2.3 ecoboost

[OX1]

Turbo charging is a great way to make a lot of power but there are still trade offs. A engine only makes X amount of power as is boost it to say 15 psi and that engine makes 100% more power but you generate more heat, use more fuel and put more stress on the engine and its componets.

I think you need a little more displacement than 2.3l to effectively and effiecently move a bronco. Thats why I would look at the ecoboosts in the F150's. Im not sold on the 2.7 yet but I think the 3.5 or 3.7 might be better options all around than a 2.3.

You may be right on the slightly larger displacement working much better, but as soon as we get into a V configuration engine, overall packaging becomes much more of a problem.

And I'm not sure how far along ford is, but Mercedes is running ultra lean to 1/4 load and some form of lean burn in a turbo upwards of half load under 3500 RPM.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140207-mb.html

I'd guess ford probably runs leaner longer into the load curve due to DI and VVT (than old school turbo engine fuel mapping), but possibly not as far as Merc yet. Although It seems they got whatever info Merc had on the subject over a year and half ago, so how much of that info got into the 2.3 ECO, especially if it had to do more with software, IE injection timing, etc...)

http://indianautosblog.com/2013/05/mercedes-ford-exchange-info-78361

Times are changing and I see no reason that the old rules for turbo motors and fuel economy are going to continue. Granted, complexity has/will increased drastically, but it has on everything and it does not mean reliability is horrible across the board on all new technologies.

Yep. I'm in agreement here

The high tech over stressed tiny turbo engines will wear out quickly

What's a new turbo cost ?
There's no way a turbo on a gasser will last as long as the rest of the engine

The cam phasers are broken on every Ford I've ever seen if it has more than 90 k on it
And unless they designed it as strong as a diesel engine
I see the lower end self destructing way sooner than on a normal V-8 or 4 banger

Nowadays you can expect 200k trouble free miles from even a Hyundai or Kia
I could be wrong. Time will tell. But I just don't see these tiny turbocharged engines lasting that long

Only way to find out if it's another 6.0 disaster is to wait and see
Let someone else pay to be the long term tester
It's obvious car companies don't do any real long term testing
Their commercials brag about it but the 6.0 would never have happened if they did any actual long term, real world testing .

As long as it wasn't yours it was comical to watch .
I think of when GM converted the gas engines to diesel and slapped em in vehicles
I think some of those lasted longer than the 6.0

The junkyards are full of 90s Chevy and ford V-8s with 220k on em and they run fine
You can buy em all day for $500 and swap em in and get another 100k from it
And more computer stuff than the space shuttle

All modern cars are disposable
They are designed to last slightly longer than the warranty
And the turbo ones are just really expensive to repair disposable cars

Define wear out quickly? My 90 Talon ran high 11's with a real old school design 20G turbo and I beat the crap out of that 4 banger for 80+K. That engine was basically late 80's technology (although possibly one of the best 4 bangers ever designed, I admit).

New small ECO's get

Forged steel "I-beam" connecting rods
Forged steel crankshaft
Cast in support ribs provide the forged crank strength and rigidity throughout the engine block.
"Open-Deck" aluminum block with high strength steel sleeves (molded in) keeps cylinders cool and resistant to pre-ignition detonation.
Cast aluminum oil pan resists denting or wear
Ford's 10.0:1 Compression Ratio EcoBoost piston design uses High-Temperature Aluminum alloy combined with 2 steel cast-in upper ring supports. Previously found on high performance diesel engines, these steel supports are recessed below the piston top and act as the upper ringlands. They provide rigidity across the piston and allow the low tension rings to reliably handle long-term turbo boost.
Piston top shape designed for efficient combustion with direct injector and controlled flame propagation across the cylinder.
Low friction coatings are used on the piston skirt to reduce wear and friction on the cylinder walls.
Piston cooling "oil squirter" jets spray oil on the underside of the piston to keep it cool and strong.
“Direct -Injection Bowl" Piston top shape is designed for efficient combustion with direct injector and controlled flame propagation across the cylinder


Borg warner K03 (on 3.5 ECO) is about $600 new, but rebuild kits are $70 and then you might want to have it rebalanced. Still don't understand why the same turbos on diesels are so accepted, but they can't possibly survive long term on gas engines????????????????

Hyundai?, really? They are only 3 steps below Volkswagen and certainly not even close to being in Ford's class (which unfortunately Ford is just average, but way above Hyundai or Kia).

http://autos.jdpower.com/ratings/2014-Vehicle-Dependability-Study-Press-Release.htm

I agree an 80's/90's, 5.0 or W should run fine at that mileage if taken care of, but that was 20 years ago minimum those were built. How much longer is even a 200K motor going to be widely available.

 

[brianstrange]

They will have a different feel, but are a great looking option. I'd hold out to see if the motors hold out, but my guess is they will be fine. If a 4 cyl Jeep can run well in low range, I'm sure that would do fine as well. I like the thought of running different engines. Three years ago, my desire to run a 4.0 V6 (175 HP, 225 ft lbs torque) was laughed at. There are some that can't get past running a V8, but it will most likely be the most practical choice.

 

[broncnaz]

A Jeeps curb weight is less than broncos anywhere from 500-1000 lbs less. plus Id venture to guess that it also has less drag coeffiecent than a bronco. Those newer 4cyl jeeps got about the same gas mileage as the straight 6 broncos did back in the day and with the same lack of power on the hiway. But again they are different vehicles. Most anything will do fine in low range.

The main issue comes down to it takes a certain size of engine to make a well rounded vehicle. Will a 4cyl power a bronco sure. A turboed one may do it fine but at a cost as I see it having to be under boost to keep it moving decently. boost eats fuel, makes heat and causes more wear.
The 4.0 V6 while better is still just not going to do what you think it will in a bronco. Will it move it yes but I dont see any mileage increase over a well tuned 302/5.0. While I am partial to V8 power. I do have a 03 4x4 4dr Ranger with a 4.0 that has slightly higher power ratings than the 4.0 your talking about and I drive the Bronco and the Ranger on the same roads at the same speeds and to me I dont see the 4.0 pushing the bronco as well. Theres some hills I hit and the bronco barely notices its there while the ranger needs to be down shifted. The bronco has 33in tires and 3.50 gears 1-1 4th the ranger has 4.10 gears, stock 245 75 16 tires and OD. I can only imagine the 4.0 in a bronco on that hill would slow down even more.

Any of todays turbo engines should be built to take the extra power. Turbo engines of the 90's were well built but they were not boosting at todays levels. I think the talons were maxed out at 11psi and had lower compression. The ECo 10-1 compression plus higher boost PSI, VVT ect all require a well built engine. But its all those parts that come into play along with higher power levels, higher heat ect that, Along with higher wear if you are under boost more than you should be. The smaller the engine and the more power your making the shorter its lifespan will be. There's also a reason most 4cyl engines have a balanceshaft in them they have terrible harmonics.
Diesel engines even turboed ones are a whole different animal even a non turboed diesel engine is built to be pretty heavy duty and built to make torque. They have compression ratios anywhere from 14-1 to 23-1 or so. Diesel fuel is more lubericating where gas is more solvent. Diesel fuel also provides more engery than gasoline does. The way diesel burns creates more power throughout the power stroke than gasoline does. Basically diesel burns while gas more or less explodes. So the burning creates a longer power cycle than a quick explosion. You can also run a lot more boost in diesels. Diesels also tend to run at lower RPM's so that in itself leads to less wear. Diesels usually run cooler as well.
A small diesel would be the best "small engine" for a bronco. Just look at the popular 4bt swaps most are hitting mid 20's for mileage a stock 4bt makes about 260ft lbs at 1600 RPM. It doesnt take much to add some more boost and fuel and get well over 300ft lbs.
I dont worry much about availibility of our old windsor engines there are millions of them out there. Sure lots will get junked but they will be around. Of course I would get my hands on a few to have for myself. Worst case a worn out engine that cant be bored anymore could be sleeved.

 

[fordfan]

I think it is great that we are always thinking of ways to 'modernize' our Classic Old Broncos, but just as Naz just stated, I think a diesel would be the main way to increase the performance per dollar of the Bronco.

I chuckle at all the chatter of all the stuff of increasing the mileage of the Bronco. We usually have a 4-6 or 7 caravan of EBs that tour to the SuperCelebration in Tennessee every year. Most of them are relatively stock and I think that the worst... I say Worst mileage that anyone has gotten on the trip is 14.5 -14.6! That mileage was obtained with an all original '73 automatic with a worn out engine. A '72 with a 3 speed got 17.8, a '69 with a 170 got 21, and a '76 with a performance built 302 and an AOD got 21.5!

