![]() |
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
|
Just saw this link on pickuptrucks.com.
http://jalopnik.com/5392757/400-hp-e...d-hitting-sema It's the first time we can see how much power and torque this engine will have in RWD applications (possibilities would be F150, Expedition, Mustang and Falcon) to put out approximately 400HP/400lb-ft. (300kw/540Nm). Remember that that torque will be available from under 1800rpm up to around 5000 rpm, no lag, gets the fuel economy of a standard 3.5 V6, and runs on regular unleaded. Oh and it's obviously designed to be strong enough for towing. Nice hot rod too! |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 236
|
There is no way it would have the same fuel economy of a N/A 3.5l V6, I'd say you're mistaken on that commen. It would however offer V8 performance for less economy.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
|
Well if it had "less economy" than a V8, that would defeat the purpose. I assume you mean "better economy" or "less consumption." Anyway, Ford says the EcoBoost engines have the same consumption as the N/A engines they are based on. If you look at the Flex and Taurus N/A AWD 3.5L V6 versions and compare them to their EcoBoost counterparts, which also have a 3.5L engine and AWD, they have the same fuel consumption. That is the only evidence we have at the moment, so anything to the contrary is just speculation.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,710
|
What it will do is have pretty much the same economy HP for HP. That is if you need to use 300hp you will use 30 litres per hundred in a v8 or this v6.
When you dont need all the power it will use less as it has lots of low torque for normal driving. Thats what I think anyway.. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 622
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote: From www.motortrend.com "Torque is the new horsepower" |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||
2008 BF Futura
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Adelaide, S.A.
Posts: 595
|
Quote:
__________________
2008 BF Falcon Futura 2009 BF Falcon Wagon Dedicated LPG Previous Cars: 2003 BA Falcon Wagon Dedicated LPG 1999 Ford Fairlane Ghia XF Fairmont Ghia Escort MK2 RS2000 Replica |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |||
You dig, we stick!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
|
Quote:
If the n/a 3.5 is struggling to pull 2t then it wouldn't surprise me at all if the turbo had better or the same consumption, especially when torque is peaking at 1800rpm. As you already know, the seedy 3.0 isn't more economical than it's bigger, more powerful 3.6 litre sister, as has Holden forgot the VE wasn't exactly a flyweight. A car's mass needs to be matched by the right amount of torque at the right amount of rpm, to meet it's objective.
__________________
"....You don't put the car through engineering" - Rod Barrett. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,710
|
Quote:
well when its not using its power its more economical because of the easy torque at low revs, but when it is using it its probably about the same. It gives you the choice. Turbos use heaps of fuel if floored. Thats a fact... |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 3,246
|
Quote:
Most tuners agree that a well sorted NA uses fuel, has a BSFC of about 0.5lbs/hp/hr. A turbo has about 0.55-0.60 lbs/hp/hr. With the i6T at the lower end of that from most reports. But the other 85% of time when your not on it. The i6T benefits from being 33% smaller. Much lower pumping losses.
__________________
BA2 XR8 Rapid M6 Ute - Lid - Tint -18s 226.8rwkW@178kmh/537Nm@140kmh 1/9/2013 14.2@163kmh 23/10/2013 Boss349 built. Not yet run. Waiting on a shell. Retrotech thread http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...1363569&page=6 |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |