Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

gregsfc · 06-09-2016, 07:36 AM

Of course most of us can't test out different vehicles with different engine choices, but I just have to believe that there must be a huge character difference between driving the Stang with the NA 3.7V6 that generates torque and hp linearly up the RPM range with decent all-out performance and as good or better mpg as any other Stang choice for most drivers; and the Turbo-DI 2.3 I4 choice where torque will come on quickly and stay flat while hp comes on in the same linear fashion. For some people like me, who thrive on strength down low on the tach, there is no substitute for this character of performance even if mpg and raw performance are somewhere about equal.

This same similar choice came in to play for me when shopping for a full-size truck. The low-end torque king is the Ram Ecodiesel with only 240 hp. With respect to pickup truck duty though, you must have a minimum level of horsepower for the work level that you'll be doing. So for me and what I use a truck for, 240 hp is plenty. But the problem with Ram ED is the limited configurations, the minimum trim levels where the ED can be optioned, and of course all the reliability issues that have come with clean diesels. Ford and only Ford offers this flat, low-end starting torque at or about 350 ft-pounds from 1900-4500 RPM that is offered to the masses for only $799 over the base 3.5-liter NA V6. Even though I feel strongly that the slightly lower-rated mpg of the NA V6 could return me at least equal, real-world mpg as what I'm getting with the Ecoboost, there is no way that I'd choose that whimpy, torqueless NA V6 just to save only $799. It would be a more simple design with no turbo worries. It would have plenty of power/torque for what I need. It would provide right around the same mpg; maybe even better, but it would not be anything like the Ecoboost for driving character.

On the other hand, the Stang is optioned a little differently when comparing the two lower end engine choices. The 3.7L NA V6 is pitted against a 2.3L I4 EB, and the former has two more cylinders, so it's a little different than it is comparing the two cheapest F150 truck engine choices. With respect to the F150, the 2.7L EB is the clear performance choice by any measure with a very minor upcharge. But I can say that if Ford had not come out with the 2.7 and instead, offered the 2.3 EB in the full-size truck for the smaller configurations like I've got (2wd, standard cab, short bed with 3.31 rear axle at or about 4170 pounds), and taking into account that it would have to be de-tuned somewhat for truck durability, and it had, say, 265 hp and 305 peak-ft pounds of torque; and that real-world mpg were still about the same for the 3.5 NA, and the 2.3 EB, I'd still opt for the EB just because it would have higher peak torque, and the torque would be much, much flatter than the base engine even in that scenario.

So, while I agree that the promise of improved mpg via Ford's Ecoboost or any other company's DI-turbo charging technology is a huge failure in so far as fuel savings, I still like the technology, because it puts the performance where I like it; it's much cheaper and somewhat more reliabile than it is for diesels today in America; and it provides similar mpg as equal-performing NA technologies when one lets the torque do the work and is not a sport-inspired driver doing the comparison.

06-09-2016, 07:36 AM	#40 (permalink)
gregsfc EcoModding Apprentice Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Cookeville,TN,USA Posts: 118 Thanks: 15 Thanked 22 Times in 11 Posts	Of course most of us can't test out different vehicles with different engine choices, but I just have to believe that there must be a huge character difference between driving the Stang with the NA 3.7V6 that generates torque and hp linearly up the RPM range with decent all-out performance and as good or better mpg as any other Stang choice for most drivers; and the Turbo-DI 2.3 I4 choice where torque will come on quickly and stay flat while hp comes on in the same linear fashion. For some people like me, who thrive on strength down low on the tach, there is no substitute for this character of performance even if mpg and raw performance are somewhere about equal. This same similar choice came in to play for me when shopping for a full-size truck. The low-end torque king is the Ram Ecodiesel with only 240 hp. With respect to pickup truck duty though, you must have a minimum level of horsepower for the work level that you'll be doing. So for me and what I use a truck for, 240 hp is plenty. But the problem with Ram ED is the limited configurations, the minimum trim levels where the ED can be optioned, and of course all the reliability issues that have come with clean diesels. Ford and only Ford offers this flat, low-end starting torque at or about 350 ft-pounds from 1900-4500 RPM that is offered to the masses for only $799 over the base 3.5-liter NA V6. Even though I feel strongly that the slightly lower-rated mpg of the NA V6 could return me at least equal, real-world mpg as what I'm getting with the Ecoboost, there is no way that I'd choose that whimpy, torqueless NA V6 just to save only $799. It would be a more simple design with no turbo worries. It would have plenty of power/torque for what I need. It would provide right around the same mpg; maybe even better, but it would not be anything like the Ecoboost for driving character. On the other hand, the Stang is optioned a little differently when comparing the two lower end engine choices. The 3.7L NA V6 is pitted against a 2.3L I4 EB, and the former has two more cylinders, so it's a little different than it is comparing the two cheapest F150 truck engine choices. With respect to the F150, the 2.7L EB is the clear performance choice by any measure with a very minor upcharge. But I can say that if Ford had not come out with the 2.7 and instead, offered the 2.3 EB in the full-size truck for the smaller configurations like I've got (2wd, standard cab, short bed with 3.31 rear axle at or about 4170 pounds), and taking into account that it would have to be de-tuned somewhat for truck durability, and it had, say, 265 hp and 305 peak-ft pounds of torque; and that real-world mpg were still about the same for the 3.5 NA, and the 2.3 EB, I'd still opt for the EB just because it would have higher peak torque, and the torque would be much, much flatter than the base engine even in that scenario. So, while I agree that the promise of improved mpg via Ford's Ecoboost or any other company's DI-turbo charging technology is a huge failure in so far as fuel savings, I still like the technology, because it puts the performance where I like it; it's much cheaper and somewhat more reliabile than it is for diesels today in America; and it provides similar mpg as equal-performing NA technologies when one lets the torque do the work and is not a sport-inspired driver doing the comparison.