TRX throwing shade at the Raptor

[RMB_Ryan]

My buddy's wife has one of those. I didn't realize the 3.0 was 2.7 based. Who is getting 600/600 from those with just a tune? And what fuel is that on?

I think e30 bone stock tunes by ZFG

Pretty crazy numbers honestly from the small size

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RMB_Ryan]

Why the gauges? So I can monitor fueling.

What is lambda ? Do you see richer than .78 ever?

Or .80


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RMB_Ryan]

Why the gauges? So I can monitor fueling.

Sorry I mesread thought you said so many motors changed and broke and pistons looked like these. Getting tired [emoji42]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RMB_Ryan]

That's a lot of power. I wonder if they will hold up with that two piece block.

That's a lot of power. I wonder if they will hold up with that two piece block.

Probably not, the cranks got big journals (literally coyote and 3.5l sized roughly) but without brace it looks like this and I’d imagine that’s a lot of power for the design.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RMB_Ryan]

You're speaking my tuner's language. I just have my fuel pressure and air/fuel gauges close to eye level so I can see real quick if anything goes wrong.

Personally if your running 93 octane I like to be at .80 lambda. .78 the richest. Any richer your doing more harm generally than good.

Just my $.02

Edit: that’s at max fuel demand not part throttle or most conditions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FordTechOne]

Ford's marketing department really snookered guys like you by pushing the "peak torque at lower RPM" bit, which is true. But that's not the same thing as more low end torque.The graphs speak for themselves. It's no surprise to those of us with a grasp of basic automotive knowledge. Larger cylinders firing more frequently make more power than smaller cylinders firing less frequently. Sure, once the turbos spool, the Ecoboost has pretty good mid range torque but every time you let off the gas you have to wait for those turbos to spool again. Throttle modulation is important off road.

So now it’s “Ford marketing department” that you’re using as your excuse?

The Gen 2 HO EcoBoost produces more low end torque as well as higher peak torque at a lower engine speed than the 6.2. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Then you bring up “those of us with basic automotive knowledge” lol? You are making a fool of yourself at this point. Please, do disclose your credentials. We’re all in for a good laugh of your “automotive knowledge”, because it doesn’t exist.

The turbos on a factory EcoBoost spool at low RPM...they are capable of making massive torque at relatively low engine speeds.

Once again, you seem to be personally offended that the Gen 2 Raptor out performs the Gen 1. Clearly you like your Gen 1 better, good for you, nobody is trying to change your opinion. But when you post misinformation, you’ve gone to far. And you have a pattern of that from what I’ve seen.

 

[RMB_Ryan]

I also saw a video a while back on the 2.7 motor with an interview from the chief development guy. Said something about the rods being intentionally slim to make the engine easier to assemble.

I remember being really thrown by that. That's a very power dense motor to be making design choices based on ease of assembly.

I think there maybe a hair marketing **** which is fine with me. Maybe to make them more diesel rod looking because the side cap rods is for assembly when the diesels were originally engineering rods and assembly but many people think it’s strength when in fact it is assembly and speed of it. It isnt the most robust small end either

But power is about airflow so we are developing them now we will see. Heads will be the is it capable of any big power tell all. Cool nonetheless. I hand it to ford they got no fear trying different things. They work too, usually. Here is a 2.7 rod



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RMB_Ryan]

If that reads "lambse" in the tune logs then we are at .78.

Yes it does. Not end of world. Your fuel maybe playing factor why tuner is running .78 not .80. Good tuner will know best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RMB_Ryan]

The graphs speak for themselves.

Speaking of, I am really glad to have this copy with the Ford Performance logo on it now. This way people can't just continue to deny reality. Oh wait... nevermind.

View attachment 144278

You don’t usually want all that TQ and hp down low like that, the load on the engine is not good. Trust me we can make like 850 at 3400 which is mind shattering


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TurboTJ]

Ford's marketing department really snookered guys like you by pushing the "peak torque at lower RPM" bit, which is true. But that's not the same thing as more low end torque.The graphs speak for themselves. It's no surprise to those of us with a grasp of basic automotive knowledge. Larger cylinders firing more frequently make more power than smaller cylinders firing less frequently. Sure, once the turbos spool, the Ecoboost has pretty good mid range torque but every time you let off the gas you have to wait for those turbos to spool again. Throttle modulation is important off road.

Maybe I’m late to the show but I’m a little bit lost by this? I thought the 3.5 had a lower peak torque RPM AND a higher peak torque?

Are you referring to the area between idle and 2k RPM’s as being a reason the V8 is better? I.e. the area where the V8 makes more torque?