2.3 ecoboost

[OX1]

When do these things start to look like a viable classic bronco motor swap?
I want to not like these motors on the old standby there is no substitute
for cubic inches mantra, but the woman's 2.0 escape has some real decent low end.

410 RWTQ @ 2400 RPM for the 2.3. Falls on it's face above 5000, but
how often would you really need to go over 4000 RPM with that engine.
At least it's not a chevy

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11754&highlight=lund+racing

 

[sprdv1]

LOL, You should be the first.

 

[Broncobowsher]

From the ecoboost F150 I have driven...
IF you can cruise naturally aspirated, the economy is fairly good. But tow, into the boost, the 5.0 will pull nearly as well and get better mileage. I don't think you would be able to drive very much without being into the boost, thus the mileage taking a dump.

 

[spap]

I had an svo turbo built that used to get 15 to maybe 20 mpg. But had to use premium and octane booster My 2.3 was putting out maybe about 300 hp, a lot of fun . But to make 412 lbs rwtq the boost has to be pretty high. Little ticking time bomb but nothing but fun.

 

[OX1]

Just thinking of motors that might be viable swaps from yards down the line.
Thinking since this motor is in a mustang, might even have a control pac from ford at some point. I like the new 5.0 (I just picked up a left over 14 GT auto), but fit seems like a nightmare and even if you get it in, can you work on it later on (again, talking 100K JY motor swap somehwere down the line that may need to be worked on from time to time). They are also still crazy money, but I assume at some point they will come down.

Our escape is 3800 lbs and she gets 26ish on flat ground, semi-rural with lots of traffic lights and pretty conservative driving (although the reason we got the escape, was everything else had no balls getting on the highway, her words, so she does get into it from time to time).

I think even the 2.0 ECO could be a viable option in my terrain with up to a 31-32 tire. Even that has 200 crank torque @ 1500 (on it's way to 270 @ 3000). It does still have the slighest hint of lag when getting into it, say half throttle or more from a dead stop, but normal accel in everyday traffic, you would have no way to know it's not a big V6 or small 8. It would be interesting to see how the lag or throttle response had changed once you boost these up.

My last excuse against a small displacement motor was always low end torque and/or throttle response and it seems those two excuses may be falling wayside for a motor in a driverEB.

 

[xcntrk]

2.7L EcoBoost V6
325HP @ 5750 rpm
375TQ @ 3000 rpm

It's the 2nd quickest motor in the new F150 (next to the 3.5L EcoBoost V6). Granted you can only get an F150 with the new 2.7L in 4x2 trim so there's a little less weight with that trim as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23O-hS-r0gQ


Clearly Ford is "all-in" on there new Turbo-charged engine platform. Gone are the days of NA big displacement power...

 

[broncnaz]

Those big numbers only come from boost. 1900 RPM and its probably hitting 20+lbs of boost. While the torque curve does hit low. I would guess there is almost no power below 1900 RPMs. You have to consider that many of these small engines also have 6 speed transmissions behind them. 4.8 first gear gets you into the RPM's quick once your at speed the light weight and less rolling resistance allows them to cruise without using the boost. So yes many of these vehicles feel quick but its more due to gearing that gets the engine spooled up to its power band than it is anything else.

plus big numbers out of a small engine well its not going to last long. But yes the tuners can pull some pretty good numbers out of these stock engines.

I just dont see it being all that viable in a bronco. Most of us ask for a wide range of driving from our broncos. I almost see that 2.3 going from very little torque at idle to 400 ft lbs at 1900 when the turbo spools up that will break the tires loose or break something. Of course I guess the torque converter would take care of that issue. on the flip side you will probably need to keep it under boost to maintain hiway speed in a bronco. Basically meaning if your cruising above 2000 RPM then its boosting to maintain and most likely you would have to cruise above 2000 RPM because with no boost you have no power.

 

[WheelHorse]

I've often thought along these lines but here's the flaws.

A Bronco drivetrain is no where near as efficient as that Escape...major deduction in mileage.

A Bronco is no where near as drag coefficient in the wind tunnel as that Escape, major deduction.


Maybe I'm off on my thinking, given VVT, but I would hedge that a 440hp 351W would feel stronger in a blind driving test vs a 440hp Coyote.

Regardless of all this mumble, I think you should find the first wrecked S550 and yank the eco 2.3 out of it and adapt it to an EB and do a write up LOL.

