Sportsmobile Forum

Sportsmobile Forum (https://www.sportsmobileforum.com/forums/)
-   General Sportsmobile (https://www.sportsmobileforum.com/forums/f9/)
-   -   Transit updates from SMB? (https://www.sportsmobileforum.com/forums/f9/transit-updates-from-smb-11941.html)

Chance 02-09-2014 11:05 AM

Transit updates from SMB?
 
1 Attachment(s)
Information on new USA Transit is starting to come out in advance of Ford starting to take orders. Of interest to me were pricing, preliminary engine ratings, and available options/packages, including RV prep package. Not a lot of details yet on packages like heavy duty towing.

Has anyone seen or heard reports or updates from SMB on Transit? Seems they came out with data on ProMaster well in advance of actual availability, although my recollection on timing may be off.


BTW, preliminary engine ratings for those who can't view pictures are:

Std V6 - 266 HP and 249 lb-ft

Eco-Boost - 320 HP and 400 lb-ft

3.2L Diesel - 190 HP and 346 lb-ft

Early specs subject to change seem to show std V6 will have 3.73 on low and medium roofs, and 4.10 on high roof. Also 4.10 will be optional on low and medium roof vans. Diesel and Eco-Boost will have 3.31 std and 3.73 as option.

BroncoHauler 02-09-2014 11:20 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Anyone know if the EcoBoosts have gotten any closer to their claimed MPG figures? On other forums I've seen a lot of discussion that owners (F150's) weren't even getting close to the MPG claims. There don't seem to be any complaints about the power though, which may explain the lower than expected MPG numbers.


Herb

Chance 02-09-2014 02:13 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoHauler
Anyone know if the EcoBoosts have gotten any closer to their claimed MPG figures? On other forums I've seen a lot of discussion that owners (F150's) weren't even getting close to the MPG claims. There don't seem to be any complaints about the power though, which may explain the lower than expected MPG numbers.


Herb

Exactly right. As far as I know, EPA test has a predetermined schedule of speed and acceleration. Since the base 3.7L V6 can accelerate fast enough to complete the test, it's doubtful the EcoBoost needs much boost, if any at all, to produce the needed power. Hence good EPA rating almost as good as base engine.

On the street drivers with more power will use more of it. Hence more fuel. Maybe that's why Ford developed a smaller 2.7L V6 Eco-Boost for the new F-150. I'd guess that will eventually filter down to Transit.

carringb 02-09-2014 03:11 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
I have friends with EcoBoost pickups. If you drive them like any other pickup, they easily get the stated fuel economy. However, its so smooth, quiet, and powerful most Eco drivers hot rod them around, which is why most get worse than the rating. The quietness of that motor combined with its power is pretty amazing, but also makes it easy to drive harder than you need to. One friend lifted it and put on oversized tires, which dropped him about 3 MPG. He gained back about half of that using 5-Star's economy tune, which reduces boost under light throttle.

My mom's '13 Mercedes GLK350 is the same way. When I drive, I get about 13 MPG driving around Portland freeways, but if you set cruise control near the speed limits, it'll get 28.

EMrider 02-09-2014 08:05 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoHauler
Anyone know if the EcoBoosts have gotten any closer to their claimed MPG figures? On other forums I've seen a lot of discussion that owners (F150's) weren't even getting close to the MPG claims. There don't seem to be any complaints about the power though, which may explain the lower than expected MPG numbers.


Herb

Exactly right. As far as I know, EPA test has a predetermined schedule of speed and acceleration. Since the base 3.7L V6 can accelerate fast enough to complete the test, it's doubtful the EcoBoost needs much boost, if any at all, to produce the needed power. Hence good EPA rating almost as good as base engine.

On the street drivers with more power will use more of it. Hence more fuel. Maybe that's why Ford developed a smaller 2.7L V6 Eco-Boost for the new F-150. I'd guess that will eventually filter down to Transit.

When I was considering purchasing a new pickup about 6 months ago, I did a lot of reading about the Ecoboost F-150. I decided to buy a 2005 Jeep Wrangler instead. But one concern about the Ecoboost that came up very often on forums and seemed credible was a problem with the intercooler design that can cause water condensation to be ingested into the motor. This causes a sudden loss of power and the motor to shudder and go into limp mode. Do some reading and you will find this issue mentioned very often. It seems to be a bigger deal in humid climates. I wonder if Ford has addresses this problem in newer model years. A new Transit is probably in my future and aside from this issue, the Ecoboost seems to be a winner.

Rob

UJOINT 02-09-2014 08:07 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
I can't wait for the crew cab! I may go to the measuring session.

carringb 02-10-2014 12:19 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EMrider
...But one concern about the Ecoboost that came up very often on forums and seemed credible was a problem with the intercooler design that can cause water condensation to be ingested into the motor. This causes a sudden loss of power and the motor to shudder and go into limp mode. Do some reading and you will find this issue mentioned very often. It seems to be a bigger deal in humid climates. I wonder if Ford has addresses this problem in newer model years. A new Transit is probably in my future and aside from this issue, the Ecoboost seems to be a winner.

