Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown

   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #1  

jejeosborne

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
1,679
Location
Southern Indiana
Tractor
Kubota/B7800
Last edited:
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #2  
Notice the high HP (420) as well as high TQ (430), clearly a better design. Wonder how it will do on regular fuel vs premium.

Still bet GM will stick with the larger displacement N/A direct injected engines for truck duty.
media.gm.com/media/us/en/gmc/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Dec/1213_ecotec3-engines.html
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #3  
I have seen a CTS test car on the road a lot recently. Maybe it has this power plant. There is also a corvette running with it.
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #4  
an interesting little note on the 6.2L DIV8 in the vette is that it puts out over 400ft# of tourque at 2000rpm. i wonder how this will translate over to the similar 6.2L DI truck motor.
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #5  
Notice the high HP (420) as well as high TQ (430), clearly a better design. Wonder how it will do on regular fuel vs premium.

Per the article posted, " We should note Ford tells us that its power outputs improve slightly, measuring 385 horsepower and 430 pounds-feet of torque when using premium fuel, instead of the regular fuel the owner's manual recommends." So the premium fuel explains most of the hp/torque differences it looks like to me and not better design.
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #6  
Notice the high HP (420) as well as high TQ (430), clearly a better design. Wonder how it will do on regular fuel vs premium.

Still bet GM will stick with the larger displacement N/A direct injected engines for truck duty.
media.gm.com/media/us/en/gmc/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Dec/1213_ecotec3-engines.html

Why are you so biased against Ford? You seem like a reasonable person except for your opinion of Ford products
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown
  • Thread Starter
#7  
Notice the high HP (420) as well as high TQ (430), clearly a better design. Wonder how it will do on regular fuel vs premium.

Still bet GM will stick with the larger displacement N/A direct injected engines for truck duty.
media.gm.com/media/us/en/gmc/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Dec/1213_ecotec3-engines.html

Don't know which is better without seeing the curves and the reliability after it has been around a couple years. GM is claiming 90% torque down to 2500 rpms. Ford is claiming 90% torque to 1700 rpms. Obviously ford tuned the ecoboost for lower rpms thus a larger hit on the HP.

Some of it might be be design related. Each year more is learned. I like the intake cooling.
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #8  
Thanks for this linked info.
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown #9  
Per the article posted, " We should note Ford tells us that its power outputs improve slightly, measuring 385 horsepower and 430 pounds-feet of torque when using premium fuel, instead of the regular fuel the owner's manual recommends." So the premium fuel explains most of the hp/torque differences it looks like to me and not better design.
So you think if this GM engine ran 87 instead of 91 octane, not only would it lower the HP by almost 60 but it would also completely change the torque curve resulting in the same peak torque but lower horsepower? I don't think so.
Why are you so biased against Ford? You seem like a reasonable person except for your opinion of Ford products
Granted I've been burned by Ford's long line of engine failures before, I'm not as biased as it seems. If you look at my posts, I mostly just post numbers and facts instead the same stories over and over. Same in this case, if TQ numbers are equal I'm taking the engine with higher HP doesn't matter who builds it.
If Ford builds on the V8 5.0l engine making it direct injected and maybe a slight increase in displacement but still normally aspirated, I'll be first in line at the dealer. They make a great truck, but it will take a while to gain my trust back in their engines.
GM is claiming 90% torque down to 2500 rpms. Ford is claiming 90% torque to 1700 rpms. Obviously ford tuned the ecoboost for lower rpms thus a larger hit on the HP.
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"....
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/0...ter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html

I'm more interested in GM's new line of large displacement d.i. engines, no turbos or special drivetrain to repair.
 
   / Ford vs. GM: Twin-Turbo Showdown
  • Thread Starter
#10  
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"....
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html

I'm more interested in GM's new line of large displacement d.i. engines, no turbos or special drivetrain to repair.

I used the word "claiming" for the GM motor as well.

You have posted this article 20 times. It is a chassis dyno not an engine dyno. Measuring the GM turbo, or any turbo engine for that matter, on a chassis dyno will present the same challenges.

Quote from article you referenced:

"We look forward to seeing other magazines and enthusiasts test their EcoBoost V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 F-150s on chassis dynos around the country. We think they may also encounter some of the same challenges we had trying to find the best way to test a rear-wheel-drive twin-turbo gasoline direct-injection engine. We have no doubt that the EcoBoost engine is delivering the power. It's measuring it accurately, especially at lower RPMs, that's tricky."
 
 
Top