a lot off idle.

[HM-2]

6 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Topic was about rock crawling and things like that, you blip the throttle a lot off idle.

A bigger concern there is lag. Less about outright torque- because a forced induction motor will always have the advantage there especially when you get into the realms of modification. More about the physical delay in making peak boost. I can see why in that specific use case if you weren't keeping RPM above idle constantly if wound be more problematic, but if you want peak torque from zero rpm with no threshold at all then electric motors are the way to go.

[MadyTehWolfie]

5 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Point is you need turbos to spool to make torque, low speed stuff you're not always running at mid-high rpms. Modding is a dumb argument, when you're buying a vehicle straight from the manufacturer you shouldn't have to mod it to make it better than an option they could have done otherwise.

 

It's very clear when you drive these trucks with these engines that the turbo ones are dogs.

Exp:

3 gens of 5.4
2 gens of 3.5
2.7
2 gens of 4.6

Guess which ones suck off the line? The turbo engines.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03tES-VPHEU46_di417E9G9Kor3zQ%3A1594918473070&ei=SYYQX7XwA9WLytMP05ywkAk&q=5.0+peak+torque&oq=5.0+peak+torque&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKABOgQIABBHOgQIIxAnOgYIABAWEB46BQghEKsCOgcIIRAKEKABUIkkWPwvYLExaABwAXgAgAFZiAHMA5IBATaYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj1uKGontLqAhXVhXIEHVMODJIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+2.7+peak+torque&oq=ford+2.7+peak+t&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j33l2.6791j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

2.7 makes peak tq before the 5.0

Point is the turbos they fit on the 2.7 and the 3.5 arent even medium sized turbos and have low to mid power bands not mid to high. American muscle drag raced both the 5.0 and the 3.5 trucks the 3.5 was always faster though in real world they are pretty much the same. In terms of tq specs between the 2.7 and the 5.0 its so close it makes no difference. Being slower is not a better option lol. The 3.5 in the truck is a faster truck with better low end power then a 5.0.

4 minutes ago, HM-2 said:

Most modern turbo engines make peak torque from below 2000RPM to almost all the way to the redline. If you're flooring it from idle then yeah, in that bottom 1400rpm a larger displacement N/A motor might briefly feel quicker off the line. But odds are the actual empirical figures would suggest otherwise.

 

Something like a 3.0 turbo BMW B58 makes more power and torque than a 4.4 N/A N62 at every single point in the rev range above 1200rpm. 

Yup modern turbo cars not slow or laggy like they once were.

2 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Topic was about rock crawling and things like that, you blip the throttle a lot off idle.

An again at lower rpm the turbo car makes more low end tq. Their turbos are meant to spool up quickly with almost no lag. Your trying to argue against raw numbers from the same manufacturer and hard drag results from American muscle. You can blip the throttle all you want 400lbs of torque you will not be making with the 5.0 damn thing has to rev out to 3800-4500rpm just to make torque. Even if you blipped the throttle the 2.7 is making more torque as the turbos develop peak tq at 2750rpm. You can argue all you want but the hard numbers refute your argument. N/A engines dont magically make the hp and tq they advertise you have to be at WOT and rev it out to the rpm it needs to build the power. Same thing for a turbo car, the difference comes to blipping the throttle and how fast they spool up is turbo size and ford optimized the engines with the right turbo sizes to spool up as quick as possible. These engines dont come with massive turbos you have to wait to spool up in. A mk7 gti with a is30 turbo makes more torque then a 5.0 and makes it sooner in the rpm band lol

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 minute ago, HM-2 said:

A bigger concern there is lag. Less about outright torque- because a forced induction motor will always have the advantage there especially when you get into the realms of modification. More about the physical delay in making peak boost. I can see why in that specific use case if you weren't keeping RPM above idle constantly if wound be more problematic, but if you want peak torque from zero rpm with no threshold at all then electric motors are the way to go.