Rob

They have fixed this. Most of the trucks only needed a reflash, but some of them needed the updated intercooler. My friend's truck was one of those due to his driving cycle (~5 mile commute home with a 25% grade going up to his house, which is where the condensation ingestion would happen) combined with the damp Oregon weather. The updated intercooler made the problem go away completely.

EMrider 02-10-2014 09:38 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
Quote:

Originally Posted by EMrider
...But one concern about the Ecoboost that came up very often on forums and seemed credible was a problem with the intercooler design that can cause water condensation to be ingested into the motor. This causes a sudden loss of power and the motor to shudder and go into limp mode. Do some reading and you will find this issue mentioned very often. It seems to be a bigger deal in humid climates. I wonder if Ford has addresses this problem in newer model years. A new Transit is probably in my future and aside from this issue, the Ecoboost seems to be a winner.

Rob

They have fixed this. Most of the trucks only needed a reflash, but some of them needed the updated intercooler. My friend's truck was one of those due to his driving cycle (~5 mile commute home with a 25% grade going up to his house, which is where the condensation ingestion would happen) combined with the damp Oregon weather. The updated intercooler made the problem go away completely.

Good to know, thanks.
R

Chance 02-10-2014 10:43 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
I have friends with EcoBoost pickups. If you drive them like any other pickup, they easily get the stated fuel economy. However, its so smooth, quiet, and powerful most Eco drivers hot rod them around, which is why most get worse than the rating. The quietness of that motor combined with its power is pretty amazing, but also makes it easy to drive harder than you need to. One friend lifted it and put on oversized tires, which dropped him about 3 MPG. He gained back about half of that using 5-Star's economy tune, which reduces boost under light throttle.

My mom's '13 Mercedes GLK350 is the same way. When I drive, I get about 13 MPG driving around Portland freeways, but if you set cruise control near the speed limits, it'll get 28.

If a driver plans to use the available power, in your opinion what is the advantage of the EcoBoost versus a larger naturally aspirated engine?

The 5.0L V8 in truck tune is comparable in power to the 3.5L EcoBoost V6. In an F-150 driven the same or towing a typical 5,000 pound RV trailer, would the EB save significant fuel? And will a smaller EB that is stressed higher last as long as a 5.0L V8 doing same work?

Obviously the 5.0L isn't available on Transit but I'm interested in your opinion on EB durability and cost over time due to greater complexity.

BTW, noticed on one Ford spec that on heavier duty Transit chassis cabs and cutaways the EB is not listed as an option. The configurator only shows std V6 and diesel. I'm guessing commercial/fleet buyers would likely avoid the EcoBoost V6 anyway.

carringb 02-10-2014 06:17 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
If a driver plans to use the available power, in your opinion what is the advantage of the EcoBoost versus a larger naturally aspirated engine?

Turbos, which means no power loss at elevation. Other than that, none. The EcoBoost 3.5L compares better performance wise with the 6.2L, and the Eco certainly bests that. But if you stuck the EcoBoost in a large profile vehicle, like a motorhome or box truck, it would be boost all the time and would as much fuel as a large displacement motor. Compared to the 5.0, the EcoBoost is more powerful, and the biggest difference is towing when the EcoBoost can pull hills at 2,500 RPM while the 5.0 is pushing 5k.

As for longevity... I don't think it would last as long. Long enough for most users, yes. But could a 3.5L EcoBoost go 500,000 miles under severe service conditions? I doubt it. But the V10 could no problem.

I've also experienced the EcoBoost going into limp-mode after a hard climb with a trailer because the cylinder heads were getting too hot. It only took about a minute to cool down. The V10 would not have done that (I've taken the same route with the van too).

Chance 02-10-2014 08:06 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
If a driver plans to use the available power, in your opinion what is the advantage of the EcoBoost versus a larger naturally aspirated engine?

Turbos, which means no power loss at elevation. Other than that, none. The EcoBoost 3.5L compares better performance wise with the 6.2L, and the Eco certainly bests that. But if you stuck the EcoBoost in a large profile vehicle, like a motorhome or box truck, it would be boost all the time and would as much fuel as a large displacement motor. Compared to the 5.0, the EcoBoost is more powerful, and the biggest difference is towing when the EcoBoost can pull hills at 2,500 RPM while the 5.0 is pushing 5k.

......cut......

I'm not sure I agree with the "low-end" pulling power of the EcoBoost that Ford has hammered so hard in marketing. Look at it objectively using Ford's own data from F-150 engine ratings.

Std V6:
302 HP @ 6500 RPM
278 lb-ft at 4000 RPM (212 HP)

EcoBoost
365 HP @ 5000 RPM
420 lb-ft @ 2500 RPM (200 HP)

5.0L V8
360 HP @ 5500 RPM
380 lb-ft @ 4250 RPM (307 HP)

6.2L V8
411 HP @ 5500 RPM
434 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM (372 HP)

So it appears that at even 4000 RPM a 5.0L V8 would absolutely smoke a 3.5 EB V6 if running at 2500 RPM. You could pull the trailer approximately 50% faster up the hill with the 5.0L V8. And of course the 6.2L is that much more.

To me this says that even though the EcoBoost produces maximum torque at 2500 RPM, it can't generate much power at that low RPM. Even the standard V6 can pull as hard at 4000 RPM as the EB at 2500 RPM.