These are real time figures that I have witnessed myself. A very important factor in getting good mileage with a Bronco is speed! This tour that I just stated mileage facts for, was mainly 55 mph maybe 60 sometime, but never 65! The power needed to push a Bronco over 60 mph increases significantly!

The '76 getting 21 mph or better is actually my Explorer which has a 306 with TRW forged pistons, original rotating assembly that's balanced, original heads that are polished and ported with SS motorsport valves, roller rocker arms, screw-in studs, guide plates, and a Competition Cams 268H camshaft. It has long tube headers, 2.5 exhaust and flowmaster mufflers. It has a TV controlled AOD, 4:11 gears and 31x10.50s with a 2.5" lift. To get 21 mpg, just don't drive it much over 60!

By the way, I really like the new Ecoboost engines! My wife has a SHO with the 3.5 and it is amazing for a automobile of that size, but it has drastically different drag coefficient of the Bronco! (It doesn't get awesome gas mileage though)...

 

[roundhouse]

My EFI and OD bronco gets 12

The drivability with EFI is much better than a carb. But mpg didn't improve

 

[fordfan]

My EFI and OD bronco gets 12

The drivability with EFI is much better than a carb. But mpg didn't improve

I hear these numbers and I don't understand. 351?, tire size?, gearing?, and how fast do you normally drive? do you accelerate quickly? injectors mis-sized, needs a computer tune?.. You should get at least 15-16.

 

[roundhouse]

I hear these numbers and I don't understand. 351?, tire size?, gearing?, and how fast do you normally drive? do you accelerate quickly? injectors mis-sized, needs a computer tune?.. You should get at least 15-16.

302, 4.11,33's , NV3550

 

[OX1]

I'm not sure how this morphed into a mileage thread, other than the claims a small ECO would get much worse mileage than an old tech V-8.

The main reason I posted it up was the soon availability of

1. An engine that can easily power a bronco
2. Is available in some rear drive application
3. Easily fits in bronco engine bay
4. A zillion of them will be out there in low mileage wrecks, so finding a cheap one should be easy.
5. Should be capable of matching V-8 mileage on all but the most demanding applications (especially if some of the info that indicates lean or at least stoich A/F's up through half load is true).

Sure you will always be able to find or rebuild 302/W's, but really old high mil junkyard motors are a crapshoot, of which I have been on the losing end here and there. And rebuilding correctly adds up to some serious coin and can be really frustrating if you don't have known good local machine shops that don't take upwards of a year to get you your parts back.

Those who are claiming how efficient the vehicles are that these new motors come in are only looking at one side of the coin. Imagine these new motors retuned so that they did not have to pass any kind of emissions, like 90%+ of every motor currently in an early bronco. Much of the limited availability of running leaner in the new cars is to pass NOx.

Very few would be singing the praises of even a 5.0 HO if they had to keep every piece of emissions equipment and pass emissions, so until you get some of these new motors in the same free for all of emissions and tuning, you can't really say how they would run in that situation.

 

[mefast]

I've been considering an Ecoboost Bronco, especially a 4 cylinder one for a while now. This swap won't be for everyone. For me, I'd like a daily driver that gets me better fuel economy than my current vehicles get. I don't currently own an early Bronco, but I'm shopping for one and if I don't get one soon, one of these small Ecoboost engines might end up in my '95 F150 instead.

Ford already offers a 2.0l Ecoboost crate engine and controls pack. For transmission choices, this engine shares the bolt pattern with a Duratec I-4. This means the common manual transmissions would be an NC Miata 6-speed, a T5 or an M5OD-R1. I've also heard of guys using an adapter plate and redrilled flywheel to bolt up to Modular transmissions. This means T56, Tremec Magnum, ZF5, ZF6 and MT-82 would mount up. I haven't looked into automatic transmissions, but I have a feeling there would be a good variety available.

The big key that I've been calculating is everything has to be designed to be efficient. For the 2.0l, a curb weight of more than 3500 lbs means you loose the displacement advantage. Aerodynamics will be a factor at higher speeds, so keeping the engine out of the boost at higher speeds will be required for a good highway fuel economy. The gearing of the modern transmissions will help, but tires and axle ratios will need to be matched up too. No different than what a Ford engineer would do with a new product. The other aspect is minimizing rotating mass. Lightweight flywheel, driveshaft, wheels and rims.

