Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,348
    Location
    Ohio
    Tractor
    Case DX55, Ford 850

    Default Re: Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown

    The best way to measure the power is to hook up a trailer and hit the road. You'll notice no owners questioning the EB power in real world use. Of the small percentage of guys that have issues with the EB intercooler, most still say they would buy another one because the low end power is intoxicating and cannot be matched by any brand. I'm sure GM is targeting that low end power niche, or will be very soon.

  2. #12
    Elite Member Dmace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,838
    Location
    Wakefield, NH
    Tractor
    Kioti CK20 HST

    Default Re: Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown

    Quote Originally Posted by jejeosborne View Post
    I used the word "claiming" for the GM motor as well.
    Yes but if GM's claim is more realistic than Ford's claim then your unfairly comparing the two stating "Obviously ford tuned the ecoboost for lower rpms thus a larger hit on the HP". If GM's engine proves to meet that 90% at 2500 like Ford's 90% at 2300 then the GM wins by nearly matching it plus 55 more HP as well.
    Derek
    Kioti CK20HST
    KL120 FEL // KB2365 BH // 60" JRW 3ph snowblower // 48" HD Boxblade
    Sims-Cab Depot heated cab
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondPilot
    Now it's time for Ford and GM to step up

  3. #13
    Elite Member Dmace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,838
    Location
    Wakefield, NH
    Tractor
    Kioti CK20 HST

    Default Re: Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Ford850 View Post
    The best way to measure the power is to hook up a trailer and hit the road. You'll notice no owners questioning the EB power in real world use.
    It takes more than an engine to show real world measures. That "low end power" could be more a result of gearing than engine power. For instance, take two similar trucks (same engine, layout, transmission, etc...) but one with a 3.73 rear end and one with a 4.10. The one with the 4.10 will feel like it makes a TON of "low end power" when in reality it's making the same as the other. The difference is in the gearing...
    Derek
    Kioti CK20HST
    KL120 FEL // KB2365 BH // 60" JRW 3ph snowblower // 48" HD Boxblade
    Sims-Cab Depot heated cab
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondPilot
    Now it's time for Ford and GM to step up

  4. #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Tractor
    Kubota/B7800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmace View Post
    It takes more than an engine to show real world measures. That "low end power" could be more a result of gearing than engine power. For instance, take two similar trucks (same engine, layout, transmission, etc...) but one with a 3.73 rear end and one with a 4.10. The one with the 4.10 will feel like it makes a TON of "low end power" when in reality it's making the same as the other. The difference is in the gearing...
    How do you explain my tachometer at 2000 rpms, speedometer at 70 mph, transmission in 6th gear, torque converter locked, large long hill, and no downshift or unlocking of torque converter all while towing 5000 lbs? Happened to me several times today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmace View Post
    Yes but if GM's claim is more realistic than Ford's claim then your unfairly comparing the two stating "Obviously ford tuned the ecoboost for lower rpms thus a larger hit on the HP". If GM's engine proves to meet that 90% at 2500 like Ford's 90% at 2300 then the GM wins by nearly matching it plus 55 more HP as well.
    The Ford number is 1700 rpms. Remember we are talking comparable at the crank.

  5. #15
    Elite Member Dmace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,838
    Location
    Wakefield, NH
    Tractor
    Kioti CK20 HST

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jejeosborne View Post
    How do you explain my tachometer at 2000 rpms, speedometer at 70 mph, transmission in 6th gear, torque converter locked, large long hill, and no downshift or unlocking of torque converter all while towing 5000 lbs? Happened to me several times today.
    5,000 lbs, really? Light loads don't require much downshifting, was that your huge camper?
    Quote Originally Posted by jejeosborne View Post
    The Ford number is 1700 rpms. Remember we are talking comparable at the crank.
    Power from the crank to wheels is linear so 90% at the wheels is 90% at the crank. The number's different but it's still not making 90% of that number until 2300 rpms. It's pretty simple, IF the GM engine can produce 90% of it's power to the wheels at 2500 RPMs then their claim is truthful.

    Ford claims 90% TQ at 1700 RPMs.
    90% of 420 = 378 - 14% drivetrain loss (53 lb.ft.) = 325 lb.ft at the wheels which occurs at around 2,300 RPMs according to the most accurate dyno I've seen yet...
    Derek
    Kioti CK20HST
    KL120 FEL // KB2365 BH // 60" JRW 3ph snowblower // 48" HD Boxblade
    Sims-Cab Depot heated cab
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondPilot
    Now it's time for Ford and GM to step up

  6. #16
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,860
    Location
    Northern Fingerlakes region of NY, USA
    Tractor
    Kubota L3830GST, B7500HST, BX2660

    Default Re: Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmace View Post
    Keyword here is "claiming". Ford's claim was already proved wrong...
    It didn't make 90% of it's torque until about 2300 rpms. At 1700 it made about 70%, certainly nothing to complain about but stop comparing "claims"....
    How We Dyno Tested Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 Engines - PickupTrucks.com News
    And you have jumped to conclusions. A Chassis dyno is not an Engine dyno and they will have different results especially with a transmission that plays with the torque converter to help with boost.
    OEMs have been using higher stall speeds in their torque converters since the 7.3 and 5.9 were new (as explained by Banks):
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.bankspower.com/techarticles/show/10-understanding-stall-speed
    Unlike gas engines, diesels develop massive amounts of torque (pulling power) at low RPM – enough that it's possible (and, in fact, desirable) to get a heavily-loaded diesel truck rolling by simply easing off the clutch without touching the accelerator. Banks' dynamometer tests show that Ford's 7.3 liter Power Stroke hits peak torque at 1,600 RPM and begins to drop off at around 1,850 RPM, while the Dodge's 5.9L Cummins engine peaks at 1,400 RPM and drops off at 1,800 RPM. As RPM continues to rise, torque decreases even further.
    How would you translate this to a torque converter? With a low stall speed. But both the Ford and Dodge torque converters stall between 2,000 and 2,500 RPM – so with a heavy load, the torque converter won’t start turning the rear wheels until well beyond the engine's torque peak. In this case, the stall speed is too high - it is literally impossible to get the engine's full power to the rear wheels! In order to access all of the engine's potential power, the stall speed must be lowered.
    They might also be using that to limit torque to the drivetrain for some reason, or to make it easier to bump the HP/TQ at the wheels for later year with just a reflash...

