Ford Fusion V6 Sport Forum banner
1 - 20 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know a little about cars in term of engines but not much, can someone explain? Rs has 350hp & trq we have 325hp 375trq .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
I know a little about cars in term of engines but not much, can someone explain? Rs has 350hp & trq we have 325hp 375trq .
My guess? Branding. Technically though it all comes down to the limits programmed into the PCM. The 2.3 is a strong, capable 4 banger, especially in the RS version. But if I were a betting man, I would think the 2.7 could handle more power if both were tuned by aftermarket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but could be anything from turbo size to tuning. Typically the germans and Japanese have better manufacturing quality control over tolerances that allow them to rate a higher horsepower. They also spend time in engineering out reliability issues which allows them to run higher hp. They also put in higher quality components, like bearings, in their performance engines. Lastly, the RS probably generates enough sales to warrant more development time on the dyno. The power versus emissions equation also drives development in Europe, particularly on the 4 pots and with direct competition especially between Audi, BMW and Mercedes.
My opinion anyway. I've thought similar things as I have colleagues with RS3's and A4's that are comparable on paper. My push back in our conversations are that for similar acceleration and power to weight numbers, my engine is less stressed doing it.
I'm sure there's a gazillion other variables but this is sort of what I've come up with pondering the equivalent power for less cubes equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oreo

·
Registered
2018
Joined
·
399 Posts
RS is a high-strung motor, compared to our more "relaxed" one, so to speak. The two were built for different purposes and they behave very differently.

Personally? I think the RS is a great car... if you're under 30.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
·
374 Posts
I know a little about cars in term of engines but not much, can someone explain? Rs has 350hp & trq we have 325hp 375trq .
Reliability I bet.

The 2.7 was originally designed to see use in the F150 mainly. A slight power drop off for reliability sake (as well as to protect the relevance of the 3.5L EcoBoost) was likely called for. The 2.7 is a very capable motor, and I would bet you could get more safe power out of it than the 2.3, but the motors were designed for such different purposes to begin with that I doubt we will ever see Ford push heavily on the 2.7s performance, particularly with the 3.5 engine kicking around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Talked to guy a couple years ago with a 2.3 Mustang that Livernois built the motor for, put down just shy of 450 HP he said once they got it dialed in. Two things I want for the 2.7 / 3.0 is nice ATP Garrett ball bearing turbos, in about a 2867 or 3067 flavor, and some well CNC ported heads. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkArkAngel

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
Talked to guy a couple years ago with a 2.3 Mustang that Livernois built the motor for, put down just shy of 450 HP he said once they got it dialed in. Two things I want for the 2.7 / 3.0 is nice ATP Garrett ball bearing turbos, in about a 2867 or 3067 flavor, and some well CNC ported heads. :)
We’ll get those about the same time as that high performance rear differential that was coming…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Yeah I hear there, LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
I try to explain that to guys and they look at me like I'm an alien, LOL.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
·
374 Posts
2.7 was the first gas DI motor ford designed EXCLUSIVELY for boost. It has to tow 10K, in a half ton pickup, up mountain passes.
Build for build, it will piss all over a 2.3, if for no other reason .4 more Lters.........
The 2.7L is for work first.

Just so happens that when you stick the little powerhouse into a Fusion you get a pretty neat result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
Speaking of work truck motors…Back in the day, I knew a guy who pulled a Chevy 454 4bbl and trans out of a dually, bone stock except a shift kit, stuffed it into a ‘75 Pontiac Ventura (iirc he had to beat a dimple into the trans tunnel to with a 4lb hammer to clear the tach/speedo connection). He would tell people it only had 200 hp…but that thing had like 450 lbs/ft torque and it would get sideways through an intersection right off idle! He absolutely abused that car to the point that the front sub-frame literally ripped out of the unibody! He never spent a nickel on performance upgrades except some 9 inch Mickey Thompson cheater slicks, and had a practically unbeatable stoplight racer.
“OK Boomer” - I’m done. You may now return to the original topic of this post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
LOL, reminds me of a guy I knew about 30 years ago. His uncle Steve was quite the guy, LOL. Took an old German Capri, and stuffed a 460 in it. It was built to an extent, went for a quick ride in it one night when he showed up at the local cruise in spot of the day. Yup it was fast, only draw back. damn thing wouldn't stop, LOL. I told him, I dont think the brakes were designed to stop a 500 + hp car with a 600 lb BB in it. LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Though I will say this, I heard Ford plans on making a 3.2 or 3.4 version of the 2.7 / 3.0 eco to replace the 3.5. He wouldn't say a lot, just that it was in development and they were doing a lot of testing putting the motors in test mules that were on the road as we speak. I can tell you one thing, back when I had my horses up in Michigan, I use to run up n down 23 out of the Toledo area, and would see all kinds of stuff. Things that you knew wee Ford, but they did a bad job of hiding it. I seen one of the first late model Mustangs, thing was covered up, but it was obvious what it was under all the camo. I remember seeing one for the first time, and thinking, oh so that's what was hiding under all that black plastic crap motoring along at 70 on 23, LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,594 Posts
The 2.7L is for work first.

