Quote:
Originally Posted by BENT_8
What, it holds its torque longer and has more power....over 3250rpm, who consistently rev's a diesel past 3250rpm?
I drive diesel vehicles everyday and never take them much past 2500rpm because between 1200 and there is where they do their work.
If you look at that chart, both come on at 1250, the 2.0l peaks at 2000 and drops off whereas the 3.2l holds its torque until 2500 where they align again.
Its only the initial rush and extra 50nm in that short 1750-2000rpm range where the bi-turbo has any consistently usable advantage.
|
The key is that the smaller engine is never below the output of the larger one,
when it's not towing the smaller engine gives generally better fuel economy.
The main draw back of the smaller engine is less engine braking, that can be a big deal.
Quote:
The gains in the actual real world usable range are next to nothing and it uses just as much fuel to achieve it as stated by Simon.
As I said, its probably a great driveline for many applications, and is more refined, but its not the be all and end all that has been pushed by certain people.
|
The big issue with the older Pumas is tighter emissions, the new 2.0 is a better mouse trap.
but, what's being sold to the people here is not the end of the story, it's another get through
as the Ranger was never designed to accept a V engine, the next T6 architecture does.
Quote:
|
I think Cyberwasps link gives a much better real world indication of its abilities than your dyno chart and it got its **** handed to it in every aspect.
|
So if Ford offered, say a TT V6 Ecoboost, all would be forgiven?
This is the area Ford is working on and Cyberwasp probably already
knows that as I suspect that he has intel on the T6 Project from over
at the other place.
Still waiting for the 200 Kw Amarok to make a sales splash or the BMW/Nissan thing..
Of More concern was the F150 Raptor's lack of brakes, if that's typical
of large US Pick Ups then don't ever get in front of them, they might
just run you over at the lights..