Here's my idea for a daily driver 1966-71 2.0l Ecoboost Bronco:
-RSG Tranzilla Magnum
-Atlas transfer case (not sure the exact specs - still a grey area)
-235/75-15 tires
-power disc brakes
-manual steering
-electric radiator fans
-front bumper lower splitter (picture '69 BOSS 302 style)
-binimi top to reduce weight or half cab with tonneau cover for cold days
-3.73 gears
-custom aluminum or carbon fiber drive shafts

This should be a lightweight rig, that will be able to use the advantages of the axle and transmission gearing to help fuel economy.

Sorry for the long winded post, but I've been trying to figure this out for about 6 months now. If anyone decides to do this, please start up a build thread. I'd be very interested in your progress.

 

[broncnaz]

I've been considering an Ecoboost Bronco, especially a 4 cylinder one for a while now. This swap won't be for everyone. For me, I'd like a daily driver that gets me better fuel economy than my current vehicles get.


The big key that I've been calculating is everything has to be designed to be efficient. For the 2.0l, a curb weight of more than 3500 lbs means you loose the displacement advantage. Aerodynamics will be a factor at higher speeds, so keeping the engine out of the boost at higher speeds will be required for a good highway fuel economy. The gearing of the modern transmissions will help, but tires and axle ratios will need to be matched up too. No different than what a Ford engineer would do with a new product. The other aspect is minimizing rotating mass. Lightweight flywheel, driveshaft, wheels and rims.

Here's my idea for a daily driver 1966-71 2.0l Ecoboost Bronco:
-RSG Tranzilla Magnum
-Atlas transfer case (not sure the exact specs - still a grey area)
-235/75-15 tires
-power disc brakes
-manual steering
-electric radiator fans
-front bumper lower splitter (picture '69 BOSS 302 style)
-binimi top to reduce weight or half cab with tonneau cover for cold days
-3.73 gears
-custom aluminum or carbon fiber drive shafts

This should be a lightweight rig, that will be able to use the advantages of the axle and transmission gearing to help fuel economy.

Your kinda on the right track. but not many people will want to take the route its going to take to get you where you want to be.
Lighter overall vehicle weight helps but I still dont think you'll make the great economy that you think you will. That small engine will still be a big part of the issue. Drag coeffiecnt of a bronco is still a problem. You'd really need to forget having 4wd that would help lose more wieght and you would get lower to the ground. Get rid of the 9in axle in the rear it eats power its stronger but you wont need it. Lighter weight flywheel is not always good especailly on a small engine all it does is allow the engine to rev quicker and higher. Good for racing but not much on a street vehicle. You really want that stored torque a heavier flywheel provides. You might be better off with a automatic for mileage as well. Not that a 6sp manual wouldnt do it but the less variation in engine RPM the better especailly with a small engine. Along those lines your dream transmission is expensive. $5-7K
I had a ealier post about the focus bronco that may interest you. Basically a focus drive train grafted to a stripped down bronco. It wasnt the ECO boost engine but still a 2.0 so cruise power would be similar. I think he said it got maybe mid 20's for mileage. But if you kept 4wd and raised it back up to stock levels I see mileage falling fast.
Broncos are just not suited to get high mileage if you ever drove one down the hiway and hit a head wind you notice it even with a decent V8. throw a smaller engine in there and your really going to notice it.

 

[mefast]

I agree with you, which is why I might try the drivetrain swap into my RWD truck instead of a Bronco. I still think it would be cool to pop the hood at a car show and have something that no one else has.

 

[WheelHorse]

Very few would be singing the praises of even a 5.0 HO if they had to keep every piece of emissions equipment and pass emissions, so until you get some of these new motors in the same free for all of emissions and tuning, you can't really say how they would run in that situation.

You speak grapes to grapefruits.

ASE Master Tech, L1 here. I've worked through emissions stuff and here's the difference of then vs. now.

Intake and Exhaust ports are HUGE compared to their yesteryear component and I'm speaking in terms of flow. With VVT and VViT and charge motion plates, tumble plates whatever you want to call them, you can get past the doggyness of the low-end usually associated with big ports and small cubes. Let's not forget that modern cars are running what was once considered racing compression ratios as well. Even though one point of comp supposedly adds 3%, still, a 302 running 8.5:1 or one running 11.1:1, the 11:1 is going to feel a lot spunkier. Then you could get into all the low-friction coatings that go into modern engines compared to the yesteryear counterparts. Variable oil pumps: you name it.

Computers are exponentially faster plus the use of Direct Injection really coming online, mid range torque is up by as much as 20% over most of their SEFI counterparts. Comparing apples to apples on the same engine. I used Honda as a reference.

