Unexpected side effect from the talk here.

[85_Ranger4x4]

And I'm saying that if it really was a "better powerband", every automaker around would've kept making low rpm engines. Instead, they all invested billions into new engine designs that did the exact opposite. Gearing matters.

Not really opposite. Instead of low end power now we have things like Ecoboost that makes power everywhere.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

And I'm saying that if it really was a "better powerband", every automaker around would've kept making low rpm engines. Instead, they all invested billions into new engine designs that did the exact opposite. Gearing matters.

I realize that area under the curve matters a lot more than peak numbers or where the peak occurs. I'm just saying that peak torque rpm shouldn't determine whether an engine is good at truck stuff or not. It's only a single part of the entire system.

As another fun exercise, GM's 8.1 probably has the lowest peak torque rpm of any naturally aspirated engine designed in the fairly recent past. They're exclusively work engines put into heavy duty trucks. It made peak torque of 440ft-lbs at 3200rpm or 54.3ft-lbs/L of displacement. That 96 3.0 I mentioned made 162ft-lbs for 54ft-lbs/L. If the 96 3.0 had simply been scaled up to 8.1L, it would've had 437.4ft-lbs @3250rpm. That's not enough difference in either category for anybody to notice from the driver's seat.

I understand gearing makes a difference and thats part of the total package.

But the bottom line is the 2.9 is a better "feeling" engine then the 3.0. Im sure either one is capable of carrying more then the rest of the truck, but with the same gears, same truck, etc etc, 9/10 the 2.9 takes it. Thats all there is to it.

Its not fair to pit a 3.45 geared 2.9 against a 4.10 geared 3.0. If you put 4.10s behind the 2.9 then the 2.9 is still gonna spank it.

 

[19Walt93]

The torque curve/ power band is the most important factor in truck engines. Think 300 six cylinder. We sold a pile of Super Duties with 5.4's and fewer with 6.8's before the 6.2 came out. Trucks with 3.73's often had transmission failures because they were constantly shifting down. The dealer's background was in sales and didn't understand that so he'd order V10 trucks with 3.73's thinking that they didn't need the 4.30's and that it would hurt mileage. That caused the shop a lot of headaches because the V10 torque peak is at a higher RPM than a 5.4. The 3.0 vulcan was a fine engine for a car or a 2wd truck that doesn't have to deal with hilly terrain.

 

[19Walt93]

Ecoboost engines build power at low revs because the turbos are sized for that, my 2.0 ecoboost Escape would outrun the 3.0 duratec 11 Escape it replaced. 280hp and 27.3 average mpg on a round trip to Mclean, Va while doing 75-80 on the highway and dealing with traffic never seen in New England. The engines we're talking about aren't ecoboost and don't have a turbo to fill in the gaps in power.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Its like comparing a 300 to a 302.

Under the same load a 302 is going to downshift probably twice as much as a 300, and its not going to have the snort coming off a light like a 300.

Engines are tuned high end nowadays because (from what ive read) its eaiser to control emissions and it gives more passing punch.

Thats why they need 6-10 speed autos so they can afford to drop 3 gears when their empty and spin 5000 up a hill. To me thats unacceptable, and totally stupid. Id rather it stay in OD and torque thru it.

 

[Snoranger]

 

[rusty ol ranger]

View attachment 34722

2.9 must be lane 3

 

[8thTon]

Power is power. Consider two engines that make the same power with the same "shape" to the power curve, but one of them is at twice the rpm. If you gear it down by 2X you will get exactly the same result at the wheels. You might not like the sound but it will work the same.

All of this is stories about engines that were not match to the gearing, so of course they did not perform.

 

[Snoranger]

2.9 must be lane 3

I’m pretty sure the 2.3lima is in lane 2, and the 2.3l Duratec already ran the race... twice.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Its like comparing a 300 to a 302.

Under the same load a 302 is going to downshift probably twice as much as a 300, and its not going to have the snort coming off a light like a 300.

Engines are tuned high end nowadays because (from what ive read) its eaiser to control emissions and it gives more passing punch.

