Hey Ford!!! Screw you guys!!!!

[91stranger]

wow, I just got caught up reading the 10 pages where I left off and this was humorous..... Lots of haters on TRS, that's for sure. It's like people forget this is a forum and you shouldn't be hazed for saying something you feel is right by you. ALL vehicles have ups and downs no matter what make or model.

One thing no one mentioned when it comes to making power is previous owners maintenance..... a 20 year old 460 that has been abused and neglected wont be as good as a 20 year old 460 that has been taken well care of and that's a fact jack!

 

[8thTon]

@8thTon for president, he knows all. Hell, why haven't you given the secret recipe for the COVID19 cure yet.

As are you. Yes, gears make a subpar engine do the same work as the engine that should be doing the work. I concede.

Tell you what, you build the baddest ass 1.5 turbo you can and I'll build a streetable 351w (I won't even bother with a big block) and we'll hook them crank to crank at whatever RPM you choose for your 1.5 and I choose four my 351, then we'll dump the clutch to see which one explodes.

Generally when one goes for the cheap shot it means you are unable to support your position, and reflects poorly on you. Your proposed test is contrived and a meaningless distraction not based on any of my points at all, and would prove nothing. The power output of an engine tells you nothing about when the parts break, so in effect you're trying to change the subject having lost the debate.

Nonetheless, if you had two engines that produced the same hp with the same shaped power curve, regardless of if one had a gear set to move the power peaks to the same rpm, and you hooked them up to each other with a clutch, you'd just burn up the clutch. They'd be producing exactly equal and opposite power. The displacement and technology used to make the power doesn't make a damn difference. When something breaks in one of the engines is not something you'd be able to tell from knowing the displacement of the engine.

Give me a long enough lever (gear) and I'll move the world. Possible, sure, practical, no.

This is what gets me with the "oh you have to gear it right" arguement.

Yes, you could take a 1.3L festiva and gear it low enough to literally pull a freight train.

But in the instances im talking about its like taking a world record holding strongman and putting them in a contest to break a large rusty bolt loose with an average guy.

Sure, the average guy can do it with a 6ft cheater bar, while the strongman needs nothing but the 1/2in ratchet. So it would then appear to anyone who doesnt understand mechanics that the average guy is just as strong as his opponent.

Gears are mechanical advantage, same as a cheater bar. But it doesnt make the guy with a huge cheater bar as strong as the guy without, even if the end result is the same.

This is the fundamental error that gets people confused about the whole torque vs HP argument. Torque is a measure of angular force, it has no motion associated with it. Any of us can produce more torque than the biggest truck diesel. Force is a static quantity, and when you apply torque to an object with a lever there is no energy transfer (or work done) until the object moves.

When you talk about the torque output of an engine it is a sloppy way talking about the power, because it is really torque at an rpm, or force with motion - and that is the definition of power (HP = T * RPM / 5252). It comes about because on a dyno it's easy to measure the static force and rpm an engine is producing at any point, and then to use that to calculate power. The torque number is just a step along the way to finding the power and is not very meaningful on its own. If you tell me the torque and the rpm an engine makes I will tell you the power at that rpm - it isn't optional.

If you don't have a full plot of the power curve, and you know the rpm of the peak torque and peak power, you can get a feel for how broad or how peaky the power curve might be.

If you are running an engine at a single rpm, the only characteristic about that engine that matters is the power at that rpm. If you want to accelerate a vehicle and the engine must accelerate over a range of rpm, then you want to know the area under the power curve over that rpm range. The area under the curve represents the mechanical energy the engine transferred to the load as you accelerated.

 

[Dirtman]

Generally when one goes for the cheap shot it means you are unable to support your position, and reflects poorly on you. Your proposed test is contrived and a meaningless distraction not based on any of my points at all, and would prove nothing. The power output of an engine tells you nothing about when the parts break, so in effect you're trying to change the subject having lost the debate.

Nonetheless, if you had two engines that produced the same hp with the same shaped power curve, regardless of if one had a gear set to move the power peaks to the same rpm, and you hooked them up to each other with a clutch, you'd just burn up the clutch. They'd be producing exactly equal and opposite power. The displacement and technology used to make the power doesn't make a damn difference. When something breaks in one of the engines is not something you'd be able to tell from knowing the displacement of the engine.



