Not a glowing report on the 2022 Ex.

[kam327]

A V6 will always “feel” more torquey than a 4-cylinder.
And less gears let you “feel” the torque developing over a broader rpm range. Even if it’s less and more inefficient.
And that’s quite likable imo.

Have you driven a modern turbo four?

 

[Olds67]

Sure. It’s amazing how much power and economy they achieve. Great punch.
But i can understand if someone likes more cylinders. Especially on highway speeds. It’s just calmer.

 

[MNgopher]

You can argue using statistics, torque and hp curves, actual performance data, etc... until you are blue in the face, but some will want to stand on the hill and argue the V6 is better.

Its the same arguement that came out with the ecoboosts in the F150 10 model years ago, and to this day folks will swear the V8 is the only engine to choose, yet the market tilts heavier and heavier every year to the Ecoboosts. Go figure...

I could tell you I miss the V8 burble and sound when working hard from my previous explorer. Same thing on my F150. But at the end of the day, the performance won me over and I don't worry that my truck sounds like a minivan, and the the Explorer is a bit buzzy. They get the job done - well - and are improvements on what the replaced in nearly every way.

 

[newmantjn]

No way the old 3.5 V6 can be considered more "torquey" than the new 2.3 Ecoboost. Torque is 310 ft-lb @ 3,000 rpm compared to the V6's 255 ft-lb @4000 rp

The numbers you quote are engine only, steady state, Wide Open Throttle numbers and are generally used for marketing and base engine target setting. They are run engine only (no trans etc.) in a dynamometer cell.

What you feel in a vehicle is acceleration at the seat track. This is with the entire powertrain installed. Most of the “torque feel” a customer experiences on a daily basis is some sort of tip in from road load event, with or without downshift. The engine response is not at WOT, but coming off of road load at generally a low engine speed and pedal (throttle). The response of the entire powertrain is transient, not steady state as measured in the engine only dyno.

F=ma a=F/m

F (vehicle tractive force) = engine torque*torque converter torque ratio*trans gear ratio*final drive ratio*tire rolling radius*efficiency

The customer generally is looking for a quick acceleration feel, shortly after tip in (as in, measured in millisecond), prior to any downshift. While vastly improved over prior engines the 2.3L GTDI still has some turbo lag, somewhat exasperated by a larger turbo (which helps with max, steady state torque numbers, but is detrimental to transient response).

Unless one has accelerometer data from the seat track, comparing two like events, it is difficult to tell which has better tip in response.

Standing WOT acceleration is a different story, but is also an event that customers rarely perform.

 

[kam327]

The numbers you quote are engine only, steady state, Wide Open Throttle numbers and are generally used for marketing and base engine target setting. They are run engine only (no trans etc.) in a dynamometer cell.

What you feel in a vehicle is acceleration at the seat track. This is with the entire powertrain installed. Most of the “torque feel” a customer experiences on a daily basis is some sort of tip in from road load event, with or without downshift. The engine response is not at WOT, but coming off of road load at generally a low engine speed and pedal (throttle). The response of the entire powertrain is transient, not steady state as measured in the engine only dyno.

F=ma a=F/m

F (vehicle tractive force) = engine torque*torque converter torque ratio*trans gear ratio*final drive ratio*tire rolling radius*efficiency

The customer generally is looking for a quick acceleration feel, shortly after tip in (as in, measured in millisecond), prior to any downshift. While vastly improved over prior engines the 2.3L GTDI still has some turbo lag, somewhat exasperated by a larger turbo (which helps with max, steady state torque numbers, but is detrimental to transient response).

Unless one has accelerometer data from the seat track, comparing two like events, it is difficult to tell which has better tip in response.

Standing WOT acceleration is a different story, but is also an event that customers rarely perform.

Ha ha ok whatever. I went right from driving a 3.5L V6 to the 2.3L Ecoboost and my butt definitely feels a stark difference. The 2.3L Ecoboost pulls away in 2nd in 3rd in slightly spirited driving like the 3.5L NEVER could.

 

[Bluesnake01]

Have you driven a modern turbo four?

There's more to it than just numbers.... Im pretty sure the baseline curve on a V6 will be higher from a lower/starting RPM and is surpassed once the turbo is fairly spooled on the 4 cyl. A 5.0 F-150 also get slight better MPG vs an Ecoboost F-150 when towing the same cargo.

Ford is still behind in turbo performance. My previous 09 335i car had a nice flat 300 lbs tq at 500 RPM. The X3 M40i with under 400HP is running mid-low 12's stock while getting 30 mpg, sure its 400lbs lighter vs the ST but even then its a huge difference. It takes a tuned ST making over 500hp to run with a stock X3 M40i

 

[newmantjn]

Ha ha ok whatever. I went right from driving a 3.5L V6 to the 2.3L Ecoboost and my butt definitely feels a stark difference. The 2.3L Ecoboost pulls away in 2nd in 3rd in slightly spirited driving like the 3.5L NEVER could.

Your opinion is that you like the 2.3L better. Mine is that the 3.5L is better. Sooooo....."whatever" I guess...

 

[kam327]

Your opinion is that you like the 2.3L better. Mine is that the 3.5L is better. Sooooo....."whatever" I guess...

The debate is not about which engine each of us "likes" better. I couldn't care less. It is about which one is more "torquey". I thought it was a fun debate. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I recounted my very recent seat of the pants experience where for me the 2.3L clearly pulls stronger in 2nd and 3rd than the V6 did. That to me is the very definition of "torquey". You brought out some formulas and theory which is what caused me to giggle a little bit.

 

[kam327]

There's more to it than just numbers.... Im pretty sure the baseline curve on a V6 will be higher from a lower/starting RPM and is surpassed once the turbo is fairly spooled on the 4 cyl. A 5.0 F-150 also get slight better MPG vs an Ecoboost F-150 when towing the same cargo.