BroncoHauler 02-10-2014 08:42 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
I'll take low-end torque any day, rather than having an engine scream when I need it.


Herb

EMrider 02-10-2014 10:27 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
If a driver plans to use the available power, in your opinion what is the advantage of the EcoBoost versus a larger naturally aspirated engine?

Turbos, which means no power loss at elevation. Other than that, none. The EcoBoost 3.5L compares better performance wise with the 6.2L, and the Eco certainly bests that. But if you stuck the EcoBoost in a large profile vehicle, like a motorhome or box truck, it would be boost all the time and would as much fuel as a large displacement motor. Compared to the 5.0, the EcoBoost is more powerful, and the biggest difference is towing when the EcoBoost can pull hills at 2,500 RPM while the 5.0 is pushing 5k.

......cut......

I'm not sure I agree with the "low-end" pulling power of the EcoBoost that Ford has hammered so hard in marketing. Look at it objectively using Ford's own data from F-150 engine ratings.

Std V6:
302 HP @ 6500 RPM
278 lb-ft at 4000 RPM (212 HP)

EcoBoost
365 HP @ 5000 RPM
420 lb-ft @ 2500 RPM (200 HP)

5.0L V8
360 HP @ 5500 RPM
380 lb-ft @ 4250 RPM (307 HP)

6.2L V8
411 HP @ 5500 RPM
434 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM (372 HP)

So it appears that at even 4000 RPM a 5.0L V8 would absolutely smoke a 3.5 EB V6 if running at 2500 RPM. You could pull the trailer approximately 50% faster up the hill with the 5.0L V8. And of course the 6.2L is that much more.

To me this says that even though the EcoBoost produces maximum torque at 2500 RPM, it can't generate much power at that low RPM. Even the standard V6 can pull as hard at 4000 RPM as the EB at 2500 RPM.

You lost me here.

I think that you are mixing HP and torque as a metric for pulling power.


R

carringb 02-10-2014 11:20 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
So it appears that at even 4000 RPM a 5.0L V8 would absolutely smoke a 3.5 EB V6 if running at 2500 RPM. You could pull the trailer approximately 50% faster up the hill with the 5.0L V8. And of course the 6.2L is that much more.

To me this says that even though the EcoBoost produces maximum torque at 2500 RPM, it can't generate much power at that low RPM. Even the standard V6 can pull as hard at 4000 RPM as the EB at 2500 RPM.

But the EcoBoost still has another 2500 RPM left in it, while the 3.7L and 5.0 are already peaked out. You really just need to drive one. Even comparing peak HP number, the aftermarket tuners who have dyno-tested the EcoBoost motors of all sizes pretty all say Ford understates the EcoBoosts number (they speculate it's baggage from the Mustang Cobra fiasco when it didn't quite make stated numbers).

Watch this video.... Pretty good comparison of the EcoBoost vs 6.2L in the Raptor:
[youtube:1z1pf6ii]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYWE11Oo5rg[/youtube:1z1pf6ii]

Chance 02-11-2014 08:51 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EMrider

You lost me here.

I think that you are mixing HP and torque as a metric for pulling power.


R

Not a chance. :a3: (Just kidding)

What exactly are you not following, and or think I'm mixing up?

I didn't mean to start a power and torque discussion, but will gladly consider and respond to different points of view; particularly when discussion is technical and grounded in objectivity. There is little point in discussing highly-subjective personal tastes like preferring low-end torque over higher-end power. That never goes anywhere.

I merely responded to carringb's example of EB at 2500 RPM versus 5.0 needing 5k (as in 5000 RPM) to match same work. Right off that comparison seemed out of proportion (based on Ford engine ratings).

Chance 02-11-2014 09:01 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
.....cut......

Watch this video.... Pretty good comparison of the EcoBoost vs 6.2L in the Raptor:
[youtube:13iddj2t]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYWE11Oo5rg[/youtube:13iddj2t]

For some reason video link doesn't come up on my iPad.

WhitH 02-11-2014 10:04 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
It may be a mistake to assume that the peak torque number only occurs at the stated rpm (2500) or at least practically speaking. The EB makes peak torque beginning at 2500 but how long does it maintain that number or close to it as the rpms climb? You'd then need to look at the exact same thing for hp and compare them to see how long big hp numbers match up to big torque numbers through the rpm range. At least that's how I understand it....but if I were wrong it wouldn't be the first time today and it's only 8:00 am.

Chance 02-11-2014 10:27 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
That's a great point because many modern turbo engines have a flat torque curve at maximum rating that is due to computer-imposed limits (to limit stresses, temperature, and maybe pollution). The 3.5L EcoBoost may very well remain in the same range of torque up to 3500 or 4000 RPMs or so. The one thing we do know for certain (if you believe Ford ratings) is that if both the 3.5L EB or 5.0L V8 are pushed to maximize power, then they are very close. One at 360 HP and the other at 365 HP. And RPMs aren't all that different either since one is at 5000 and the other at 5500 RPM.

