Yep! When I was racing, the turbo rule as to add 40% displacement if classifying by engine size. We know the Atkinson uses a reduced intake stroke, so as a result....The turbo effectively raises the displacement of the engine
Because those are the engines Ford had available and the Mav is a parts-bin kind of truck.So here is possibly a dumb question why is the hybrid a 2.5L but the gas is a 2.0
Not a young person here (and driven plenty of tractors myself), but...My old Allis Chalmers D-17 tractor had a 3.7 liter engine and made 63 HP at 1650 RPM. But it pulled trees out of the ground. Young people put too much emphasis on HP.
Yes, but my point is it's in the configuration and tuning. As to why the 2.5 makes less horsepower than a 2.0,lLike that 3.7 Allis making only 63. HP is mostly a function of RPM.Not a young person here (and driven plenty of tractors myself), but...
I believe it's also true that your Allis Chalmers D-17 tractor had a top "ground speed" (in "high" range, no less) of 11.9 mph, versus the Maverick's "governed" 108-110 mph. The old saying "torque for work, horsepower for play" still holds true for me.
One overlooked factor is gearing! Put the 63 hp Allis Chalmers engine in the 2.0 maverick and it won't impress you the same way.Yes, but my point is it's in the configuration and tuning. As to why the 2.5 makes less horsepower than a 2.0,lLike that 3.7 Allis making only 63. HP is mostly a function of RPM.
My 2012 Focus hatchback was no slouch even with the base engine. I had the DCT so 0-60 mph in 7.6 secs vs the manual's 7.3 secs. At highway speeds it had plenty of passing power. I could pass cars up steep mountainous hills no problem. Sure the "regular" Focus had 160 hp, but it weighed like 800lbs less than an eco boost AWD, had no torque converter using up hp and was a helluva lot more aerodynamic than the Maverick.For comparison, a 2012-2018 Focus came standard with a 2.0L engine only capable of 160 HP, vs. the ~250 HP out of the 2.0L EB.