 

[broncnaz]

^^^^^^
What he said.
Basically if small high horsepowered 4cyl turbocharged engines were the answer every vehicle out there would have them. but They are only in mid size/compact vehicles and theres a reason for it. Big numbers dont tell the whole story. Plus you boost them up to get that power and mileage goes down. Not to mention lifespan of the engine.

 

[OX1]

Those big numbers only come from boost. 1900 RPM and its probably hitting 20+lbs of boost. While the torque curve does hit low. I would guess there is almost no power below 1900 RPMs. You have to consider that many of these small engines also have 6 speed transmissions behind them. 4.8 first gear gets you into the RPM's quick once your at speed the light weight and less rolling resistance allows them to cruise without using the boost. So yes many of these vehicles feel quick but its more due to gearing that gets the engine spooled up to its power band than it is anything else.

plus big numbers out of a small engine well its not going to last long. But yes the tuners can pull some pretty good numbers out of these stock engines.

I just dont see it being all that viable in a bronco. Most of us ask for a wide range of driving from our broncos. I almost see that 2.3 going from very little torque at idle to 400 ft lbs at 1900 when the turbo spools up that will break the tires loose or break something. Of course I guess the torque converter would take care of that issue. on the flip side you will probably need to keep it under boost to maintain hiway speed in a bronco. Basically meaning if your cruising above 2000 RPM then its boosting to maintain and most likely you would have to cruise above 2000 RPM because with no boost you have no power.

I will agree you would have to use a modern transmssion with it to help it out of the hole, but I don't agree it has no off idle torque. I have an 08 mazda6 and 03 EVO. Both have plenty of gearing, neither has any torque off idle, and they are both 600 lbs lighter than the escape. It drives very much like a small turbodiesel, but even less lag.

I'm still not sure how I get that they are doing it. Yes, very small turbo that couldn't get any closer to the head, DI, plenty of gearing, extensive engine and trans management.

Again, I would not put it in a offroad rig weighed down with 1000 lbs of extras and 38's, but I don't think I would notice much difference in flat terrain with my 33's, 435 trans, and maybe 250 crank torque stock 70, 302 with 4 bbl and headers. May be no difference in mileage either, but I'm talking a cheap JY motor for replacement at some point. Eventually, you are not going to find windsor motors without rebuilding one or buying one that someone else did. I guess at that point, LS's will still be avail, UGH!!!!

Regardless of all this mumble, I think you should find the first wrecked S550 and yank the eco 2.3 out of it and adapt it to an EB and do a write up LOL.

Would honestly love to try one, but they will be nowhere near my price point for many years and I need a motor now.

 

[WheelHorse]

Gone are the days of NA big displacement power...

That's just for Ford.

GM has built, for all intensive purposes, the ultimate small block. 427 cu dry sump, pushrod in a factory car.

OR you could take a junkyard LS, bolt on GM parts and add another 120HP for something like a 500hp small block. It's stupid what GM offer's compared to Ford, not to mentioned the bell housing pattern is the same, other than a CS spacer needed, but still, GM is definitely performance friendly company for enthusiasts.

 

[broncnaz]

I will agree you would have to use a modern transmssion with it to help it out of the hole, but I don't agree it has no off idle torque. I have an 08 mazda6 and 03 EVO. Both have plenty of gearing, neither has any torque off idle, and they are both 600 lbs lighter than the escape. It drives very much like a small turbodiesel, but even less lag.

I'm still not sure how I get that they are doing it. Yes, very small turbo that couldn't get any closer to the head, DI, plenty of gearing, extensive engine and trans management.


Would honestly love to try one, but they will be nowhere near my price point for many years and I need a motor now.

Well you kinda hit the nail on the head its gearing that makes it feel like it has lowend. The engine has little lowend torque so transmission gearing is used to get it in its powerband. heck just look at the 2.3l eco boost mustang I believe the first gear is like 4-1 for the auto and 4.2 for the manual then out back you have either 3.31's or 3.55's with tires about 27in. tall
Even the 5.0 mustangs have similar gearing again its to get into the powerband because the lowend is just not there.
Kinda like broncos with 6cyl engines they came with lower axle gearing and lower transmission gearing because the power is just not there right off the line.
I think pretty much all vehicles with small engines had/have fairly low axle gearing
How they pull the numbers out of these little engines well its more boost VVT and better fuel and timing maps. Big numbers small engines with turbos have been around for years. Just today they meet the EPA standards easier.
Could it be a bronco engine well it could but I dont think it would fit a all around useage it may feel great taking off and running thru the gears but for any normal driving I see it being a dog or just having to stay reved up to maintain the boost and drinking lots of gas to keep a bronco moving.