I want to be clear that I'm not against turbos, or against EB in general. I just prefer that marketing-driven hype is kept in check. Lots of torque may feel great to the driver, but unless it comes with some RPMs too it normally doesn't translate to pulling "POWER". There is a reason it's normally called "pulling power" and not "pulling torque". As illustrated above, the standard 3.7 V6 can pull just as hard at 4000 RPM as the EB at 2500 RPM. The only difference is that it needs a lower gear so the vehicle is traveling at same speed. So it may spin up a hill in 2nd gear at close to 4000 when the EB could use 3rd at close to 2500 RPM (if they had similar axle ratios and tire sizes). In both cases MPH are similar and generated pulling force to pull a trailer up a hill is also similar.



carringb: Video link came up on desktop. Cool video but "more than $80,000 into truck"? And to get a few more HP than a 6.2L? That's having a lot of extra money laying around.

Ford_6L_E350 02-11-2014 10:33 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
It seems that we have been down this road before. And we will never settle it.

Chance has the numbers, and they are important to him.

Others know what they prefer to drive and why it is important to them.

Everybody is right, everyone wins. Just drop it.

Mike

carringb 02-11-2014 11:57 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
As illustrated above, the standard 3.7 V6 can pull just as hard at 4000 RPM as the EB at 2500 RPM. The only difference is that it needs a lower gear so the vehicle is traveling at same speed. So it may spin up a hill in 2nd gear at close to 4000 when the EB could use 3rd at close to 2500 RPM (if they had similar axle ratios and tire sizes). In both cases MPH are similar and generated pulling force to pull a trailer up a hill is also similar.

You are right, that if you hold the 3.5L at 2500 RPM the other motors can match or beat that HP. But it's not close to maxed out at that point. And having more HP at a lower RPM is desirable for many users who tow. And yes, the EcoBoost does have a very flat torque curve. This is the Taurus/Flex dyno. The F150 is a little less flat, but since the Transit version is detuned from the F-series version, you can bet it will look like the Taurus graph.

https://www.shosource.com/catalog/ima...Boost_Dyno.jpg

PS - I don't disagree the 3.7L makes enough HP for a van. But the EcoBoost is more fun, and definitely a great towing motor, even though it doesn't exactly get "Eco" gas-milaege while towing. But the rest of the time, it does pretty good. I love the power of my V10, but I'm definitely a little jealous of the EcoBoost's milage when I'm not towing.

On that note.... The Transit EcoBoost has my attention, but I'm leaning towards an E450-cutaway conversion, and maybe a Flex for my EcoBoost fix. I'll have to wait until they come out to get a better idea. An EcoBoost Transit and a Fiesta ST would be a nice combo too, but then the Fiesta would be more limited for weekend use.

Chance 02-11-2014 04:41 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
....cut......
PS - I don't disagree the 3.7L makes enough HP for a van.
.....cut......

In my opinion whether it's enough for a lot of prospective buyers will depend on what tow ratings Ford gives all three engines.

I haven't seen Transit Tow Ratings yet, but if I look at the F-150 with similar V6s, there is a lot of difference between EB and standard V6. Effective axle ratios are not the same due to smaller Transit tires, but a rough comparison has the GCWR for the standard V6 at 11,700 pounds and the EB at 16,900 pounds (depends on models but you get general idea).

If it remains in that approximate GCWR range, the std V6 Transit will have the same problem as the ProMaster. When converted to a camper which adds a lot of weight, there won't be much capacity left for towing. A T-350 van with GVWR of 9500 pounds that weighs close to 9000 pounds loaded may not be able to tow much more than 3000 pounds unless it gets an engine upgrade. And DRW models with their higher GVWR will make a "possible" low GCWR even more important.

Seeing new ProMaster-based RVs at the Houston RV Show limited to around 2000-pound trailers was disappointing. I'm hoping Ford can do better without forcing an expensive engine upgrade.

carringb 02-11-2014 05:02 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
If it remains in that approximate GCWR range, the std V6 Transit will have the same problem as the ProMaster. When converted to a camper which adds a lot of weight, there won't be much capacity left for towing.

Agreed 100%. That's why I said "van". For towing, the EcoBoost is the way to go for sure (or of course a cutaway E-series with the V10).

I don't think the ProMaster would benefit from more power anyways. All that would do is make more smoke as the front tires grasp for traction. I think our V6 Camry is pushing it for too much power in a FWD. It even has equal-length half-shafts but still has crazy torque steer when you get on it, since it doesn't have a fancy diff like the go-fast hatchbacks out there.

BroncoHauler 02-11-2014 06:34 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
... Cool video but "more than $80,000 into truck"? And to get a few more HP than a 6.2L? That's having a lot of extra money laying around.

Good thing that's nothing like putting $120K into a van. :b1:

I know apples and oranges, but I couldn't resist.


Herb

EMrider 02-11-2014 07:57 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
Quote:

Originally Posted by EMrider

You lost me here.

I think that you are mixing HP and torque as a metric for pulling power.


R

Not a chance. :a3: (Just kidding)

What exactly are you not following, and or think I'm mixing up?

I didn't mean to start a power and torque discussion, but will gladly consider and respond to different points of view; particularly when discussion is technical and grounded in objectivity. There is little point in discussing highly-subjective personal tastes like preferring low-end torque over higher-end power. That never goes anywhere.