Flow matters:

For instance a new 5.0L quad cam intake port flows. 300 cfm on the intake and 202 on the exhaust. A stock e7 heads flows between 150-160 on the intake and 97-111 on the exhaust depending on who does the test. In a very crude sense, you can see how doubling the runner flow has doubled the HP of close to the same cubes. This is essentially an AFR 205 head on a 302, except with out all of the fancy technology on a 302, she'd be no where as responsive on the tip in as would say a 408 or a VViT 302.

Oh yes, and catalytic converters flow so much better than their choked down 20 year ago Fox counterparts. Everything is designed way less restrictive | parasitic.

Here's where I think the 2.3 will not feel the same. At initial tip in at a stop light. The delay maybe as small as one second, but it's still a delay going from 1/4 tip in, building boost and really getting into the meat of torque you keep referring to is going to feel funny; go from a delay to peaky. Meanwhile, the guy with the well-tuned 351 iron head has already scooted out one to two EB lengths because his torque wasn't waiting for boost to build. I've driven a 351 Bronco and took down several 94-95 GT stick cars with it. I will tell you that unless you are prepared to foot brake that eco 2.3 it's not going to be the same.

Anything turbo has a slight delay. The delays are WAY less than their counterparts, but they are still there.

Plus, the cost of adapting. You took the c4 off the table, but that's an added cost, plus a controller for the fancy trans or a full manual swap for a guy like me; all additional costs.

I've been down the import scene, cutting chains on balance shafts, lightened flywheels, removal and tune for an "off-road" car blah blah and there's power to be had and 4cyls, they run phenomenally well for a 4cyl, but it sure as heck doesn't feel like a v8. It's as though your expectation adjust to how the power delivers.

In terms of Nissan, you could take a VQ3.5 swapped Spec V vs an equally powered boosted 2.5QR and the 3.5 will outrun it everytime due to the smoother delivery of the power. I've seen turbo vs cubes and unless you're at the track or roll racing down the interstate, I'll run cubes.

 

[OX1]

You speak grapes to grapefruits.

ASE Master Tech, L1 here. I've worked through emissions stuff and here's the difference of then vs. now.

Intake and Exhaust ports are HUGE compared to their yesteryear component and I'm speaking in terms of flow. With VVT and VViT and charge motion plates, tumble plates whatever you want to call them, you can get past the doggyness of the low-end usually associated with big ports and small cubes. Let's not forget that modern cars are running what was once considered racing compression ratios as well. Even though one point of comp supposedly adds 3%, still, a 302 running 8.5:1 or one running 11.1:1, the 11:1 is going to feel a lot spunkier. Then you could get into all the low-friction coatings that go into modern engines compared to the yesteryear counterparts. Variable oil pumps: you name it.

Computers are exponentially faster plus the use of Direct Injection really coming online, mid range torque is up by as much as 20% over most of their SEFI counterparts. Comparing apples to apples on the same engine. I used Honda as a reference.

Flow matters:

For instance a new 5.0L quad cam intake port flows. 300 cfm on the intake and 202 on the exhaust. A stock e7 heads flows between 150-160 on the intake and 97-111 on the exhaust depending on who does the test. In a very crude sense, you can see how doubling the runner flow has doubled the HP of close to the same cubes. This is essentially an AFR 205 head on a 302, except with out all of the fancy technology on a 302, she'd be no where as responsive on the tip in as would say a 408 or a VViT 302.

Oh yes, and catalytic converters flow so much better than their choked down 20 year ago Fox counterparts. Everything is designed way less restrictive | parasitic.

Here's where I think the 2.3 will not feel the same. At initial tip in at a stop light. The delay maybe as small as one second, but it's still a delay going from 1/4 tip in, building boost and really getting into the meat of torque you keep referring to is going to feel funny; go from a delay to peaky. Meanwhile, the guy with the well-tuned 351 iron head has already scooted out one to two EB lengths because his torque wasn't waiting for boost to build. I've driven a 351 Bronco and took down several 94-95 GT stick cars with it. I will tell you that unless you are prepared to foot brake that eco 2.3 it's not going to be the same.

Anything turbo has a slight delay. The delays are WAY less than their counterparts, but they are still there.

Plus, the cost of adapting. You took the c4 off the table, but that's an added cost, plus a controller for the fancy trans or a full manual swap for a guy like me; all additional costs.