Just so happens that when you stick the little powerhouse into a Fusion you get a pretty neat result.
Meaning what, it is way overdesigned for any car? They only nannied it up in Fusion due to drivetrain limits.
F150's doing 550/560 @ wheels with E30, turbos, and bolt ons. That's with very little, if any, loss in spool (supposedly).
Very hard to do that with a single turbo.

The days of thinking a high power, lower RPM is for trucks are over. Look at beamers, their torque peaks start @ 1300 RPM
in their cars, many times these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Meaning what, it is way overdesigned for any car? They only nannied it up in Fusion due to drivetrain limits.
F150's doing 550/560 @ wheels with E30, turbos, and bolt ons. That's with very little, if any, loss in spool (supposedly).
Very hard to do that with a single turbo.

The days of thinking a high power, lower RPM is for trucks are over. Look at beamers, their torque peaks start @ 1300 RPM
in their cars, many times these days.
All good points. I would also say if you do your own tune you could turn up the output at lower RPMs on our 2.7s as well. The big thing that stops me from thinking that's a good idea, though, is the fact that LSPI (in all engines, as far as I'm aware) is at peak risk through that range. So even though we have a lot of things working to reduce that risk nowadays in our cars, the fact that the peak risk range for LSPI is through there makes me a little nervous about cranking it in that range.
 

·
Registered
2018
Joined
·
399 Posts
Meaning what, it is way overdesigned for any car? They only nannied it up in Fusion due to drivetrain limits.
F150's doing 550/560 @ wheels with E30, turbos, and bolt ons.
What's stopping the Fusion from making those numbers? I would think the transmission and axles can handle it. Has anyone cooked their PTU?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
Meaning what, it is way overdesigned for any car? They only nannied it up in Fusion due to drivetrain limits.
F150's doing 550/560 @ wheels with E30, turbos, and bolt ons. That's with very little, if any, loss in spool (supposedly).
Very hard to do that with a single turbo.

The days of thinking a high power, lower RPM is for trucks are over. Look at beamers, their torque peaks start @ 1300 RPM
in their cars, many times these days.
This past Thursday there was a F150 standard cab, short bed, 2wd Sport with a tuned 2.7 that was running low 12.50s while spinning the tires through the 60 foot lights. He seemed completely unaffected by the 87 degree heat that added half a second to my E.T.s - I wish we had done way too better cool the engine compartment. I think the average truly high-output sedan out there is doing a much better job of heat management than our Fusions are capable of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkArkAngel

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
What's stopping the Fusion from making those numbers? I would think the transmission and axles can handle it. Has anyone cooked their PTU?
Our transmission is rated at right about the 400 the Lincoln 3.0 AWDs make. That's the weak point I think. Except there are a number of people on here making WAY over that and running just fine. The fact the transmission is rated at that doesn't mean it can't handle more, it just means they never tested it higher probably, or never saw a reason to run more.

The PTU, I don't know that I've ever seen a rating on it. But again, a lot of folks here are running way more than stock power and not having a problem. Some people have had some issues but normally only when running far, far, far over stock. I think the general consensus is if you keep it under 450 or so it's pretty safe. That doesn't mean anything will fail at 450, it just means general consensus seems to be that 450 or less is very, very safe. Of course, it's all relative--if you really want to be totally safe you leave it stock.
 

·
Registered
2018
Joined
·
399 Posts
Tuned MKZs are around 400whp without any issues, as far as I know.


Of course, it's all relative--if you really want to be totally safe you leave it stock.
This is why I went with a conservative tune and stopped there. Daily driver and all...
 
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Top