I merely responded to carringb's example of EB at 2500 RPM versus 5.0 needing 5k (as in 5000 RPM) to match same work. Right off that comparison seemed out of proportion (based on Ford engine ratings).

Thanks for the reply.

I am likely the least knowledgable person here on motors and how to objectively assess them.

I was lost because of the substantial difference in EB and 5.0 torque at 2500k and 5000k RPMs respectively, in light of the comment that the EBs low end pulling capabilities were exaggerated.

Reading further I suspect that this mat not be the best or most relevant point of comparison......but still don't fully understand why. I will stay tuned to this thread.

Rob

Chance 02-11-2014 08:15 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
If it remains in that approximate GCWR range, the std V6 Transit will have the same problem as the ProMaster. When converted to a camper which adds a lot of weight, there won't be much capacity left for towing.

Agreed 100%. That's why I said "van". For towing, the EcoBoost is the way to go for sure (or of course a cutaway E-series with the V10).

I don't think the ProMaster would benefit from more power anyways. All that would do is make more smoke as the front tires grasp for traction. I think our V6 Camry is pushing it for too much power in a FWD. It even has equal-length half-shafts but still has crazy torque steer when you get on it, since it doesn't have a fancy diff like the go-fast hatchbacks out there.

I wonder if FWD power limits should be considered on an absolute basis, or if it's not better to think of it as a function of vehicle weight; particularly on vehicle weight resting on front driven wheels. My "guess" is that if you can put 300 HP in a 4000-pound FWD car, then 600 HP in an 8000-pound FWD van with similar weight distribution would not be much worse. Please note I'm not suggesting that anyone should put 600 HP in a FWD van. Mostly because it's not needed. But if the drivetrain was designed for that much power, I don't see why it would spin wheels for lack of traction much differently than a performance FWD Acura. For the most part traction should be proportional to weight over driven wheels -- everything else being similar. Granted FWD tends to unload front wheels when pulling or accelerating hard, but due to very long wheelbase this transfer of weight is minimal.

FWIW, I wish Ford would bring the FWD and AWD Transit to US. The FWD version of the mid-roof model would be well suited for Class B conversions.

Chance 02-11-2014 08:17 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoHauler
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
... Cool video but "more than $80,000 into truck"? And to get a few more HP than a 6.2L? That's having a lot of extra money laying around.

Good think that's noting like putting $120K into a van. :b1:

I know apples and oranges, but I couldn't resist.


Herb

Touché

A good one Herb.

Chance 02-11-2014 08:45 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EMrider

Thanks for the reply.

I am likely the least knowledgable person here on motors and how to objectively assess them.

I was lost because of the substantial difference in EB and 5.0 torque at 2500k and 5000k RPMs respectively, in light of the comment that the EBs low end pulling capabilities were exaggerated.

Reading further I suspect that this mat not be the best or most relevant point of comparison......but still don't fully understand why. I will stay tuned to this thread.

Rob

No problem Rob, I enjoy technical discussions as long as they don't turn into arguments.

The thing to remember is that the vehicle's transmission changes (or converts) both engine torque and engine speed between the crankshaft and the driveshaft simultaneously. If we looked at just one of these two, either RPM or Torque, by themselves it's impossible to compare much of real value to us. Also the amount of torque and speed that is changed across the transmission depends on the selected gear ratio.

I don't want to bore with meaningless examples, so I'll try to find an applicable real-world one for the Transit. If I can find one that is easy to follow I'll post it later. Unless you have a specific issue or question you'd rather discuss.

carringb 02-11-2014 09:59 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance

I wonder if FWD power limits should be considered on an absolute basis, or if it's not better to think of it as a function of vehicle weight; particularly on vehicle weight resting on front driven wheels.

When it comes to traction, torque is what matters, and a large van generally has more torque than an similar HP passenger car, especially considering transmission and final drive ratios. Also, it will be harder to keep the weight bias forward in a van, simply because there is so much cargo area, and the engine (in the ProMaster at least) doesn't really add any substantial weight compared to a car motor. But probably most relevant is how center of gravity affect weight transfer (higher = more). So in the end, I don't think traction is scalable.

Chance 02-11-2014 10:57 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carringb
......cut......But probably most relevant is how center of gravity affect weight transfer (higher = more). So in the end, I don't think traction is scalable.

As I implied above, all vehicles transfer weight back when accelerating and or pulling a load forward. In the case of RWD it adds weight (and thus traction) to driven wheels. With a FWD vehicle the transfer "unloads" the front wheels. But as I stated above, the percentage of weight that is transferred not only depends on height of center of gravity, but also on length of wheelbase. The higher the CG the more transfer, but the longer the wheelbase the less weight will transfer from front to rear axle.

And this ratio is very scalable. A ProMaster with 159-inch wheelbase can have a much higher CG than a car with 100-inch wheelbase before the same percent of weight is shifted back under acceleration.

Also, according to Motor Trend, a long PM has a weight distribution of 62/38 F/R. Depending on the build, a PM camper van could easily maintain about half of the weight over front driven wheels. And if heavy items like generator, batteries, propane tank, holding tanks and so on are added low on the unit, then the CG shouldn't be that high anyway -- at least not in proportion to long wheelbase.

