A tale of two turbos - Ford 2.3 vs Chevy 2.0

I have previously posted on the 2017 Chevy Malibu with a 2.0 Turbo. I decided to look at its torque horsepower curve vs the torque horsepower of a 2023 Ford Explorer 2.3 Turbo which was also mentioned in a recent posting.

It’s a no brainer that the 2.3 has 50 more horsepower and more torque but somehow Chevy made the torque curve flat across 3,000 rpm, while Ford’s peaks and fades again. I’m not sure how that’s done, perhaps an adjustable scroll turbo?

View attachment 137722View attachment 137723
GM's power curve is pretty standard for a turbo application. Especially torque.
Fords is strange indeed.
 
I really like the 2.0 EA888. Flat torque curve and lots of options for tunes to make much more. Seems similar in power to the Chevy.
 
Ford's torque curve reminds me of old turbo cars, where at some point at lower rpm the turbo spools, and once you get near redline the turbo can't keep up and falls off again. The Chevy graph looks like torque management to me, where they limit the boost, fuel (on a diesel), or something else to make a nice flat line. I like the peaky torque curve better, it makes the car feel more authentic to me.
 
Very short video of a Ford 2.3L intake manifold pressure gauge. Watch the boost gauge in the middle of the screen. Steady foot, unsteady boost management. This type of management is common today, and annoys an experienced driver. A proper tune does away with this nonsense. (put https here) ://youtu.be/Ra0X_Kc9fXM?si=U7s9AN-vQucIcWzW

 
I have previously posted on the 2017 Chevy Malibu with a 2.0 Turbo. I decided to look at its torque horsepower curve vs the torque horsepower of a 2023 Ford Explorer 2.3 Turbo which was also mentioned in a recent posting.

It’s a no brainer that the 2.3 has 50 more horsepower and more torque but somehow Chevy made the torque curve flat across 3,000 rpm, while Ford’s peaks and fades again. I’m not sure how that’s done, perhaps an adjustable scroll turbo?

View attachment 137722View attachment 137723


The bottom looks like a torque curve of a BMW using fixed vane turbos (ex N54, N54)
 
Very short video of a Ford 2.3L intake manifold pressure gauge. Watch the boost gauge in the middle of the screen. Steady foot, unsteady boost management. This type of management is common today, and annoys an experienced driver. A proper tune does away with this nonsense. (put https here) ://youtu.be/Ra0X_Kc9fXM?si=U7s9AN-vQucIcWzW


To me that looks like pulling power when shifting (auto trans)
Would be curious to see what it looks like in slow motion (1/4 speed?) with 100% throttle.
 
To me that looks like pulling power when shifting (auto trans)
Would be curious to see what it looks like in slow motion (1/4 speed?) with 100% throttle.
That was at part throttle, and is related to shifting, but not completely. I also have a video with it in one gear. Same unsteady nonsense. Makes the car feel a bit wonky.
 
If its at the same HP yes. BC then it will produce more HP. HP is the only game in town.
I am never near the HP peak at six or seven grand with my slushbox.

HP is calculated off of the torque curve. Low torque = low HP

I do most of my driving at 1500 to 3250 rpm.

If I am not road racing, I don't care about HP or torque in the stratosphere,
 
Ford's torque curve reminds me of old turbo cars, where at some point at lower rpm the turbo spools, and once you get near redline the turbo can't keep up and falls off again. The Chevy graph looks like torque management to me, where they limit the boost, fuel (on a diesel), or something else to make a nice flat line. I like the peaky torque curve better, it makes the car feel more authentic to me.
I don't think they can do much with pulling timing or leaning fueling as emissions are paramount and at some point you will get nox or co off the charts or dreaded knock. Likely boost management. EM surely does moderate torque at AT shift points momentarily.

I like peaky torque on the cam with NA and a stick, but turbocharged is a different ballgame.

Now with VVTi there is torque everywhere since the cam centerline can be re-degreed drastically
 
Last edited:
What does the horsepower and torque curve look like in a mustang or fusion? The 2.3 in an explorer could be tuned and gearing set for towing/hauling. Malibu more of a cruiser sedan.
 
Electronic boost controller and wastegates can limit the boost. There are tables in the tune that will adjust those two based off other factors. I don't remember how the evo's was, it's been a decade.
 
most of the modern vehicles have a VGT... which is far better at controlling turbo speed, boost pressure and exhaust back pressure than old school turbo's with a wastegate etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
Torque by itself is a meaningless number

Interesting comment. I'm not sure why you think it's "meaningless" by itself. I guess one could claim nearly anything is meaningless if considered to be in a lack of interaction with the rest of the world. Food is meaningless if not eaten, for example. Cement is meaningless if not used to construct something, as another example. So, if you are implying that torque, in and of itself, cannot move the vehicle without a lever arm (wheel, in this case), then I guess I would agree.

Once torque is transmitted through the drivetrain and to the wheel (a lever arm), then torque has great meaning in a vehicular sense.

Is that what you were getting at?
 
What does the horsepower and torque curve look like in a mustang or fusion? The 2.3 in an explorer could be tuned and gearing set for towing/hauling. Malibu more of a cruiser sedan.
Here is the torque and horsepower curve for the 2.3 turbo in a 2023 Ford Mustang. Also I posted some of the performance attributes. 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds and a top speed of 150 mph. It has slightly more torque and horsepower than the Ford Explorer engine. Enjoy.

D1608F29-C898-4ACB-9EDB-54734BF5303D.png
AD54F094-FB48-47B6-862E-2E3DDD123413.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Interesting comment. I'm not sure why you think it's "meaningless" by itself. I guess one could claim nearly anything is meaningless if considered to be in a lack of interaction with the rest of the world. Food is meaningless if not eaten, for example. Cement is meaningless if not used to construct something, as another example. So, if you are implying that torque, in and of itself, cannot move the vehicle without a lever arm (wheel, in this case), then I guess I would agree.

Once torque is transmitted through the drivetrain and to the wheel (a lever arm), then torque has great meaning in a vehicular sense.

Is that what you were getting at?

I don't really know what he was getting at either... hence my lugnut comparison. IMHO how horsepower and torque are delivered is application dependent.


.. or this
horsepower verus torque.jpg
 
Back
Top