Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
RAM TRX - TRX-Forum.com
Bronco Raptor - BroncoRaptorForum.com
Forums
Ford Raptor Tech Forums
2013 Ford SVT Raptor Forum (Reply Only)
2013 ...Is this the year for the ecoboost Raptor ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WarSurfer" data-source="post: 186078" data-attributes="member: 1138"><p>I love reading all the 'new and superior tech' and 'antiquated ****' postings - nothing like hanging a giant flashing sign that says "I know exactly zero about what I'm typing..."</p><p></p><p>First - 'new and superior'</p><p></p><p>the 'things' that make the eco 'eco' are direct injection & turbo's on a gas engine - well that is neither new nor revolutionary. In fact, GM has been doing it for several years... They designed the architecture for it in the 90's and were first to market, several years ahead of Ford (03 for overseas and 07in the states (which is when the twin-force Ford hit the streets). The only thing Ford has been more successful at (WRT the eco) is the marketing. GM's ecotec powerplants deliver higher power per liter numbers and very good mpg rates as well - and GM was at least smart enough to give them forged pistons. The first examples of direct injection occur in 1925... So much for cutting edge. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.ecotecpower.com/gallery/article.php?eid=519&aid=102" target="_blank">Gallery - ecotecpower.com - the ecotec enthusiast site</a></p><p></p><p>Second - 'antiquated ****'</p><p></p><p>let's look at the sum of their parts...</p><p></p><p>eco </p><p>twin independent variable cam timing</p><p>twin turbochargers</p><p>direct injection fuel system </p><p>tuned composite intake manifold. </p><p>forged crank</p><p>powdered rods</p><p>hyper pistons</p><p>piston cooling jets</p><p>aluminum 4v heads</p><p>aluminum block</p><p>6 bolt mains</p><p></p><p>6.2 </p><p>Dual equal variable cam timing</p><p>Tuned composite intake manifold </p><p>cast aluminum pistons</p><p>Piston cooling jets</p><p>forged steel rods</p><p>cast iron crank</p><p>Iron block, 4 bolt mains with additional side bolts</p><p>aluminum 2v heads</p><p></p><p>it's as if one was made by a caveman, the other by aliens</p><p></p><p>knowing that adding 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi) effectively doubles an engines displacement...</p><p></p><p>3.5x2 (at 15psi peak) = 7 liters = 365hp/420tq</p><p>6.2 liters = 411hp/434tq</p><p></p><p>3.5tt = 5500lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg</p><p>6.2 = 6000lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg</p><p></p><p>staggering how underwhelming the eco is with it's alien technology.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0312_turbo_tech_science_selection/viewall.html" target="_blank">Turbo Tech - Terminology, Overview - Science & Selection - Hot Rod</a></p><p></p><p>the reason ecoboost trucks get better mpg's is because they are significantly lighter, so the engine doesn't need to be 'in boost' to move the truck around. the heavier the truck, the more rolling resistance and the larger the front profile, the more the eco will need to be 'in boost' to move. more time in boost means less mpg's - it really is that simple. This has been proven as fact time and time again. </p><p></p><p>Look up 'lifted eco mpg' and you will find a giant thread on the f150forum that clearly shows dozens and dozens of eco's that dropped 5-8mpgs when adding a lift and larger tires.</p><p></p><p>there are some common truths in the automotive performance community - the eco does not outperform the 6.2, honda's with fartpipes are not fast, there isn't a hemi in your Dodge.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WarSurfer, post: 186078, member: 1138"] I love reading all the 'new and superior tech' and 'antiquated ****' postings - nothing like hanging a giant flashing sign that says "I know exactly zero about what I'm typing..." First - 'new and superior' the 'things' that make the eco 'eco' are direct injection & turbo's on a gas engine - well that is neither new nor revolutionary. In fact, GM has been doing it for several years... They designed the architecture for it in the 90's and were first to market, several years ahead of Ford (03 for overseas and 07in the states (which is when the twin-force Ford hit the streets). The only thing Ford has been more successful at (WRT the eco) is the marketing. GM's ecotec powerplants deliver higher power per liter numbers and very good mpg rates as well - and GM was at least smart enough to give them forged pistons. The first examples of direct injection occur in 1925... So much for cutting edge. [url=http://www.ecotecpower.com/gallery/article.php?eid=519&aid=102]Gallery - ecotecpower.com - the ecotec enthusiast site[/url] Second - 'antiquated ****' let's look at the sum of their parts... eco twin independent variable cam timing twin turbochargers direct injection fuel system tuned composite intake manifold. forged crank powdered rods hyper pistons piston cooling jets aluminum 4v heads aluminum block 6 bolt mains 6.2 Dual equal variable cam timing Tuned composite intake manifold cast aluminum pistons Piston cooling jets forged steel rods cast iron crank Iron block, 4 bolt mains with additional side bolts aluminum 2v heads it's as if one was made by a caveman, the other by aliens knowing that adding 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi) effectively doubles an engines displacement... 3.5x2 (at 15psi peak) = 7 liters = 365hp/420tq 6.2 liters = 411hp/434tq 3.5tt = 5500lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg 6.2 = 6000lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg staggering how underwhelming the eco is with it's alien technology. [url=http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0312_turbo_tech_science_selection/viewall.html]Turbo Tech - Terminology, Overview - Science & Selection - Hot Rod[/url] the reason ecoboost trucks get better mpg's is because they are significantly lighter, so the engine doesn't need to be 'in boost' to move the truck around. the heavier the truck, the more rolling resistance and the larger the front profile, the more the eco will need to be 'in boost' to move. more time in boost means less mpg's - it really is that simple. This has been proven as fact time and time again. Look up 'lifted eco mpg' and you will find a giant thread on the f150forum that clearly shows dozens and dozens of eco's that dropped 5-8mpgs when adding a lift and larger tires. there are some common truths in the automotive performance community - the eco does not outperform the 6.2, honda's with fartpipes are not fast, there isn't a hemi in your Dodge. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
jond
jekyll537
MSP
ToadSmasher2K1
LibertyDNP
Braaaaptor
NickyF25
rino
Azurebeast
ohhcho
ln13ln13
BoostCreep
Coyote_695
navy2x
Russ103
FP_RPTR
DaveInMn
BamaFun
sukid
alibo70
Prormk
Telecaster480
Punkur67
Barak
CruiserClass
OBXRAPTOR17
RCorsa
Pyro3601
MZRaptor72
taquitos
JacketedHP
ktownsensation
Sharpie69
WhiskeyTangoGTFO
TruckIT
Budget1
cmarch0519
blazn5667
N2MBacon
RiskTkr
Wangchung83
tcm glx
GCATX
Raptorny
Skai
erniecsays
KingKoopa17
Reptar854
mckernan
quattrojim
... and 17 more.
Forum statistics
Threads
93,186
Posts
1,955,598
Members
56,468
Latest member
ngodavid23
Forums
Ford Raptor Tech Forums
2013 Ford SVT Raptor Forum (Reply Only)
2013 ...Is this the year for the ecoboost Raptor ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top