 

[AaronWelch]

My buddy has one of the v6 twin turbo eco-boosts in his f150 super-crew. Great running truck and lots of fun to drive, but with the fun comes the poor mileage. he is only averaging 12-13 MPG in that thing... I would just stick with a nice 5.0 or 351 if you can find it.

 

[OX1]

Big numbers small engines with turbos have been around for years. Just today they meet the EPA standards easier.
Could it be a bronco engine well it could but I dont think it would fit a all around useage it may feel great taking off and running thru the gears but for any normal driving I see it being a dog or just having to stay reved up to maintain the boost and drinking lots of gas to keep a bronco moving.

Going to have to agree to disagree I guess. I've had a bunch of 4 banger turbos over the years, early stang Cobra, Pulsar turbo, WRX, Talon, EVO, and none of them had half the torque @ 1500 RPM the 2.0 eco or BMW e36 have.

You might be right and it won't work at all, but for the first time, I think a 4cyl would have a real good chance of being a decent engine for a driver. Think it would almost be perfect behind a 435/T18.

 

[broncnaz]

Going to have to agree to disagree I guess. I've had a bunch of 4 banger turbos over the years, early stang Cobra, Pulsar turbo, WRX, Talon, EVO, and none of them had half the torque @ 1500 RPM the 2.0 eco or BMW e36 have.

You might be right and it won't work at all, but for the first time, I think a 4cyl would have a real good chance of being a decent engine for a driver. Think it would almost be perfect behind a 435/T18.

If we all agreed wed have nothing to talk about.;D Simple fact is small engine and big numbers doesnt mean its a great engine for just any vehicle. If that was so then why is it not in a F150 or explorer?
You had 4banger turbos cars of yesterday some had had poor EFI systems and usually lots of turbo lag they were not well matched up. Heck the mustang cobra was limited to 5 lbs of boost. Also big HP numbers werent quite the goal on many of those vehicles they small engined with good numbers but not toated as real performers they were the in betweens better than a base but not as good as the real performers much like today.
The early 2.3T was feeble attempt on fords part but they could be tweaked to put out big numbers. But they had to start somewhere and now you have todays 2.3l
Really with any turbo engine when your cruising you dont want boost to be very high if boosting at all. With the 2.3l not boosting your pretty much back to low power levels and my guess is lower than the broncos old 6cyl engines. At which point the engine will struggle and need to boost to keep a bronco moving. Once boosting your also using more fuel.
Can this be tweaked sure but its still give and take with these small engines. tweak for gain in one area and lose in another.
The 3.5l twin turbo ecoboost woud be a better choice. Of course maybe you can wait for the 2.7l twin turbo ecoboost.

 

[WheelHorse]

OK, so, now that we've glazed over the dyno chart.

Notice the Ford tune is meant to last the 5/60K miles. Notice how soft it is on the bottom end?

Now, I've seen graphs go viral, but the S550 is too new to know if this sort of magic tuning would be feasible for long term use, like cracking turbo housings or coaking the oil from them being so hot or how well the valves would hold up from the added heat.

I also noticed the butt-love defending going on (on the forum the link takes you to), blindly, about the graph, and anyone who dared to ask questions was quickly shunned.

 

[OX1]

If we all agreed wed have nothing to talk about.;D Simple fact is small engine and big numbers doesnt mean its a great engine for just any vehicle. If that was so then why is it not in a F150 or explorer?
You had 4banger turbos cars of yesterday some had had poor EFI systems and usually lots of turbo lag they were not well matched up. Heck the mustang cobra was limited to 5 lbs of boost. Also big HP numbers werent quite the goal on many of those vehicles they small engined with good numbers but not toated as real performers they were the in betweens better than a base but not as good as the real performers much like today.
The early 2.3T was feeble attempt on fords part but they could be tweaked to put out big numbers. But they had to start somewhere and now you have todays 2.3l
Really with any turbo engine when your cruising you dont want boost to be very high if boosting at all. With the 2.3l not boosting your pretty much back to low power levels and my guess is lower than the broncos old 6cyl engines. At which point the engine will struggle and need to boost to keep a bronco moving. Once boosting your also using more fuel.
Can this be tweaked sure but its still give and take with these small engines. tweak for gain in one area and lose in another.
The 3.5l twin turbo ecoboost woud be a better choice. Of course maybe you can wait for the 2.7l twin turbo ecoboost.