    Aaron Z
    A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
    Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

  7. #17
    Elite Member Dmace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,838
    Location
    Wakefield, NH
    Tractor
    Kioti CK20 HST

    Default

    If that's true in this case then what's the point of that low end Torque if it doesn't make it to the ground?
    Bragging rights? Do they bring a copy of the Engine Dyno to poker nights?
    Derek
    Kioti CK20HST
    KL120 FEL // KB2365 BH // 60" JRW 3ph snowblower // 48" HD Boxblade
    Sims-Cab Depot heated cab
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondPilot
    Now it's time for Ford and GM to step up

  8. #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Tractor
    Kubota/B7800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmace View Post
    5,000 lbs, really? Light loads don't require much downshifting, was that your huge camper?

    Power from the crank to wheels is linear so 90% at the wheels is 90% at the crank. The number's different but it's still not making 90% of that number until 2300 rpms. It's pretty simple, IF the GM engine can produce 90% of it's power to the wheels at 2500 RPMs then their claim is truthful.

    Ford claims 90% TQ at 1700 RPMs.
    90% of 420 = 378 - 14% drivetrain loss (53 lb.ft.) = 325 lb.ft at the wheels which occurs at around 2,300 RPMs according to the most accurate dyno I've seen yet...
    Yes, 5000 lbs and yes camper with 3 motorcycles and a 4-wheeler in the bed of the truck which I didn't include earlier. Why is this funny? I kept thinking to myself, surely it will downshift on this hill, but it didn't. Just let it stay on cruise control and on we went. Just pointing out that I am at 2000 rpm at 70 mph and I have been conditioned in the past to expect downshifts. It is something that amazes me and haven't been accustomed to. No humor meant so not sure why it struck you that way.

    Again, start researching how difficult it is to dyno a turbocharged drivetrain on a chassis dyno. Let google be your friend.

    Btw, I sold my 32' camper a year ago and now enjoy my self made toy hauler from a high wall popup. You must have seen my build thread. I have never called it huge so you must just being smart ace. It is 26' ball to bumper and about 7' tall. Here is the link: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/s...d.php?t=237522

  9. #19
    Elite Member Dmace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,838
    Location
    Wakefield, NH
    Tractor
    Kioti CK20 HST

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jejeosborne View Post
    Yes, 5000 lbs and yes camper with 3 motorcycles and a 4-wheeler in the bed of the truck which I didn't include earlier. Why is this funny? I kept thinking to myself, surely it will downshift on this hill, but it didn't. Just let it stay on cruise control and on we went. Just pointing out that I am at 2000 rpm at 70 mph and I have been conditioned in the past to expect downshifts. It is something that amazes me and haven't been accustomed to. No humor meant so not sure why it struck you that way.
    It struck me as funny because 5000lbs won't make any decent truck downshift much, the fact your truck didn't is not exactly impressive which is obviously what you were going for. The real funny part is it's a pop-up which means very little aerodynamic drag making the load even easier. Also, I thought they were dirt bikes (200lbs +/-) but "motorcycles" does sound heavier.

    On a side note, even my 9 year old 5 speed truck runs about 2000 RPMs at 70mph.
    Derek
    Kioti CK20HST
    KL120 FEL // KB2365 BH // 60" JRW 3ph snowblower // 48" HD Boxblade
    Sims-Cab Depot heated cab
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondPilot
    Now it's time for Ford and GM to step up

  10. #20
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,860
    Location
    Northern Fingerlakes region of NY, USA
    Tractor
    Kubota L3830GST, B7500HST, BX2660

    Default Re: Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmace View Post
    If that's true in this case then what's the point of that low end Torque if it doesn't make it to the ground?
    Bragging rights? Do they bring a copy of the Engine Dyno to poker nights?
    Superb question. Perhaps you should email Ford and ask? I suspect that it is because every vehicle is a compromise between Engineering, Marketing, Warranty and governing bodies (ie: EPA, CARB, NHTSA, etc).
    If you get a answer from Ford, perhaps (while you are on a roll) you could ask Dodge when they will get around to making a body that doesn't rust out the rocker panels in 8 years/80k miles...

    Aaron Z
    A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
    Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Opinions on a Ford 7.3 turbo diesel
    By BJN644 in forum Trailers & Transportation
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 03:53 PM
  2. Ford 5000 turbo
    By plappe in forum Customization
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 03:50 PM
  3. GL3240 VS. B3030 Showdown!
    By piranha2 in forum Kubota Buying/Pricing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 10:58 AM
  4. ***TLB SHOWDOWN***
    By yooperdave in forum Buying/Pricing/Comparisons
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 10:03 PM
  5. Anyone else in love with Ford Turbo Diesels?
    By DrDan in forum Related Topics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-04-2001, 12:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
© 2014 TractorByNet.com. TractorByNet is a registered trademark of IMC Digital Universe, Inc. Other trademarks on this page are the property of their respective owners.