This is the fundamental error that gets people confused about the whole torque vs HP argument. Torque is a measure of angular force, it has no motion associated with it. Any of us can produce more torque than the biggest truck diesel. Force is a static quantity, and when you apply torque to an object with a lever there is no energy transfer (or work done) until the object moves.

When you talk about the torque output of an engine it is a sloppy way talking about the power, because it is really torque at an rpm, or force with motion - and that is the definition of power (HP = T * RPM / 5252). It comes about because on a dyno it's easy to measure the static force and rpm an engine is producing at any point, and then to use that to calculate power. The torque number is just a step along the way to finding the power and is not very meaningful on its own. If you tell me the torque and the rpm an engine makes I will tell you the power at that rpm - it isn't optional.

If you don't have a full plot of the power curve, and you know the rpm of the peak torque and peak power, you can get a feel for how broad or how peaky the power curve might be.

If you are running an engine at a single rpm, the only characteristic about that engine that matters is the power at that rpm. If you want to accelerate a vehicle and the engine must accelerate over a range of rpm, then you want to know the area under the power curve over that rpm range. The area under the curve represents the mechanical energy the engine transferred to the load as you accelerated.

 

[Ranger850]

The power output of an engine tells you nothing about when the parts break, so in effect you're trying to change the subject having lost the debate.

Nonetheless, if you had two engines that produced the same hp with the same shaped power curve, regardless of if one had a gear set to move the power peaks to the same rpm, and you hooked them up to each other with a clutch, you'd just burn up the clutch. They'd be producing exactly equal and opposite power. The displacement and technology used to make the power doesn't make a damn difference. When something breaks in one of the engines is not something you'd be able to tell from knowing the displacement of the engine.



This is the fundamental error that gets people confused about the whole torque vs HP argument. Torque is a measure of angular force, it has no motion associated with it. Any of us can produce more torque than the biggest truck diesel. Force is a static quantity, and when you apply torque to an object with a lever there is no energy transfer (or work done) until the object moves.

When you talk about the torque output of an engine it is a sloppy way talking about the power, because it is really torque at an rpm, or force with motion - and that is the definition of power (HP = T * RPM / 5252). It comes about because on a dyno it's easy to measure the static force and rpm an engine is producing at any point, and then to use that to calculate power. The torque number is just a step along the way to finding the power and is not very meaningful on its own. If you tell me the torque and the rpm an engine makes I will tell you the power at that rpm - it isn't optional.

If you don't have a full plot of the power curve, and you know the rpm of the peak torque and peak power, you can get a feel for how broad or how peaky the power curve might be.

If you are running an engine at a single rpm, the only characteristic about that engine that matters is the power at that rpm. If you want to accelerate a vehicle and the engine must accelerate over a range of rpm, then you want to know the area under the power curve over that rpm range. The area under the curve represents the mechanical energy the engine transferred to the load as you accelerated.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Anyway "the best" will vary from person to person and what they need.

wow, I just got caught up reading the 10 pages where I left off and this was humorous..... Lots of haters on TRS, that's for sure. It's like people forget this is a forum and you shouldn't be hazed for saying something you feel is right by you. ALL vehicles have ups and downs no matter what make or model.

I tried...

Generally when one goes for the cheap shot it means you are unable to support your position, and reflects poorly on you. Your proposed test is contrived and a meaningless distraction not based on any of my points at all, and would prove nothing. The power output of an engine tells you nothing about when the parts break, so in effect you're trying to change the subject having lost the debate.

Nonetheless, if you had two engines that produced the same hp with the same shaped power curve, regardless of if one had a gear set to move the power peaks to the same rpm, and you hooked them up to each other with a clutch, you'd just burn up the clutch. They'd be producing exactly equal and opposite power. The displacement and technology used to make the power doesn't make a damn difference. When something breaks in one of the engines is not something you'd be able to tell from knowing the displacement of the engine.



