I agree with you 100%!

 

I think we pretty much agree here, but I doubt there's much more a different shift strategy could do for it. It would have to have more or different gears to make a real difference. The motor makes its power between 4000-5500 RPMs outside that window it couldn't get the job done. It would go from redline to lugging with every upshift. The gearing on the truck would not allow the engine to stay in the narrow power band.

While the altitude didn't hurt the EB as much the story would play out the same at any altitude. The gearing and narrow power band won't change. The EB doesn't put down the peak numbers but it has twice the useable range that it makes power.

 

I just feel it should of down shifted way before it got down to (i think) 40 mph. That way you didn't have such a sway in speed. Its not bad if you're on the road by yourself, but if its a one lane highway going up a steep grade and someone is following you, they have to accelerate and decelerate with you. If I was the one doing the following I'd be a little annoyed.

 

The GM is in desperate need of the upcoming 10 speed tranny.

 

I'm not sure that's an option. If it downshifted much sooner it would have over reved the motor. The spacing on their ratios is crap and certainly not well suited for that motor. But in typical GM fashion the accountants over rule the engineers.

 

https://www.f150online.com/forums/5033770-post41.html

 

Ah ok that makes sense now. Ya they need to do something about, that's horrible

 

I was talking about the GM 6.2. Unless the way they make power is similar?

 

You have got to be the ONLY person that claims the ecoboost is working 'hard.' How do you 'tell' the eco is working harder? Seriously, explain yourself. Truth is you have a stigma against smaller displacements and modern turbos. The reason they do not put the 3.6 Eco in the F-250 is that the 3.6L loses it's fuel advantage after 7000 lbs, not because it isn't tough enough.
with logic like this, it is a wonder people do not flock to these forums.
You are full of crap and everyone hear knows it. people just don't call you out enough on it.

 

What is the "test" involved in determining if a motor is working harder than a different motor? Is it merely based on RPM's? or fuel consumption? Fluid temperatures? or how far the gas pedal is depressed? or the driver's "butt dyno"? Is it just something that the driver's brain conceives as he/she is driving?

I'm just curious because from what I've read here it is simply conjecture.

To say an old F1 car that made 1000+ hp with less than 3.0 litres of displacement was being "stressed" or had to work hard I think is hogwash.

Any input would be great, specifically any real data that would prove an ecoboost has to work harder than a motor pulling a similar load using a different motor, ie; eco vs 6.2 gm...

 

Hi.

==> http://obdcon.sourceforge.net/2010/1...ed-load-value/


MGD

PS: If GM had just resisted the urge to go after peak numbers for it's current 6.2L, it could have re-architected the engine for truck use, to provide lower peak values but over a much wider power band (area under the curve). Coupled with matching gear ratios in the existing trans and proper tuning it would have been a truly worthy tow beast, thereby rendering this (derailed) discussion moot

Wonder WTF were they thinking?

 

Like I said the bigger peak numbers sell the truck. GM is just worried about sales.

 

And they aren't doing too well there...

 

It's fairly obvious why they chose to set up the engine this way. They wanted to claim they have the most power in the half ton market, big peak numbers look great on TV commercials and magazine ads. Sure in reality it doesn't work as well as it could but that would cost peak power numbers. And there's a segment of mouth breathing, sister screwin' neanderthals that eat this crap up.

 

Indeed, Ford would never get caught up in a numbers game. I mean, with its 11,000 pound tow rating, a 5.4l triton should tow every bit as well as the EB or 6.2 right? lol