oughtsix wrote:
Mvander wrote:
oughtsix wrote:
At what RPM does the 2.7 develop 325hp? What is the torque band of the 2.7 like? 325hp and 87ftlbs of torque at 7000rpm?
....
Quite the opposite I believe. The 3.5eco maxes 420tq at 2500rpm. The 2.7 is rated at 375tq and should have a curve simmilar to the 3.5eco.
Anyone who has driven an eco-boost f150 knows theres an abundance of low-end grunt. The 2.7 should be simmilar just a bit softer.
I have always been interested in engine technology and this thread spurred some reading on the internet last night. The 3.5 EcoBoost actually has a very impressive power/torque band! 420ftlbs is a pretty good torque rating... ehh. 420ftlbs at 2500 rpm out of a 3.5l engine is darned impressive!
I did some reading on the 2.7 EcoBoost too. I found that Ford went from the light weight aluminum block in the 3.5EB to a graphite impregnated iron block in the 2.7 EB which is even denser than normal cast iron blocks. Very interesting and sounds quite impressive from an engineering perspective.
I didn't realize the 3.5 EB runs a 10:1 compression ratio... on a induced induction engine! Very impressive and made viable by the direct injection system without having to go to ultra high octane levels or water injection to control pre-detonation.
To me it doesn't sound like GM and Chrysler are doing a very good job of keeping up with Fords technology in this particular market segment.... Although that small Dodge diesel does look impressive. GM....???
Actually, Audi and GM were first to market with Turbocharging + Direct injection. I owned a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline with a 260/260 rated 2.0 liter 4 cylinder motor that peaked at 16 psi of boost, had direct injection and could be upgraded to a 290/300 package with a simple re-calibration and MAF sensor swap (You still kept the warranty since the re-calibration was offered through GM). That's 130 hp per liter when it originally rolled of the line. GM actually has the upper hand with more development into direct injection. However, Ford has the upper hand with their Ecoboost moniker and slick marketing. Then of course others have posted earlier examples of direct injection alone. However, direct injection still has its challenges of carbon buildup in the intake and valves (many videos in regards to the VW and Ford products). Toyota's Fueling solution to employ both had a nice side effect of keeping the carbon down on the back of the intake valves.
As for RAM, I have to agree that I'm surprised not to see this type of tech in their larger vehicles, but RAM has decided to try to appease their crowd and their market analysts are telling them more gears and a big V-8. I'm just glad that they got their diesel in there. I personally think Diesel is the way to go for larger vehicles since diesels are a lean-burn type engine and still seem to have a fuel economy advantage even with the emissions. However, fuel prices vary greatly depending on where you live, even in just the US.
If you're really a gear head, I encourage you to check out the SAE's website and read their online magazine for automotive engineering. That stuff is pure awesome and you can get a much bigger picture of the technological potential of soon to come tech along with technical challenges the automakers face as a whole.