Depends on how big the turbos are. On these engines the turbos are pretty tiny. Wouldnt even call them a medium sized turbo.

[HM-2]

7 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Depends on how big the turbos are. On these engines the turbos are pretty tiny. Wouldnt even call them a medium sized turbo.

Lag and boost threshold aren't the same thing. It's possible for a relatively small, fast spooling turbo to have significant lag if things like the design of intercoolers and pipework aren't optimised for response. That's why lots of manufacturers have moved to things like hot-V designs and chargecooling  to minimise pipework lengths.

 

Don't get me wrong, turbo size and particularly bearing design plays a role in what people perceive as lag, but actual lag is mostly a product of whatever sits between the compressor wheel and block.

[MadyTehWolfie]

7 minutes ago, HM-2 said:

Lag and boost threshold aren't the same thing. It's possible for a relatively small, fast spooling turbo to have significant lag if things like the design of intercoolers and pipework aren't optimised for response. That's why lots of manufacturers have moved to things like hot-V designs and chargecooling  to minimise pipework lengths.

This is true, though after driving the 3.5 its not what Id consider "laggy" though compared to my gti you can feel the difference. Depends on what rpm and the speed at which I step on it. At a dead stop no lag what so ever. Either way stock 5.0 is a bit guttless down low. It was never designed to be a tq monster from down low. If you want real down low tq buy a chevy v8 with the 5.0 it likes to be revved out much like most euro and asian v8's.

 

335I's with upgraded turbos didnt feel any real lag with it. was making like 550-600 all wheel tq. I dont know why people are trying to make the 2.7 and the 3.5 look like it has the low end turbo lag of a mk4 supra.

[AlwaysFSX]

I'm not even talking about where peak torque is, that's irrelevant, though that seems to have gone over heads like a 747. Any time I've done any kind of crawling it's maneuvering at low rpms where I need extra torque. 1500 and less. You aren't spooling turbos at that point. If you're at 3000 rpm offroad it's not going to matter much which engine you pick.

 

Guess what makes more torque down that low?

 

The engine with the larger displacement. I say this having driven a 3.5, 5.0, and 2.7.

 

22 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

This is true, though after driving the 3.5 its not what Id consider "laggy"

Jesus what would be your standard for laggy. The new 3.5s are better but still not good.

[MadyTehWolfie]

35 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I'm not even talking about where peak torque is, that's irrelevant, though that seems to have gone over heads like a 747. Any time I've done any kind of crawling it's maneuvering at low rpms where I need extra torque. 1500 and less. You aren't spooling turbos at that point. If you're at 3000 rpm offroad it's not going to matter much which engine you pick.

 

Guess what makes more torque down that low?

 

The engine with the larger displacement. I say this having driven a 3.5, 5.0, and 2.7.

 

Jesus what would be your standard for laggy. The new 3.5s are better but still not good.

Ok buddy you believe what you want to, 3.5 tows the 5.0 backwards for a reason. These turbo engines even at low boost will still make more tq down low. Your arguing low boost/not as much spool vs less then a second of throttle on a N/A. Realistically your not blipping your way over rocks your giving it more gas then that and at lower rpm the turbos make more power. 5.0 doesn't have jack shit below 1500 rpm definitely not going over any boulders or rocks. Want tq that low get a LS or a 6.2 hemi or add a positive displacement super charger on the 5.0 stock they are guttless that low.

 

Let's be real here we are comparing the bronco to the pentastar V6 in the Wrangler 2.7>pentastar. 

[AlwaysFSX]

7 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Ok buddy you believe what you want to, 3.5 tows the 5.0 backwards for a reason. These turbo engines even at low boost will still make more tq down low. Your arguing low boost/not as much spool vs less then a second of throttle on a N/A. Realistically your not blipping your way over rocks your giving it more gas then that and at lower rpm the turbos make more power. 5.0 doesn't have jack shit below 1500 rpm definitely not going over any boulders or rocks. Want tq that low get a LS or a 6.2 hemi or add a positive displacement super charger on the 5.0 stock they are guttless that low.

 

Let's be real here we are comparing the bronco to the pentastar V6 in the Wrangler 2.7>pentastar. 

I guess I just don't know after taking both off road. Silly me.

[HM-2]

45 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Any time I've done any kind of crawling it's maneuvering at low rpms where I need extra torque. 1500 and less. You aren't spooling turbos at that point. 

You very often are, actually. BMW B58 makes peak torque (369lb/ft) at 1380rpm. A 2.3 Ecoboost makes 240lb/ft at 500rpm. In both cases this will be significantly more than a larger N/A engine at the same point in the rev range. For instance a 5.0 Coyote doesn't make 240lb/ft until well over 2000rpm.

 

Like I said, there are some specifics of turbo throttle response that I can see being undesirable in crawling, but comparative lack of torque between idle and 1500rpm isn't really a problem with modern engines; in fact even at this low an engine speed they usually out-torque comparable N/A rivals.

 

Oh course "comparable" means we should take into account the fact a turbo four pot going into a coupé and a turbo four pot going into an off-roader are going to be tuned very differently.

 

 

Also, personal experience is subjective, measured figures aren't. There's nothing wrong with preferring one engine over another in terms of your subjective driving experience, you don't need to argue your butt dyno overrides factual data.

[MadyTehWolfie]

16 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I guess I just don't know after taking both off road. Silly me.

You keep moving the goal posts after being proven wrong time and a time again. Just because your not at full boost doesn't mean your making nothing with the turbo. You also don't take into account how drive by wire affects turbo vs N/A. Not sure how many more facts we can throw at you before you finally understand that your just plain wrong. You can claim anything you want fact remains that the dynos disprove you. 

https://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-v6-tuned-by-5-star/2015-f-150-2-7-liter-ecoboost-stock-vs-93-octane-performance-tune-dyno/

 

If you look at the stock line it's making far more down low tq then the 5.0 will ever dream about.

15 minutes ago, HM-2 said:

You very often are, actually. BMW B58 makes peak torque (369lb/ft) at 1380rpm. A 2.3 Ecoboost makes 240lb/ft at 500rpm. In both cases this will be significantly more than a larger N/A engine at the same point in the rev range. For instance a 5.0 Coyote doesn't make 240lb/ft until well over 2000rpm.

 

Like I said, there are some specifics of turbo throttle response that I can see being undesirable in crawling, but comparative lack of torque between idle and 1500rpm isn't really a problem with modern engines; in fact even at this low an engine speed they usually out-torque comparable N/A rivals.

 

Oh course "comparable" means we should take into account the fact a turbo four pot going into a coupé and a turbo four pot going into an off-roader are going to be tuned very differently.

 

 

Also, personal experience is subjective, measured figures aren't. 

Take into account the crappy ford drive by wire and no shit the turbo 2.7 and 3.5 will feel slow. In the 2.3 I had it had a mode that adjusted throttle response on the ecoboost. The difference is night and day between the mods. Stock and wet weather severely hampered performance while track mode made it feel close to drive by cable. This is also in my 5.0 and you definitely feel it hampering performance down low. I imagine it's far worse in a truck . The bronco has 100 more tq then hp typical from a small fast spooling turbo. 

[vetali]

Lets be real here, 90% of these things are gonna be passing by you going 30 over the speed limit sounding like an apache helicopter with 800 dollar a piece mud tires and shit aftermarket rims. Only mudbogging they'll see is from the passenger. Don't think they really give a shit about the engines. Just like jeep owners.

[MadyTehWolfie]

53 minutes ago, vetali said:

Lets be real here, 90% of these things are gonna be passing by you going 30 over the speed limit sounding like an apache helicopter with 800 dollar a piece mud tires and shit aftermarket rims. Only mudbogging they'll see is from the passenger. Don't think they really give a shit about the engines. Just like jeep owners.

