toppop52
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 10,619
- Location
- Eastern Shore of Maryland
- Tractor
- Massey Ferguson 1723, Cub Cadet 1864
I think it will be a fine engine and work well, just remember times past when all companies try to give us everything and the bag of chips too, only to discover a situation nobody thought of causing problems.
As for the power/dyno results, engine dynos are of limited usefulness because the cannot simulate real world driving and abuse and they can be manipulated to show anything the tester wants by arbitrarily applying load at some particular point in the test as well as by varying temps, humidity, etc... All stats published are meant to enhance someone's position and should be taken with a grain of salt.
One person argued that Eco Boost was not a great performance enhancer since it gets 360 h.p. with twin turbos, and the GM 3.6 gets 323 h.p. naturally aspirated. Well 37 horsepower for the cost and complication doesn't seem like much, but when you compare 400 ft lbs+ for the turbo engine vs 260 or so for the NA then it seems like a better deal.
If it proves reliable then I believe it's a bargain.
As for the power/dyno results, engine dynos are of limited usefulness because the cannot simulate real world driving and abuse and they can be manipulated to show anything the tester wants by arbitrarily applying load at some particular point in the test as well as by varying temps, humidity, etc... All stats published are meant to enhance someone's position and should be taken with a grain of salt.
One person argued that Eco Boost was not a great performance enhancer since it gets 360 h.p. with twin turbos, and the GM 3.6 gets 323 h.p. naturally aspirated. Well 37 horsepower for the cost and complication doesn't seem like much, but when you compare 400 ft lbs+ for the turbo engine vs 260 or so for the NA then it seems like a better deal.
If it proves reliable then I believe it's a bargain.