[crysalis_01]

The new 2.3EB hits the dyno:

http://www.svtperformance.com/?p=7205

Didn't want to click the link?

The car had less than 60 miles on the odometer and was still running the stock tune. It put down 276.85 horsepower and 286.72 lb-ft of torque to the wheels.

If the 310/320 is accurate that would equate to something akin to 11% drivetrain loss.

[Jason@JacFab]

Pretty cool! I'm pretty impressed with the FRPP Ecoboost dragstrip times, but can't wait to see what people can crank out with a bone stock car. This is better than the current v6 Camaro no doubt about it. Anxiously awaiting a turbo 4 cyl 6th gen. Crank up the boost and go!

[KMPrenger]

That low amount of drivetrain loss seems a bit low to me. That would be extremely efficient if it is true. Otherwise either that dyno is a bit generous or the car makes more than advertised.

I certainly didn't expect the HP to dyno more than a Camaro V6, but I expected the torque to be much higher. We'll see over time what other stock ecoboosts are doing on the dyno.

Torque hangs in their nicely until about 5,300 rpm. I figured it would drop off sooner.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Nice

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

That low amount of drivetrain loss seems a bit low to me. That would be extremely efficient if it is true. Otherwise either that dyno is a bit generous or the car makes more than advertised.

I certainly didn't expect the HP to dyno more than a Camaro V6, but I expected the torque to be much higher. We'll see over time what other stock ecoboosts are doing on the dyno.

Torque hangs in their nicely until about 5,300 rpm. I figured it would drop off sooner.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure that for manual transmission cars, going through an IRS, the loss tends to be in the 13-16% range. So to be 15 to 30 percent more efficient than the normal range would be an incredible engineering breakthrough.


If Ford was as conservative as they could be with their rating and this was a particularly strong engine maybe it would put down 277 hp from an honest dyno. But it seems to me that whenever a newly introduced car is dyno'd, they make a bit more power than they're supposed to.
I would be leaning towards a happy dyno. I believe the engine is SAE certified, which means it can't be under-rated that much. Plus, if it was really making ~320-330 hp, why would Ford go through the trouble of detuning the V6 to widen the power gap between it an the ecoboast?

[shaffe]

I agree. Most likely a happy dyno

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Agreed. I'm pretty sure that for manual transmission cars, going through an IRS, the loss tends to be in the 13-16% range. So to be 15 to 30 percent more efficient than the normal range would be an incredible engineering breakthrough.


If Ford was as conservative as they could be with their rating and this was a particularly strong engine maybe it would put down 277 hp from an honest dyno. But it seems to me that whenever a newly introduced car is dyno'd, they make a bit more power than they're supposed to.
I would be leaning towards a happy dyno. I believe the engine is SAE certified, which means it can't be under-rated that much. Plus, if it was really making ~320-330 hp, why would Ford go through the trouble of detuning the V6 to widen the power gap between it an the ecoboast?

Evidently the V6's intake manifold wouldn't fit under the new hood so they had to revise that, thus the slight HP drop.

[matt55]

I wonder.... was that eco pulling timing or boost at 5xxx rpm , something cut the fun short .

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by matt55

I wonder.... was that eco pulling timing or boost at 5xxx rpm , something cut the fun short .

Apparently that's a common complaint with this car, all the reviews have mentioned that the EcoBoost runs out of breath up top in stock form

[crysalis_01]

This is from a MotorTrend article.

http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/co...23_first_test/

"But let's get back to that turbo-four, shall we? The best way to picture how an engine responds is through a power/torque graph such as the one above. If all you care about are peak figures, we recorded 279 hp on run three and 295 lb-ft of torque on run four. During five runs, output remained consistent. Torque stayed above 290 lb-ft for four out of the five runs, varying around 3 lb-ft. We're showing the chart with the best horsepower.

One thing of note: That dip in power around 5700 rpm appeared on all dyno runs. We're curious to find out what it is."

[sspolo]

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 31.0 sec

Car and Driver

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by Jason@JacFab

Pretty cool! I'm pretty impressed with the FRPP Ecoboost dragstrip times, but can't wait to see what people can crank out with a bone stock car. This is better than the current v6 Camaro no doubt about it. Anxiously awaiting a turbo 4 cyl 6th gen. Crank up the boost and go!

unfortunately, I have a feeling the turbo 4 for the Camaro will be around 275 crank hp.

[Ryanbabz71]

Originally Posted by Jason@JacFab

Pretty cool! I'm pretty impressed with the FRPP Ecoboost dragstrip times, but can't wait to see what people can crank out with a bone stock car. This is better than the current v6 Camaro no doubt about it. Anxiously awaiting a turbo 4 cyl 6th gen. Crank up the boost and go!

If you believe the Camaro chief engineer as long as he has the job the camaro will never have a 4 cylinder


Ryan

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Ryanbabz71

If you believe the Camaro chief engineer as long as he has the job the camaro will never have a 4 cylinder


Ryan

That's a bit of a misquot. While he may "fight for every cylinder" the market demand may overrule his desire to have no less than six cylinders in Camaro.