This is the fundamental error that gets people confused about the whole torque vs HP argument. Torque is a measure of angular force, it has no motion associated with it. Any of us can produce more torque than the biggest truck diesel. Force is a static quantity, and when you apply torque to an object with a lever there is no energy transfer (or work done) until the object moves.

When you talk about the torque output of an engine it is a sloppy way talking about the power, because it is really torque at an rpm, or force with motion - and that is the definition of power (HP = T * RPM / 5252). It comes about because on a dyno it's easy to measure the static force and rpm an engine is producing at any point, and then to use that to calculate power. The torque number is just a step along the way to finding the power and is not very meaningful on its own. If you tell me the torque and the rpm an engine makes I will tell you the power at that rpm - it isn't optional.

If you don't have a full plot of the power curve, and you know the rpm of the peak torque and peak power, you can get a feel for how broad or how peaky the power curve might be.

If you are running an engine at a single rpm, the only characteristic about that engine that matters is the power at that rpm. If you want to accelerate a vehicle and the engine must accelerate over a range of rpm, then you want to know the area under the power curve over that rpm range. The area under the curve represents the mechanical energy the engine transferred to the load as you accelerated.

There is more to it than that.

If you gotta feed X amount of hp you gotta feed X amount of hp. Ecoboost 3.5 will make good power but if you need that 400hp all the time you are going to be single digits same as anything else. So why bother with the Ecoboost?

It is a fuel miser when you don't need 400hp, you are just feeding a little 3.5L NA V6 when it isn't belting out its battle cry. When you need more power here comes the boost to make up the difference. That is the point of the Ecoboost. It is great for when you don't need a lot of power full time.

And with an engine like that, how well do they do running balls out all the time? Apparently Ford has doubts because after 9 years one has yet to grace a Super Duty and has designed two engines to do similar things to what the 3.5EB is capable of on paper.

Ford has had a great F-150 engine with the 3.5 Ecoboost for almost 10 years. Why did they bother to design the 'Zilla with similar power for the Super Duty? Longivity. It can be in a service truck that lugs around 15k lbs 24/7, get the 10mpg it takes to do so and do it forever. Mileage is going to be the same either way and one option will never eat a turbo.

There is more to it than curvy lines on paper as to which is better for what.

 

[sgtsandman]

I agree, the ecoboost engine is for those who only need that power on occasion. The big block is for those who need the power on a regular basis.

Why get an ecoboost engine if you are going to be in boost all the time and getting similar mileage to the big block?

Then there is the longevity side of things. I don’t think, but I don’t know for sure, that an ecoboost would hold up as long as a big block doing hauling duty day in and day out. I don’t think they were ever meant for that.

Granted, there is the turbo diesels in the big trucks that do ling haul duty day in and day out but I’m not sure that is an apples to apples comparison.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I

Then there is the longevity side of things. I don’t think, but I don’t know for sure, that an ecoboost would hold up as long as a big block doing hauling duty day in and day out. I don’t think they were ever meant for that.

This is why you never seen a 3.5 EB in a superduty despite it supposdly being able to outtorque a 6.2.

@8thTon if HP is more important then torque....then you should be able to replace a cummins I6 in a semi making 450hp (but 15-1600ftlbs of torque) with an raptor EB making 470 and pull just as good right?

 

[8thTon]

This is why you never seen a 3.5 EB in a superduty despite it supposdly being able to outtorque a 6.2.

@8thTon if HP is more important then torque....then you should be able to replace a cummins I6 in a semi making 450hp (but 15-1600ftlbs of torque) with an raptor EB making 470 and pull just as good right?

That is your suggestion, not mine - don't try to pretend it's my quote. You've quoted HP at one rpm, what does the power curve look like? If one is peaky and the other broad then they will not do the same work upon acceleration, as I wrote above. You do know that if the hp is the same at an rpm then the torque is too, right? If the shape of the power curve is the same for a given rpm then the torque is too.

I seriously doubt the Raptor engine has the same shaped power curve as the Cummins, but I'm not interested enough to look it up.

I tried...



There is more to it than that.

If you gotta feed X amount of hp you gotta feed X amount of hp. Ecoboost 3.5 will make good power but if you need that 400hp all the time you are going to be single digits same as anything else. So why bother with the Ecoboost?