Reason I was thinking the 2.3, was for fit (and it is less than 300 lbs), since it is inline with a single turbo off to the side. GM's 2.4 DI non turbo (see thumbnail) matches the 200 six torque ouput (in fact, matches it as low as 1500 RPM and beats it to well over 6000) and is double it's HP (about 180), so don't see why the 2.3 eco won't maintain an EB @ steady speeds in the 65 or so range out of boost?

Have you put any miles behind a new 2.0 escape (or even fusion, but that is much lighter and not really relevant to the conversation)?

OK, so, now that we've glazed over the dyno chart.

Notice the Ford tune is meant to last the 5/60K miles. Notice how soft it is on the bottom end?

Now, I've seen graphs go viral, but the S550 is too new to know if this sort of magic tuning would be feasible for long term use, like cracking turbo housings or coaking the oil from them being so hot or how well the valves would hold up from the added heat.

I also noticed the butt-love defending going on (on the forum the link takes you to), blindly, about the graph, and anyone who dared to ask questions was quickly shunned.

Not sure I'd call that "soft", out torques the almighty LS in a rear drive (non 4WD) application up to 5K RPM.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2008/12/road-test-revie.html

No real need for that tuned 2.3, a stock one would be plenty of power for a stockish EB, it walks all over the motor that everyone agrees is a fine std for replacement, the 5.0 HO.

And yes, the gushing on that site is kind of sickening, but it is a site that caters to a mustang that just came out with a brand
new 4 banger that is already in the 11's and ford's first real effort @ an IRS RWD, since the 89 T-bird (I don't count the couple
years of cobra retrofits).

 

[broncnaz]

Back in the real world dyno charts dont tell the whole story.They are just numbers that can decieve you. While these little engines can put out power it comes at a cost and while maybe it would power a stock EB down the street ok. I dont see it being better anywhere else. Well maybe if you want to drag race against a 6cyl bronco. Small engines either have to push a lot of RPM's or need the boost to make the power. Cruise even a stock bronco down the road at 65 and your turning what 2600-3000 rpm guess what that little engine will need to be under boost to do it. As with no boost your back to more or less standard 2.3l performance.
To look at it in other terms some of todays cars only need about 30 hp or so to cruise down the hiway. A broncos drivetrain will take at least that much alone then you still have to push the brick thur the air. Id consevatively say it will take more than double that 30hp
While the numbers may seem good and they are. but they are really only good for the smaller lighter more effiecent cars they were built for.
But by all means your welcome to try it out and let us know how it goes. Theres nothing set in stone that says a 2.3 is a terrible engine for a bronco.

 

[WheelHorse]

Ox1 maybe onto something here:

2016 Ford Explorer 2.3 Ecoboost

 

[OX1]

Back in the real world dyno charts dont tell the whole story.They are just numbers that can decieve you. While these little engines can put out power it comes at a cost and while maybe it would power a stock EB down the street ok. I dont see it being better anywhere else. Well maybe if you want to drag race against a 6cyl bronco. Small engines either have to push a lot of RPM's or need the boost to make the power. Cruise even a stock bronco down the road at 65 and your turning what 2600-3000 rpm guess what that little engine will need to be under boost to do it. As with no boost your back to more or less standard 2.3l performance.
To look at it in other terms some of todays cars only need about 30 hp or so to cruise down the hiway. A broncos drivetrain will take at least that much alone then you still have to push the brick thur the air. Id consevatively say it will take more than double that 30hp
While the numbers may seem good and they are. but they are really only good for the smaller lighter more effiecent cars they were built for.
But by all means your welcome to try it out and let us know how it goes. Theres nothing set in stone that says a 2.3 is a terrible engine for a bronco.

Already provided data that a 2.4ish DI NA would not need to be under boost @ that RPM and that HP (of course those RPM's assume you are not adding a modern 6 speed trans, which I don't see why you wouldn't). But lets assume it is under mild boost, does mild boost mean it automatically reverts to a fat A/F??

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicle...adv_combustion/ace065_rinkevich_2011_o.pdf#23

I attempted to find a vid of even an F150 eco with boost and A/F gauges, but could find nothing. Curious @ what load ECO's go "fat" and how that compares to small engine turbos of old.

Ox1 maybe onto something here:

2016 Ford Explorer 2.3 Ecoboost

So much for the lighter weight only argument. Explorer base 4WD was 4700 lbs last year,