TRX throwing shade at the Raptor

[TurboTJ]

HELL YES! My friends baby eating 2JZ running 6’s and one of his spares. Concrete filled no water in heads welded shut. 98 pounds of boost.

My 93 fox cobra has a 2JZ and a TH400 too







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good god! That’s more pressure than my air compressor builds!

Supercharged V8 > *

That doesn’t look like a production car. Weird! Let’s start comparing to tractors and other vehicles that don’t have to worry about driving characteristics, packaging Or the fact that they take the engine apart constantly (I know a certain dual engine fighter jet that beats a V8). I agree that if you don’t have to worry about these items, a V8 could be best but so could a gas turbine.

This is why, as engineers, we can’t look at just one thing (like HP). The packaging, fuel economy, drive ability, emissions, ease of maintenance and many other aspects dictate which engine to use.

I was skeptical of V6’s when they came out as well (how could they not put an RB26 in the latest GTR??) but the proof is in the numbers.

Do you really not have a production car example in the last 20 years of a V8 being better?


Also, why are you obsessed with torque? HP is what actually moves you forward. Torque just gives an understanding of where horsepower is made.

 

[FordTechOne]

The 6.7 has even more low and torque than the 6.2. That's why the 6.2 and 6.7 are Super Duty engines.

V6s, on the other hand, are not used in heavy duty trucks. Can you name some heavy duty trucks with V6 engines?

Again, they are also very rarely used in high performance applications. Aside from the Ford GT, which has a V6 due to ridiculous Le Mans class rules and Ford's homologation requirement, and the GTR, which is statistically insignificant, what high performance cars have V6 engines?

You're argument is getting more irrational with every post. I'm resorting to bullet points, maybe that will help you understand.

• Your definition of "low end torque" is very ambiguous. You are basing your argument on your opinion instead of the facts. The FACT is that 2,000 RPM the 3.5 HO is within less than 15 lb/ft of what the 6.2 makes at it’s peak. Even the Gen 1 Ecoboost makes more low end torque than the 6.2. See below.
• The EcoBoost was in the F-150 long before the Ford GT was developed. You act as if it only exists because of "homologation requirements". Your theories are not only ridiculous, they're just plain wrong.
• HD trucks use I6 and V8 engines. The F-150 Raptor is not an HD truck. You have no point.
• Nobody cares what you believe should be used in high performance applications. The EcoBoost offers the best combination of Horsepower, Torque, and fuel economy for the Raptor. Just because you prefer the 6.2 doesn't change those facts.

 

[Denvertaco07]

 

[1BAD454SSv2]

I don't care for the 3.5's lack of low end torque, boost lag, and low power ceiling. And yes, I don't particularly care for the noise it makes.

3.5 has a ton of low end torque . Dyno'd 540 tq at the wheels on my 14 Tremor, little if any boost lag , try a 2000+ RPM, 4 hi, boost launch. Ripping 1.6s 60fts. Yes there is a power ceiling , sure it sounds like crap keep it a quiet as possible.

 

[FordTechOne]

3.5 has a ton of low end torque . Dyno'd 540 tq at the wheels on my 14 Tremor, little if any boost lag , try a 2000+ RPM, 4 hi, boost launch. Ripping 1.6s 60fts. Yes there is a power ceiling , sure it sounds like crap keep it a quiet as possible.

Truckasaurus doesn't believe in facts or data. If he did, he wouldn't still be posting his baseless, ridiculous comments.

 

[NASSTY]

He's drunk posting early today.

 

[NASSTY]

More fake news. Keep up the great work.

Keep on trolling, nobody believes your BS anyway.

 

[Booth9999]

I'm just here to correct fake news. I get it. You guys can't handle the truth.

Take it easy Pelosi!

 

[FordTechOne]

It sure doesn't seem like a higher output 3.5 is in the works....

https://www.autoweek.com/news/sport...rmance-build-gt-and-aftermarket-engines-hand/

As I previously thought, the Ford GT has a hand built engine. That would be far too costly for a production truck. Also, that article seems to indicate that it doesn't share very many parts with the passenger car version after all...

"The Ford GT V6 might share displacement with the rest of the EcoBoost 3.5-liter V6 engines, but that’s about where it stops. The Ford GT’s engine is stuffed with heavy-duty internals..."

You are a broken record. Everyone is sick of your trolling.

How many times does it need to be stated that there is no passenger car version of any Gen 2 EcoBoost? You just keep posting the same nonsense over and over hoping to get another reaction out of people who see right through your BS.

 

[FordTechOne]

None of the above changes the fact that it makes less low end torque than the 6.2, per Ford Performance. Or the fact that every time you let off the gas you lose most of your output until the turbos spool again. There is a reason why V6 engines are very rarely used in trucks or in high performance applications.

V6 engines are “rarely used in trucks”? Lol, you better go out and tell the fleets that own hundreds of thousands of V6 F-150’s, RAMs, and GM pickups that V6 engines are “rarely” used in trucks. I’m sure they’ll go right out and replace them all with V8s once you explain all of your ridiculous nonsense theories to them.

Everything you post is baseless speculation. The EcoBoost provides the best combination of power, torque, and fuel efficiency in the Raptor.

You’re entire argument is that you think an engine with less horsepower, less torque, and significantly lower fuel economy is better because of sound. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Clearly not.

Oh yeah and if you want to talk about where the 3.5 EB was first, let's remember that it was in the Taurus before the F-150

And? Who cares? Ford mainstreamed turbocharged V6 engines when they offered the EcoBoost in the F-150. The sales spoke for themselves. Customers overwhelmingly preferred the EcoBoost’s torque curve and fuel economy over the V8.