And let's not forget that weight transfer due to hard acceleration is only an issue when there is enough traction to accelerate fast in the first place -- like on dry pavement. On wet or slippery roads acceleration is limited so there isn't as much weight transfer anyway. In these cases of slippery surfaces, higher percent weight over driven wheels is more important. Hence why FWD cars usually exhibit better traction on snow and ice.

Chance 02-12-2014 01:36 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EMrider
.....cut......

I was lost because of the substantial difference in EB and 5.0 torque at 2500k and 5000k RPMs respectively, in light of the comment that the EBs low end pulling capabilities were exaggerated.

Reading further I suspect that this mat not be the best or most relevant point of comparison......but still don't fully understand why. I will stay tuned to this thread.

Rob

Rob, I'm not sure if this will help or not. I couldn’t find a much better real-world example so let’s look at the one already mentioned above that caused some confusion. It’s fairly straight forward and not too hard to follow because the numbers are close enough that it makes it easy to compare. That’s not always the case though because transmission gear steps may not match differences in engine speeds that you may be interested in comparing.

First keep in mind that traditional transmissions do not create any “power” whatsoever. They simply trade torque for speed or speed for torque depending on gear ratio. And by “traditional” transmission I mean those that are not for hybrid vehicles that may include electric motors inside transmission.

Since Transit engine specs are not available yet, let’s use the F-150’s engine specs from previous post. The 6R80 transmission will be used in both F-150 and Transit as far as I know. Published gear ratios appear identical. So let’s compare the standard V6 in second gear against the Eco-Boost in third gear because the results are close when both engines are at rated peak-torque RPM. I’m not trying to make a case for one versus the other being better, just simply stating how “gearing” works so you can run your own numbers and determine what is important to you.

6R80 Gear Ratios (from Transit and F-150 specs):
1 – 4.17
2 – 2.34
3 – 1.52
4 – 1.14
5 - .86
6 - .69
R – 3.40

Std V6 (from F-150 specs):
302 HP @ 6500 RPM
278 lb-ft at 4000 RPM (212 HP)

EcoBoost (from F-150 specs):
365 HP @ 5000 RPM
420 lb-ft @ 2500 RPM (200 HP)

To keep numbers simpler let’s assume the transmissions are 100% efficient. They won’t be in the real world, but for comparison it won’t make much difference since 2nd and 3rd ratio efficiencies should be similar. Also to keep it as simple as possible let’s assume torque converter is locked so there is no slippage.

Std V6 in 2nd gear:

278 lb-ft engine torque X 2.34 gear ratio = 650 lb-ft at driveshaft

4000 RPM / 2.34 = 1710 RPM at driveshaft

Eco-Boost in 3rd gear:

420 lb-ft engine torque X 1.52 = 640 lb-ft at driveshaft

2500 RPM / 1.52 = 1650 RPM at driveshaft


As you can see there isn’t a lot of difference as it affects what the driven rear axles see. As long as the vans have equal axle ratios we can conclude that the standard V6 will pull just as hard at 4000 RPM as the EB at 2500 RPM. But that is “ALL” this says. And nothing more. Regardless, I can already hear all the “buts”.

Please understand that I’m very aware that there are many other factors one can consider like those mentioned by other members. For example, the EB can also double its speed from 2500 to 5000 RPM while the standard V6 can’t go from 4000 to 8000 RPM. And while that’s good to know and may be of great value to some, it doesn’t change the fact that in some cases a less powerful engine may be enough if the driver is willing to use higher engine RPMs instead of higher engine torque to get the job done.

Whether a driver prefers pulling a trailer up a steep hill at 420 lb-ft at 2500 RPM under boost versus 278 lb-ft at 4000 RPM under no boost is a matter of choice. I normally buy vehicles in large part based on value, and since I’m not in a big hurry when camping, I’m also willing to climb mountains at slower speed in a lower gear if necessary. As mentioned before, as long as Ford rates the standard V6 with a high-enough GCWR to meet my occassional towing needs (so it doesn’t void warrantee) I would not hesitate buying a Transit with the base engine. I also like simpler stuff and the standard engine meets that criteria better for me.

carringb 02-12-2014 01:51 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Great example and explanation of HP vs Torque!

I actually don't mind letting an engine rev if that's what its made to do. But, I often am in a hurry. I'd rather spend my limited time playing than driving, especially when the drive involves the entire Midwest or California's central valley. And, I like having more power than I need. I don't want to spend my time in the truck lane, or get stuck behind a Prius going 15 under the speed limit, until of course they get to the passing lane and speed way up to prevent anyone from passing in the passing zone. I'd rather just make a quick pass whenever its safe and not have to deal with them again.

WhitH 02-12-2014 05:11 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Carringb, I've passed that same Prius on 126 and on 58 many times. The consistency is amazing....

EMrider 02-13-2014 07:15 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chance
Quote:

Originally Posted by EMrider
.....cut......

I was lost because of the substantial difference in EB and 5.0 torque at 2500k and 5000k RPMs respectively, in light of the comment that the EBs low end pulling capabilities were exaggerated.

Reading further I suspect that this mat not be the best or most relevant point of comparison......but still don't fully understand why. I will stay tuned to this thread.

Rob

Rob, I'm not sure if this will help or not. I couldn’t find a much better real-world example so let’s look at the one already mentioned above that caused some confusion. It’s fairly straight forward and not too hard to follow because the numbers are close enough that it makes it easy to compare. That’s not always the case though because transmission gear steps may not match differences in engine speeds that you may be interested in comparing.

First keep in mind that traditional transmissions do not create any “power” whatsoever. They simply trade torque for speed or speed for torque depending on gear ratio. And by “traditional” transmission I mean those that are not for hybrid vehicles that may include electric motors inside transmission.

Since Transit engine specs are not available yet, let’s use the F-150’s engine specs from previous post. The 6R80 transmission will be used in both F-150 and Transit as far as I know. Published gear ratios appear identical. So let’s compare the standard V6 in second gear against the Eco-Boost in third gear because the results are close when both engines are at rated peak-torque RPM. I’m not trying to make a case for one versus the other being better, just simply stating how “gearing” works so you can run your own numbers and determine what is important to you.

6R80 Gear Ratios (from Transit and F-150 specs):
1 – 4.17
2 – 2.34
3 – 1.52
4 – 1.14
5 - .86
6 - .69
R – 3.40

Std V6 (from F-150 specs):
302 HP @ 6500 RPM
278 lb-ft at 4000 RPM (212 HP)

EcoBoost (from F-150 specs):
365 HP @ 5000 RPM
420 lb-ft @ 2500 RPM (200 HP)

To keep numbers simpler let’s assume the transmissions are 100% efficient. They won’t be in the real world, but for comparison it won’t make much difference since 2nd and 3rd ratio efficiencies should be similar. Also to keep it as simple as possible let’s assume torque converter is locked so there is no slippage.

Std V6 in 2nd gear:

278 lb-ft engine torque X 2.34 gear ratio = 650 lb-ft at driveshaft

4000 RPM / 2.34 = 1710 RPM at driveshaft

Eco-Boost in 3rd gear:

420 lb-ft engine torque X 1.52 = 640 lb-ft at driveshaft

2500 RPM / 1.52 = 1650 RPM at driveshaft


As you can see there isn’t a lot of difference as it affects what the driven rear axles see. As long as the vans have equal axle ratios we can conclude that the standard V6 will pull just as hard at 4000 RPM as the EB at 2500 RPM. But that is “ALL” this says. And nothing more. Regardless, I can already hear all the “buts”.

Please understand that I’m very aware that there are many other factors one can consider like those mentioned by other members. For example, the EB can also double its speed from 2500 to 5000 RPM while the standard V6 can’t go from 4000 to 8000 RPM. And while that’s good to know and may be of great value to some, it doesn’t change the fact that in some cases a less powerful engine may be enough if the driver is willing to use higher engine RPMs instead of higher engine torque to get the job done.

Whether a driver prefers pulling a trailer up a steep hill at 420 lb-ft at 2500 RPM under boost versus 278 lb-ft at 4000 RPM under no boost is a matter of choice. I normally buy vehicles in large part based on value, and since I’m not in a big hurry when camping, I’m also willing to climb mountains at slower speed in a lower gear if necessary. As mentioned before, as long as Ford rates the standard V6 with a high-enough GCWR to meet my occassional towing needs (so it doesn’t void warrantee) I would not hesitate buying a Transit with the base engine. I also like simpler stuff and the standard engine meets that criteria better for me.

I think that I get it now, or at least have a much better understanding. Very helpful, thanks.

My bias is also to not rush when driving and take the scenic route.


Rob

dhally 02-13-2014 10:43 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
I would be pretty skeptical about putting a turbocharger into a van (ecoboost). This is based on my experience with ONE vehicle. I had a 1990 Mazda 626GT, which had a 2.2L turbocharged gas engine. I normally got 27 mpg, which was probably 2 to 4 mpg better than a similar V6. When I spooled up the turbo, it accelerated like a cut cat! (It could have used some traction control.)

The problem was, the engine was cooked at 150,000 miles. I had to replace every piece of rubber in the engine compartment, the exhaust manifold studs broke, and at the end it started loosing compression.

I could have driven it like an I4, but the hooilgan in me always wanted just a "little" boost everytime I shifted through the gears. Then both my daughters used it to learn to drive and I'm sure they had heavy feet. Bottom line, a turbo just adds heat and stress which shortens engine life. I suppose this would be OK for a passenger vehicle where it would be sold at 100,000 miles. But a camper van has a huge investment in upgrades, so I want my chassis to last 200k or 300k.

The ecoboost does sound like magic - more power, better economy, and all in a smaller, lighter package! It remains to be seen how long they last.

carringb 02-13-2014 11:24 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
In case you haven't seen the Torture Test video series.
[youtube:37bhqkqj]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4[/youtube:37bhqkqj]

Keep in mind that the EcoBoost has been out for 4 years now. Other than the initial condensation problem in the trucks and some drivers who have had turbo carbon issues (like a diesel, probably from not driving hard enough) I really haven't heard many complaints, at least nothing beyond typical.

