Horsepower, Torque, and MPG Confirmed

[NASSTY]

My 92 Bronco 5.8L with 4" lift, 33's and 4.10s gets 12 MPGs and has about 200 HP.





---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

Lol. 5.3 is a dog? I'm pretty sure the 5.3's run right with an Ecoboost unloaded.. Ecoboost may have more power but that's about it. It still only gets marginally better fuel economy and sounds like a civic.

If they were remotely close in stock performance, put $400 into each for a SCT X4 with custom tunes and it is no longer remotely close.
Buy a Prius if you're that worried about economy.

 

[TRIMMELL]

"Horsepower, Torque and MPG Confirmed" and all you ******* are yammering about is miles per gallon!

It's a $60,000+ performance truck that no other company in the world mass produces and that's what you want to discuss?!

I get that the Gen 2 haterz don't want to talk about how much better this Raptor is than theirs (so they drone on about "it sounds like a Civic").

Lol. Such a cool guy. We're discussing the lack of much of a fuel economy improvement which was one of the larger selling points for why ford went with the v6. So. It's a valid discussion.

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

My 92 Bronco 5.8L with 4" lift, 33's and 4.10s gets 12 MPGs and has about 200 HP.





---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------



If they were remotely close in stock performance, put $400 into each for a SCT X4 with custom tunes and it is no longer remotely close.
Buy a Prius if you're that worried about economy.

Naturally aspirated vs twin turbo. Pretty common knowledge that you can get crazy gains out of almost anything turbocharged.

Also I could care less about fuel economy. Never once cared when I had my 14' Raptor either. What I have been saying is a small increase in fuel economy a bump in power that could have been just as easily done with a supercharger on the 5.0L. Don't care about fuel economy but a big reason they have been pushing the Ecoboost hype is for mpg which it barely made a difference.

 

[03'Darin]

Oversized 20s? What's that like 22?

No. That's my poor memory not remembering what size tire I put on.

I did the Open Country Toyo in the 275 but I don't remember the aspect ratio

 

[SZDZMTR]

That's for the next owner to worry about.

Congrats on your new ordered truck.

 

[Ballistic]

Buy a Prius if you're that worried about economy.

To be real technical, the Prius has been compared to as bad for the environment as a hummer, I don’t think it’s been quite proven, but the car is nowhere near as good for planet earth as people make it out to be.

If you had to source the nickel for the battery form Canada, then ship it all the way to Europe, convert it into nickel foam, then send it to japan, then send it back to the United States and it waists thousands gallons of fuel before the car has its first mile even driven.

 

[yenrod]

Sorry, not really, chevys look like they have been beat with a sack of nickles. Designs have gone from worse to moderately worse. I hate the squared wheel wells, the front ends look like a disaster, but they have autozone LEDs added to be "modern" that look out of place, I could go on for hours but Im sure I sound like a hater, and I am.
I would give a chevy away to charity if i one won for free, thats about it.
Its going to be funny at best when chevy starts using aluminium like the leader does soon, and its coming in case you didnt already know.
chevy=bud-light(butt-wipe) beer.
I tested a high country before going with f-150, not even close even though it was cheaper

 

[Nordic]

Disappointing. A small gain in performance and MPG on a truck we have been led to believe is basically a gift from the gods? Lame....

Based on displacement, I think the power numbers are extremely impressive when compared to other FI performance sedans and SUVs that are either V6 or V8. MPG gains, to me, are a bit disappointing. Not sure 18 highway is enough to make it worthwhile to abandon the 8. Could Ford have gotten 500+ power numbers and 20 highway with better gearing and cylinder deactivation with a 5.0 TTV8? If they could have, and even if I had to cut a flinstones trap door in it just to get 10 city, I would have taken that in a second and paid more.

What may make the the new MPG numbers even worse is that I assume city, which had the significant gains, was with engine start-stop active. I could easily see driving with this off.

To qualify and not to start a Gen 1 war, I would chose the TTV6 over the Gen 1 8. The numbers are better and I like FI. I do think though that Ford could have built an 8 with power numbers that exceeded the TTV6 and MPG very near the TTV6's rating.

 

[The Macf]

Forza was way wrong.

 

[Nordic]

Pretty sure my 6.2L said 11/16. 16 to 18 only a 12.5% increase in highway mileage. It's still tall, and still has fat tires.

11 to 15 is a 36% increase in city mileage. More gear ratios and lighter truck pay off in stop and go.

Edit: They are talking city MPGs with the 33% improvement, not highway.

Not sure it's even that much city, assuming EPA numbers are with start/stop active.

 

[JDog]

My 92 Bronco 5.8L with 4" lift, 33's and 4.10s gets 12 MPGs and has about 200 HP.









---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------





If they were remotely close in stock performance, put $400 into each for a SCT X4 with custom tunes and it is no longer remotely close.

Buy a Prius if you're that worried about economy.

Beautiful Bronco! I have a '94. But not nearly as nice as yours. Gas mileage is a hair better with stock suspension and slightly larger tires


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk