How are the Different Horsepower Rating for the 3.5 EcoBoost Accomplished?

[nonsense]

The 2019 "Bullitt" Mustang is 475hp. The $80K? Lincoln, should have this motor.

That engine has 475hp but only 420 lb-ft of torque. The Navigator has 450 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque. HP sells cars, torque moves cars, and a big heavy SUV needs all the torque it can get.

 

[JExpedition07]

That engine has 475hp but only 420 lb-ft of torque. The Navigator has 450 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque. HP sells cars, torque moves cars, and a big heavy SUV needs all the torque it can get.

“Only”, most of today’s drivers seem they would have never survived even fifteen to twenty years ago when even big diesels had 250 FT LBS. Look at the old Ford 6.9 diesel LOL, that engine did more work than anything and it didn’t even have 300 torque. Everything isn’t about ratings, just a reminder.

 

[nonsense]

“Only”, most of today’s drivers seem they would have never survived even fifteen to twenty years ago when even big diesels had 250 FT LBS. Look at the old Ford 6.9 diesel LOL, that engine did more work than anything and it didn’t even have 300 torque. Everything isn’t about ratings, just a reminder.

"only" in comparison to the things being compared. Yes 420 lb-ft of torque is much more than lots of old trucks used to have, and is more than enough for the Navi. My point is that quoting peak HP of one engine vs another in two entirely different types of vehicle doesn't mean anything. The Navigator engine is the better engine for the Navigator. Replacing it with a higher revving engine with 15 more HP and 80 lb-ft less torque is a bad idea.

 

[edizzle]

those old 6.9s are barely usable in real world driving. todays modern roads and highways have made older trucks like that all but unusable. accelerating to freeway speeds, hell, freeway speeds! they were geared lower and didnt need to pull an 8,000lb trailer AND accelerate to freeway speeds with 5 family members and a row of modern cars on your ass. we are asking a lot more of our vehicles today!!

i guess in its most basic form, apples and oranges!

 

[JExpedition07]

"only" in comparison to the things being compared. Yes 420 lb-ft of torque is much more than lots of old trucks used to have, and is more than enough for the Navi. My point is that quoting peak HP of one engine vs another in two entirely different types of vehicle doesn't mean anything. The Navigator engine is the better engine for the Navigator. Replacing it with a higher revving engine with 15 more HP and 80 lb-ft less torque is a bad idea.

I agree, I think the 5.0 would make a good base powertrain option in its average configuration. 3.5 as a premium.

 

[JExpedition07]

those old 6.9s are barely usable in real world driving. todays modern roads and highways have made older trucks like that all but unusable. accelerating to freeway speeds, hell, freeway speeds! they were geared lower and didnt need to pull an 8,000lb trailer AND accelerate to freeway speeds with 5 family members and a row of modern cars on your ass. we are asking a lot more of our vehicles today!!

i guess in its most basic form, apples and oranges!

Disagree and agree to a point there, I see plenty of old trucks still out on the roads and it is our duty to share the road with them safely no matter what we drive.

 

[rjdelp7]

That engine has 475hp but only 420 lb-ft of torque. The Navigator has 450 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque. HP sells cars, torque moves cars, and a big heavy SUV needs all the torque it can get.

Give the Expedition/Navigator buyers a choice. I bet most will take the V8. The V8 is probably cheaper to produce. The new 10sp transmission, make both engines close in fuel mileage. Large, high end vehicles, traditionally don't use small "eco" engines. Expy/Nav originally had V8's. Less future, out of warranty issues with V8's. Competition with V8's and buyer distrust of turbo will cost sales. The EB "numbers" are produced with premium fuel.

 

[JExpedition07]

I think the ecoboost is a perfect powertrain in its HO configuration for premium models. It’s got great power. It does have an uphill battle against the big V8 looming though. GM has introduced a new generation of 5.3 and 6.2 engines that have full variable displacement! Meaning 1-8 cylinder modes. Fiat Chrysler is making the Hemi engine a semi hybrid. Ford still has yet to play with any of these revolutionary technologies and actually took the dinasaur route in comparison as we know turbos have been around forever. Interesting topics, myself I prefer a naturally aspirated V8 (with no add ons or cylinder deactivation). Nonetheless they are all interesting options. Ford isn’t stupid, they know there are slot out there like me who think ecoboost is cool but prefer a V8 in the end. That’s why they keep the 5.0L coyote and that’s what their project 7X is for. Now as far as the 3.5 output I think the safest and best way to improve performance is to tune it with what is available, only ford can safely add the juice to the HO to get it to run correctly and within parameters.

 

[jeff kushner]

Forced induction motors always respond wonderfully to tuning. timing, fuel and boost!!!!!! I have a Livernois tune on my Explorer Platinum and it is something else. I mean seriously something else. If you build boost and launch at 2500 RPM with traction control disabled.............Most people have never felt a vehicle accelerate like that, much less a 7 passenger SUV!!! LOL. I pulled a car length from a Porsche Cayenne Turbo. That alone made it worth the money i spent!

Livernois was great to work with, very talented, responsive, etc.

Not knocking what you did to your truck. LMC has a great rep....but if you seriously think that you pulled a car length on a 520HP car that weighs more than half a ton less, you may be mistaking carefree acceleration for a "race"? Physics are pretty rigid....

jeff

 

[edizzle]

Not knocking what you did to your truck. LMC has a great rep....but if you seriously think that you pulled a car length on a 520HP car that weighs more than half a ton less, you may be mistaking carefree acceleration for a "race"? Physics are pretty rigid....

jeff

i hear you. the earlier model cayenne turbos hovered around the 4.8-5.4 second 0-60 times. I have no idea what year it was, but it was definitely not a new one. realistically it was probably a little of both!!! I know for fact i am in the low 5's. i wanted to get a performance meter for it to get a somewhat accurate 0-60 time, but will definitely not be doing so as we are trading the explorer in on the new Dishin' !!! which if COTUS is acurate will be in 6 days