Lol so true

[AlwaysFSX]

Silly me, I forgot we're all doing stuff at WOT off road. How could I forget that's what you do. Talk about trying to set unrealistic goalposts. No surprises here though.

[TVwazhere]

Me reading replies

[AlwaysFSX]

7 hours ago, TVwazhere said:

Me reading replies

I exist to appease

[Onceinabook]

hi, i worked as a mechanic for a while before heading back to university, anyhow do you guys feel about antique trucks?

[AlwaysFSX]

11 hours ago, Onceinabook said:

hi, i worked as a mechanic for a while before heading back to university, anyhow do you guys feel about antique trucks?

Freaking cool

[bcredeur97]

16 hours ago, Onceinabook said:

hi, i worked as a mechanic for a while before heading back to university, anyhow do you guys feel about antique trucks?

Clean/restored old stuff is always cool  

[asininedennis]

Retrobright a car

[Bitter]

7 hours ago, asininedennis said:

Retrobright a car

Retrobright dentures

[warmmilk]

On 7/16/2020 at 9:50 AM, AlwaysFSX said:

Point is you need turbos to spool to make torque, low speed stuff you're not always running at mid-high rpms. Modding is a dumb argument, when you're buying a vehicle straight from the manufacturer you shouldn't have to mod it to make it better than an option they could have done otherwise.

 

It's very clear when you drive these trucks with these engines that the turbo ones are dogs.

Exp:

3 gens of 5.4
2 gens of 3.5
2.7
2 gens of 4.6

Guess which ones suck off the line? The turbo engines.

I test drove a 2.7 turbo F150 when I was shopping for a truck, it made boost pretty much as soon as you were on the gas.  After my dad's ecodiesel ram (which was dead off boost and took a while to start building boost) this was something I paid particular attention to.  I mean it's no V8, V8 is still definitely better off idle.  But there isn't a significant no boost from idle to whatever rpm to start building boost.  That being said, I'm pretty sure they were limiting boost at lower rpm with the tune so that soccer mom's aren't lighting up their tires at every stop light.

 

however, things may change with a manual transmission.  auto transmissions do a good job putting load on an engine and can do that even before you're even moving, and you can enhance that further with a bit of brake torquing.  And that loading up the engine will build boost.  But with a manual transmission you can rev it up but you can't load the engine unless you're slipping the clutch.  and you gotta be really good at that to slip the clutch just right to build boost and not move and then start moving smoothly while rock climbing... then there's the whole overheating and exploding the clutch in the middle of nowhere issue...  you can always do the rev it up and dump the clutch thing, but that presents its own set of issues.

 

 

I would have bought the truck if the pricing was more competitive, I didn't have any issues with the engine.  But I ended up buying a similarly equipped Ram with a V8 for about 10k less.

[That_Random_Guy]

welp after a month of waiting finally got around to doin leakdown tests and such on my stang, good compression but bad valve guides and seals etc and was gonna cost around 1k, then i wanted to do basically the entire top end and had a realization... why put 4k in top end parts on a 30 year old bottom end and spend 2k+ in labor when i can get a motor for the same price. tired of playin the mystery whats gonna fail lottery and just wanna get reliable

 

https://www.jegs.com/i/ATK-Engines/059/HP20C/10002/-1

 

ordered this today shame its on backorder so now i play the waiting game again

[XGoodGuyFitz]

1 hour ago, That_Random_Guy said:

welp after a month of waiting finally got around to doin leakdown tests and such on my stang, good compression but bad valve guides and seals etc and was gonna cost around 1k, then i wanted to do basically the entire top end and had a realization... why put 4k in top end parts on a 30 year old bottom end and spend 2k+ in labor when i can get a motor for the same price. tired of playin the mystery whats gonna fail lottery and just wanna get reliable

 

https://www.jegs.com/i/ATK-Engines/059/HP20C/10002/-1

 

ordered this today shame its on backorder so now i play the waiting game again

what year is your mustang?