WhitH 02-13-2014 12:36 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
I'm wondering what the fuel economy would look like in our little comparison. The standard V6 revving at 4000 rpms vs the Ecoboost at 2500. I'd venture to guess they would be very similar or the Ecoboost would be slightly better. If that were the case then the next discussion begins, how many miles until the price premium of the Ecoboost justifies itself through mpgs gained? It likely doesn't happen in an unladen/stock weight vehicle, but it might be a different story with a loaded down camper van.

carringb 02-13-2014 12:52 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WhitH
I'm wondering what the fuel economy would look like in our little comparison. The standard V6 revving at 4000 rpms vs the Ecoboost at 2500. I'd venture to guess they would be very similar or the Ecoboost would be slightly better.

At the exact same HP output, the EcoBoost will actually consume a little more fuel. This is why even in the granny-driving EPA tests the 3.7L does slightly better. Turbos use energy to spin those turbines. Most of it goes back into the motor in the form of boost, however a lot is still lost as heat at the turbos and through the intercooler. While there is a fuel-consumption/RPM relationship at constant throttle for a non-turbo motor (because atmospheric pressure is constant, and volume is determined by the cylinders pumping), this relationship doesn't work out as well for turbo'd motors because air-volume relates more to boost pressure than to engine-RPM.

Where the EcoBoost shines is comparing to a larger motor. The EcoBoost makes about the same power as the 6.2L over most of the RPM range (more at lower RPMs, less at upper), but the EcoBoost is only using lots of fuel under boost while the 6.2L is sucking fuel the entire time.

So yes, if you only need the HP of the 3.7L, it will be the most economical choice. There will not be an efficiency payback for the EcoBoost. It only "pays-off" when comparing to a larger-displacement motor.

WhitH 02-13-2014 03:36 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Just hoping to give somebody another excuse to pony up the Ecoboost, but alas you've crashed that delusion on the rocks of reality. In all seriousness your knowledge is much appreciated. I look forward to seeing the new Transit when it comes out. Like has been expressed, there will be several engines to choose from based on personal taste and need. Here's hoping the 4x4 conversion guys all get on board so there will be plenty of choices there as well.

Chance 02-13-2014 07:43 PM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WhitH
I'm wondering what the fuel economy would look like in our little comparison. The standard V6 revving at 4000 rpms vs the Ecoboost at 2500. I'd venture to guess they would be very similar or the Ecoboost would be slightly better. If that were the case then the next discussion begins, how many miles until the price premium of the Ecoboost justifies itself through mpgs gained? It likely doesn't happen in an unladen/stock weight vehicle, but it might be a different story with a loaded down camper van.

In my opinion this is a very poor example on which to base relative fuel consumption. I say this because both engines are producing around 200 HP, which means a typical driver spends very little time in that power range or we'd be getting around 5 MPG.

At around 70 MPH, a van is using more like 50 to 60 HP or so. If it were much more than that it could not deliver fuel economy in the range of 18 to maybe 20 MPG.

At 200 HP at 2500 RPM, the EcoBoost may do slightly better than the std V6 at 4000 RPM. But when cruising or driving normally at power well below 100 HP, the standard V6 should be slightly more fuel efficient (if everything was equal).

And the reason is that both engines will end up in 6th gear and thus running same RPM and torque to maintain same vehicle speed. ASSUMING both have same axle ratios. Which they probably won't, particularly for high-roof vans.

If EcoBoost has 3.31 and 3.7L V6 has 4.10, the two engines will run different RPM and torque. And this should help the EB. Whether enough to equal or better the standard V6 in fuel economy is anyone's guess. If driven equally I doubt there will be much difference in any case.

As carringb said, the EB may have a payback when compared to a 6.2L V8, or an Econoline V10 which has comparable power, but I doubt it will pay for itself against a 3.7L V6.

Chance 02-15-2014 11:49 AM

Re: Transit updates from SMB?
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by WhitH
I'm wondering what the fuel economy would look like in our little comparison. The standard V6 revving at 4000 rpms vs the Ecoboost at 2500. .....cut......

I'd seen the information below before but it took me a while to find it. Hopefully it answers your questions without being too technical to the point of being confusing.

The data here (on left) shows the baseline non-turbo engine's fuel consumption at 2000 RPM. On the right it shows the general Brake Specific Fuel Consumption map for the entire torque and RPM range.

Rather than showing torque in lb-ft (on y axis) which would only apply to one engine size, they show it as "brake mean effective pressure" so it standardizes it to apply to a 4 or 6 cylinder engine the same. Or any other size including one-cylinder test engines. So torque is shown as average cylinder pressure, and in units of "bars".

Anyway, we can see from this data that a modern engine like the Transit's standard V6 has lowest specific fuel consumption when operated in the range of the dark green oval, and almost as good in the lighter green oval. A speed of 2500 RPM and a torque represented by 9 bars is ideal to minimize fuel consumption, but depending on required horsepower, any speed between 1800 and 3200 RPM is not too bad provided torque is in the range of 7 to 10 bars.

And the light green oval shows that pretty low fuel consumption can be obtained at speeds of up to 4000 RPM as long as torque is not too low.

By the way, the lowest fuel consumption of 250 grams per kilowatt-hour is about 0.41 pounds per horsepower-hour. It's very good for gasoline engine.

If this is not too confusing to the point of being useless I'll then compare to EcoBoost data.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.