Thats why they need 6-10 speed autos so they can afford to drop 3 gears when their empty and spin 5000 up a hill. To me thats unacceptable, and totally stupid. Id rather it stay in OD and torque thru it.

Better emissions and mpg for the engine to stay in its powerband and not have to lug up hills.

Like a diesel locomotove, the engine runs at its rated rpm for effiecency. There is no "coming off idle" or anything. It sits there and runs at X rpm because that is where it sips the least amount of fuel. That is what they are trying to replicate with a 6-10 speed transmission.

And I have yet to meet the hill to make my 302 downshift.

 

[stmitch]

Not really opposite. Instead of low end power now we have things like Ecoboost that makes power everywhere.

I was speaking only about naturally aspirated engines since both the 2.9 and 3.0 are naturally aspirated.

Obviously boosted engines, and certain hybrids can provide a "best of both worlds" approach.

 

[91stranger]

Have you ever driven a good running 2.9?
[/QUOTE]
^^^Isn't this an oxy-moron??^^^ Have yet to find a good running 2.9 to compare honestly. My buddy had one but its in the junk yard now.... I drove in it plenty with him and it will take off better than a 3.0 but that's it. I can guarantee that mine would out run a healthy 2.9 in everything except burnouts haha. As to the videos Rusty posted with the 2.9 just showing the speedometer.... Anyone can make their speedometer go that fast by one of two ways. He could have been driving downhill while filming that (good reason to ONLY show the speedometer) or you could put tiny tires on it and get a similar display. I know when I'm pissed at my truck I will deliberately be hard on it and I've gotten up to 95 mph pretty damn quick... Mine has 3:73 gears and a few mods like a bigger Thrush welded exhaust, cold air intake, and slightly bigger tires on the back (225/70r15's to 235/75r15's). I'd be down for a match up anytime once I get the rear end swapped. I know mine will run and drive all day everyday once it's fixed so I can be ready for a challenge at any time. Mine is rusty btw mostly on the underside... Good ol Ohio rust belt and lack of maintenance from the previous owner. So it will be the battle of the rust?!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

And I have yet to meet the hill to make my 302 downshift.

Thats because its in a truck that ford figured a 72hp 2.0L 4 cylinder could adequetly push around.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Have you ever driven a good running 2.9?

^^^Isn't this an oxy-moron??^^^ Have yet to find a good running 2.9 to compare honestly. My buddy had one but its in the junk yard now.... I drove in it plenty with him and it will take off better than a 3.0 but that's it. I can guarantee that mine would out run a healthy 2.9 in everything except burnouts haha. As to the videos Rusty posted with the 2.9 just showing the speedometer.... Anyone can make their speedometer go that fast by one of two ways. He could have been driving downhill while filming that (good reason to ONLY show the speedometer) or you could put tiny tires on it and get a similar display. I know when I'm pissed at my truck I will deliberately be hard on it and I've gotten up to 95 mph pretty damn quick... Mine has 3:73 gears and a few mods like a bigger Thrush welded exhaust, cold air intake, and slightly bigger tires on the back (225/70r15's to 235/75r15's). I'd be down for a match up anytime once I get the rear end swapped. I know mine will run and drive all day everyday once it's fixed so I can be ready for a challenge at any time. Mine is rusty btw mostly on the underside... Good ol Ohio rust belt and lack of maintenance from the previous owner. So it will be the battle of the rust?!
[/QUOTE]
Your statement pretty much mirrors what ive been saying.

A 2.9 acclerates harder then a 3.0.

Torque=accleration. Which also equates to more pulling power.

Obviously you would beat me at higher speeds if on nothing else besides aerodynamics

As far as discrediting the videos...sure they coulda been downhill, just like the 3.0 video coulda been. Its all what ifs but really the only decent evidence presented here. So discredit all you want. Still a what if.

 

[RonD]

2.8l - 115hp @ 4,600
2.9l - 140hp @ 4,600
3.0l - 145hp @ 4,800

???

If you put an e-fan on the 2.9l it would be the same as 3.0l with mechanical fan