Ford is still behind in turbo performance. My previous 09 335i car had a nice flat 300 lbs tq at 500 RPM. The X3 M40i with under 400HP is running mid-low 12's stock while getting 30 mpg, sure its 400lbs lighter vs the ST but even then its a huge difference. It takes a tuned ST making over 500hp to run with a stock X3 M40i

I don't know, the dyno curves presented in this article seem to show a pretty clear torque advantage with the 2.3L over the Mustang's 3.7 V6. In the 2000 - 5000 rpm range where most folks will spend most of their time around town.

https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/mustang-v6-vs-ecoboost

 

[newmantjn]

The debate is not about which engine each of us "likes" better. I couldn't care less. It is about which one is more "torquey".

You "feel" the 2.3L is torquer (your opinion) and my opinion seems to be wrong because....well you declared yours to be right.

Despite the discussion on transient part throttle tip in powertrain response you showed another WOT steady state engine only torque curve. OK.

 

[kam327]

You "feel" the 2.3L is torquer (your opinion) and my opinion seems to be wrong because....well you declared yours to be right.

Despite the discussion on transient part throttle tip in powertrain response you showed another WOT steady state engine only torque curve. OK.

You really are not a fun debate partner.

I'll just leave you with these:

A 2.3-liter turbocharged I-4 is at the bottom end of the engine spectrum, tested here in our base Explorer XLT. Also found in Ford products like the Ranger and Mustang, the torquey little four-pot makes a healthy 300 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque. The EcoBoost engine is remarkably torquey and smooth, and although we experienced a couple rough shifts, its 10-speed automatic helps make the most of the little engine's powerband. - MotorTrend

2020 Ford Explorer First Test Review: 3 Rows, 3 Engines, and Something for Everyone

In many ways, the 2020 Ford Explorer is a greatest hits of Ford’s best-selling SUV. Find out why only in this MotorTrend review.

www.motortrend.com

The 2.3 offers such smooth, effortless torque — and with none of the wheel-wagging torque steer you can get from its front-drive-based rivals — that we wouldn't complain if it were the only engine offered. - Autoblog

2020 Ford Explorer First Drive Review | Specs, photos, driving impressions - Autoblog

The new Explorer's on-road balance and abundant power stand out.

www.autoblog.com

 

[Olds67]

I don't know, the dyno curves presented in this article seem to show a pretty clear torque advantage with the 2.3L over the Mustang's 3.7 V6. In the 2000 - 5000 rpm range where most folks will spend most of their time around town.View attachment 426210

https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/mustang-v6-vs-ecoboost

Great info!
But as you can see by comparing the curves, the V6 has a bit more torque at the beginning (and that’s what you feel when to tip the pedal) and also constant, slightly and smoothly increasing torque. Which is just very comfortable for a heavier ride.
Also the typical parallel increase in horsepower AND torque at 4K where every older gasoline engine driver expects it to happen.

Just by looking at the curves you see the V6 is a smoother ride.
If people „feel“ it’s „torquier“ it’s because the torque is always the same and doesn’t bounce around as much.
And as newmantjin has mentioned, people usually dont drive around at WOT, squeezing the turbo.

 

[kam327]

Great info!
But as you can see by comparing the curves, the V6 has a bit more torque at the beginning (and that’s what you feel when to tip the pedal) and also constant, slightly and smoothly increasing torque. Which is just very comfortable for a heavier ride.
Also the typical parallel increase in horsepower AND torque at 4K where every older gasoline engine driver expects it to happen.

Just by looking at the curves you see the V6 is a smoother ride.
If people „feel“ it’s „torquier“ it’s because the torque is always the same and doesn’t bounce around as much.
And as newmantjin has mentioned, people usually dont drive around at WOT, squeezing the turbo.

Great feedback, thanks for presenting it in such a positive way. All your points are well taken.

Yes according to the curves and theory the V6 has more torque at tip in. Perhaps that's where the 10-speed matched with the 2.3L helps with its shorter ratios. Helps to compensate until the turbo kicks in. Based on my driving the 2.3L immediately after the 3.5L, if anything the 2.3L seems to jump off the line a little more despite the supposed torque deficit.

My wife also noticed it without me mentioning it first.... very first time she drove it she pressed on the accelerator like normal and it jumped more than the 3.5L did, and she said "whoa". Again, maybe that's mainly due to the 10-speed.

But after that fraction of a second of turbo lag (which I don't even notice on this well-tuned powertrain), it really pulls much stronger in 2nd and 3rd than the V6 like I said a couple of times above. So it feels more "torquey" than the 3.5L to me.

So again when you said a few posts ago "A V6 will always “feel” more torquey than a 4-cylinder" I just had to chime in and debate that assertion based on my own direct seat-of-the-pants, before-and-after, comparison of the two. Thanks for the friendly debate!

 

[Bluesnake01]

I don't know, the dyno curves presented in this article seem to show a pretty clear torque advantage with the 2.3L over the Mustang's 3.7 V6. In the 2000 - 5000 rpm range where most folks will spend most of their time around town.View attachment 426210

https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/mustang-v6-vs-ecoboost

Nice numbers but still goes back to what I said, the turbo picks up over 2k RPM. As someone stated, the power numbers are flatter on the V6 which give the V6 a smoother ride overall at any RPM whereas the 4 cyl might feel punchier at times and other times have a slight lag especially going from a stop.

Hence my comment about BMW, BMW's have a very nice flat curve throught the RPM, they dont feel like turbo cars most of the time. Hopefully Ford one day is able to replicate this but highly doubt it seeing as they are going full battery......