It is a fuel miser when you don't need 400hp, you are just feeding a little 3.5L NA V6 when it isn't belting out its battle cry. When you need more power here comes the boost to make up the difference. That is the point of the Ecoboost. It is great for when you don't need a lot of power full time.

And with an engine like that, how well do they do running balls out all the time? Apparently Ford has doubts because after 9 years one has yet to grace a Super Duty and has designed two engines to do similar things to what the 3.5EB is capable of on paper.

Ford has had a great F-150 engine with the 3.5 Ecoboost for almost 10 years. Why did they bother to design the 'Zilla with similar power for the Super Duty? Longivity. It can be in a service truck that lugs around 15k lbs 24/7, get the 10mpg it takes to do so and do it forever. Mileage is going to be the same either way and one option will never eat a turbo.

There is more to it than curvy lines on paper as to which is better for what.

Some good points. It takes a certain amount of fuel to produce that hp, and there can be differences in efficiency but they may not be that great when it's really flat out. That's where the greater energy content of diesel vs. gasoline helps too. But even in big trucks it's not flat out all the time.

Longevity is another issue, and any engine configuration can be designed to last, it's just a matter of cost. Obviously large displacement NA iron block engines are the cheapest way to make power and have it last, which is why that was done first - but at the cost of fuel efficiency.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Some good points. It takes a certain amount of fuel to produce that hp, and there can be differences in efficiency but they may not be that great when it's really flat out. That's where the greater energy content of diesel vs. gasoline helps too. But even in big trucks it's not flat out all the time.

Longevity is another issue, and any engine configuration can be designed to last, it's just a matter of cost. Obviously large displacement NA iron block engines are the cheapest way to make power and have it last, which is why that was done first - but at the cost of fuel efficiency.

There isn't much fuel efficiency to gain by going to a small boosted engine in the HD world as of yet.

Our service truck here at work is about like a rolling chassis dyno. Every start from a stoplight is about like a dyno pull. On the open highway with the crusie set it will still get like 16mpg which considering what it is dragging along isn't bad at all. I doubt a Ecoboost would move what it moves and get much if any better mileage. Even turbo diesels are starting to price/upkeep themselves out of the game.

 

[91stranger]

Wow this is just boring now.... At least fight about something more interesting instead of "what if's" and acting like you know everything.... Let Rusty be Rusty and leave it be, heaven forbid if someone says something that 8thton disagrees with....

What kind of name is 8thton too BTW?? I never understood it......

 

[snoranger]

This is what happens when you put a Raptor motor in a semi truck...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Wow this is just boring now.... At least fight about something more interesting instead of "what if's" and acting like you know everything.... Let Rusty be Rusty and leave it be, heaven forbid if someone says something that 8thton disagrees with....

What kind of name is 8thton too BTW?? I never understood it......

All im saying is i may not have the mechanical, fabrication, or wireing skills alot of yall do around here...but ive been around enough to know what works, and what doesnt work, and a large, slow revving, torque laden engine is going to outwork a high whinding dwarf anytime.

Its like comparing a belgian draft horse to a friggin arabian.

 

[8thTon]

Wow this is just boring now.... At least fight about something more interesting instead of "what if's" and acting like you know everything.... Let Rusty be Rusty and leave it be, heaven forbid if someone says something that 8thton disagrees with....

So you're Rusty's White Knight come to rescue him from some annoying guy who deal with facts rather than hand waving? Rusty is clearly going to believe whatever he wants to, but he's not the only one who reads stuff here. And when was I ever obligated to entertain you?

What kind of name is 8thton too BTW?? I never understood it......

I can believe that.

 

[ericbphoto]

This is what happens when you put a Raptor motor in a semi truck...

View attachment 42908

I keep watching. But i can never catch the landing.

 

[Ranger850]

I keep watching. But i can never catch the landing.

That's how media works these days. they give you the info they want you to have and not the info you want to have. There is a reason the "landing' was cut from the vdo. Probably wasn't o good one. They would have to use a different Semi to make the jump. Not go as high and only use the "landing'of that vdo. Then edit the 2 vdo's together to make it look like the jump and landing was successful.