Forum Discussion
165 Replies
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Just a point that someone was mistaken about.
Manifold pressure goes down as air intake pressure goes down. Gas law are some such junk like that? :B
Carry on.........
Fair enough but my point was that reducing resistance to air flow allows ambiant pressure to force more air into the cylinder which is basically what increasing boost does.- Just a point that someone was mistaken about.
Manifold pressure goes down as air intake pressure goes down. Gas law are some such junk like that? :B
Carry on......... You keep looking at what metric horsepower is converted to imperial. That is not what I am talking about. You spoke of European numbers and why they were much higher, and I told you it was because they use different methods to rate their power. I did say anything about conversion. If they used different methods as pointed out in that article that certain Eurpoean countries do, then it does not matter what the metric to imperial conversion is.
What is about the statement "Interestingly, the new SAE standard is closer to the European procedure, which is EEC 80/1269. There are minor differences. For example, the exhaust configuration and the specified fuel-quality requirements vary, and these can have an effect on horsepower. But we're talking about small differences, possibly accounting for a less-than-one-percent variation."
in the C&D article that you don't understand.Weren't you the one who stated the ED had the higher compression ratio. Improving flow and cooling the intake charge are just other methods of raising manifold pressure.
Yes I did. The Ecoboost has a compression ratio of 10:1 with a while the Ecodiesel is a compression ratio of 16.5:1, but what does that have to do with your initial statement of how you think the 2.7L Ecoboost is more stress since it makes more power?
In previous posts you made reference to the ED screaming away at 3500 to 4000 RPM when the presenters clearly said it didn't go above 3500 RPM. For good reason, it makes peak HP at 3600 RPM
3.0 Ecodiesel Peak HP at 3600 RPM. Peak torque at 2000 RPM
2.7 Ecoboost Peak HP at 5750 RPM. Peak Torque at 3000 RPM
I can't imagine why I would think something so ridiculous.:R45Ricochet wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
This thread is getting old!
X2 It was tired about a week ago.ib516 wrote:
Is NewS back?
That was NewsW buddy. But your right, sounds like the same person to me.:B
Kinda miss ole NewsW and his infatuation with the 6.0 PSD...LOTS OF FUN...wilber1 wrote:
Perhaps you should read your own link. It confirms that one PS is the equivalent of 98.6 % of one mechanical HP. What has changed is the way engines are tested and according to the C&D article, the test protocols are almost identical, resulting in differences of less than 1% which for all you or I know could fall on the European side.
You keep looking at what metric horsepower is converted to imperial. That is not what I am talking about. You spoke of European numbers and why they were much higher, and I told you it was because they use different methods to rate their power. I did say anything about conversion. If they used different methods as pointed out in that article that certain Eurpoean countries do, then it does not matter what the metric to imperial conversion is.Weren't you the one who stated the ED had the higher compression ratio. Improving flow and cooling the intake charge are just other methods of raising manifold pressure.
Yes I did. The Ecoboost has a compression ratio of 10:1 with a while the Ecodiesel is a compression ratio of 16.5:1, but what does that have to do with your initial statement of how you think the 2.7L Ecoboost is more stress since it makes more power?You throw the fanboy label around pretty loosely for someone who doesn't post what he drives in either a signature or profile.
I drive a 2014 Ram 2500 CTD and a 2011 F150 Ecoboost if you want to know. I have mentioned that I drove a Ram 2500 in a few of my posts in here if you read.One thing you will never see me do on this forum is trash someone else's ride.
Then why did you say the 2.7L is more "stressed" in comparison to the Ecodiesel when your clearly didn't have the data to back that up?So you're the only one around here allowed to challenge opinions. Someone should have told me. Wait a minute, you just did.
I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth again. I said that you keep responding to me and challenging my opinion so I keep responding. Where do you get that I said I am the only one that can challenge peoples opinions? Keep quoting me, and I will keep responding no matter how long this gets dragged out.FishOnOne wrote:
This thread is getting old!
X2 It was tired about a week ago.ib516 wrote:
Is NewS back?
That was NewsW buddy. But your right, sounds like the same person to me.:B- This thread is getting old!
ShinerBock wrote:
Actually it is a bit more than that. Please read at the bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
Perhaps you should read your own link. It confirms that one PS is the equivalent of 98.6 % of one mechanical HP. What has changed is the way engines are tested and according to the C&D article, the test protocols are almost identical, resulting in differences of less than 1% which for all you or I know could fall on the European side.
I think I can be relatively confident that the tow ratings set by all the truck manufacturers have a lot more to do with marketing and getting their trucks at least safely through the warranty period without breaking, than they do with guys on the internet pulling arbitrary numbers out of their backsides as to what is an acceptable speed to get up a hill.
My aversion to operating at WOT comes from having iffy cars in my youth that I had to buy parts for and repair myself if they broke. That and decades of doing derated takeoffs in aircraft. Not particularly rational perhaps but no more irrational than you believing a smaller engine putting out more HP at WOT is going to be as durable as a larger one putting out less. Not to mention the fact diesel fuel acts as a lubricant while gasoline is a solvent.Also, there are a bit more ways to make more power than those that you stated like allowing air to move more quickly and freely through the engine, cooling the incoming air, and increasing compression ratio to name a few more.
Weren't you the one who stated the ED had the higher compression ratio. Improving flow and cooling the intake charge are just other methods of raising manifold pressure.No, I didn't
Then perhaps you could explain just exactly howSo you are really telling me that the few refineries we have switch over to making #1 diesel fuel for the whole United States, but make an acception for California, Oregon, and Washington? Do pigs also fly where you come from?
should have been taken.No, it depends on if a fanboy wants to make excuses for his favorite brands engine too.
You throw the fanboy label around pretty loosely for someone who doesn't post what he drives in either a signature or profile. One thing you will never see me do on this forum is trash someone else's ride. I leave that to the real fanboys. I'm not a fan of either of these trucks or trucks in general. After moving to a town home from an acreage, I wouldn't even have a truck except for the 5th wheel which my wife likes. It spends four months of the year under a cover hooked to a battery tender and another four getting moved out of the way so I can get my collector car in and out of the garage. So, if there is another RV in our future and I have my way, it will be a class A, which unless I buy a used pusher will in all likelihood be powered by Ford. If I need a truck I will borrow it from one of my kids.
Although quite different, I think both Ford and Chrysler have a good thing going with these trucks and will both find their niche with those who appreciate what each has to offer. I have both a diesel and a turbo DI gasser in my garage and driveway and have had small diesels in sedans. I liked them all just fine.Trust me, I would like to say my opinion and be done with it, but he keeps responding and challenging my opinion so you got what we have here here which is the way he wants it. So he gets it..... I don't like it anymore than you do.
So you're the only one around here allowed to challenge opinions. Someone should have told me. Wait a minute, you just did.- Not sure what the big deal is here. It's a small diesel meant for sipping fuel. The fact that it can tow a decent load and get good mileage doing so is fantastic. The thing only has 240HP so I'm not sure what people are expecting.
I'm starting to see more and more of them around. Last summer I saw a couple of them cruising down the highway towing large ski boats. Both didn't seem to have any trouble at all towing the load were in fact easily keeping up with traffic and passing. - Is NewS back?