I've been down the import scene, cutting chains on balance shafts, lightened flywheels, removal and tune for an "off-road" car blah blah and there's power to be had and 4cyls, they run phenomenally well for a 4cyl, but it sure as heck doesn't feel like a v8. It's as though your expectation adjust to how the power delivers.

In terms of Nissan, you could take a VQ3.5 swapped Spec V vs an equally powered boosted 2.5QR and the 3.5 will outrun it everytime due to the smoother delivery of the power. I've seen turbo vs cubes and unless you're at the track or roll racing down the interstate, I'll run cubes.

Not sure what all the explanation above has to do with being able to run a modern engine with ZERO regard to emissions and/or a much more compromised tune regarding long term durability upon installation in an EB?

My point was those comparing the modern engines to their current bronco engine have not considered this point at all. To drive home my point, if most had to install all the 80's emission crap on their 5.0 HO and actually pass emissions (and I'm talking a minimum of a state run roller type test), almost no one would have moved on from a carb.

So I will repeat, until such point that a modern ECO is transplanted in a vehicle with virtually no restrictions on emission or tune, only then can someone tell how well it is not going to work.

I am not going to argue right off idle tip in vs a substantially larger displacement, especially @ high throttle situations. I will say the small ECO's are so much better in low end torque/response, than any previous factory setup small turbo, they would be highly livable in an early bronco.

Honestly, I would take the 3 speed auto off the table for any build, unless I just wanted stone cold oldness in my drivetrain. Lack of an overdrive is severely annoying. I've had big block 3 speed auto combos and they don't lack for torque or power, but they sure are annoying at cruise over 50 with anything but a 2.5 rear gear.

0-20 MPH times are the same for a 14 2.0 escape VS a 14 V6 auto stang. and that is a much lower HP rated engine in the escape. Drive them back to back (since I owned a 14 stang V6 auto for about 10 months before I got my GT, I have, multiple times), and you would swear the escape would piss all over that stang off the line. That big V6 was just an absolute dog out of the hole. So I will completely disagree with cubes always win, at least in modern fords, even when the larger cube motor has more paper HP, 300 lbs less weight and lighter wheels/tires (will give slight edge to escape of 3.07 diff vs 2.73 in stang). Maybe it is more of ford thing since my brothers 3.6 Chyrlser 200 company car feels like a monster out of the hole.

 

[WheelHorse]

My point was those comparing the modern engines to their current bronco engine have not considered this point at all. To drive home my point, if most had to install all the 80's emission crap on their 5.0 HO and actually pass emissions (and I'm talking a minimum of a state run roller type test), almost no one would have moved on from a carb.

Who is the "one" you speak of? Shadetrees or manufacturers?

How much HP do you think a 302 picks up by removing what smog equipment exactly? I'd really like to know. Keeping heads, cam, intake and carb the same what are we taking off? A smog pump and EGR? Removing a cat on a 75+ Bronco?

For a Fox HO roller 5.0? Again, what are we taking off? Smog pump? Adj TPS to .99? Keeping MAF and t-body the same with E7 heads what are we gaining by removing the smog pump? It takes 3-5hp to run that smog pump.

 

[OX1]

Who is the "one" you speak of? Shadetrees or manufacturers?

How much HP do you think a 302 picks up by removing what smog equipment exactly? I'd really like to know. Keeping heads, cam, intake and carb the same what are we taking off? A smog pump and EGR? Removing a cat on a 75+ Bronco?

For a Fox HO roller 5.0? Again, what are we taking off? Smog pump? Adj TPS to .99? Keeping MAF and t-body the same with E7 heads what are we gaining by removing the smog pump? It takes 3-5hp to run that smog pump.

Not talking HP at all in that part of conversation. I'm talking the ability to run leaner under milder boost situations due to the modern engine setup, like VVT and especially DI (or really the ability to instill multiple injection cycles @ very accurate timing points in the combustion cycle), IF you don't have to worry about emissions at all.

It has been stated that once under boost (even mild boost), it will use more gas than a NA motor (assuming same power output) due to it needing to be richer. My premise is that this is at least partially true due to very tight modern emission requirements.

As posted, it sounds like Mercedes is already running lean or at least typical cruise stoic under mild boost, up to half load on smaller engines. If this gives you the ability to run same A/F well into the load range that an EB needs to get down the road, it will not use more gas than the NA motor putting out that power (suggested was 60 HP under steady state cruise @ 65MPH).

If at least in some point during driving you end up with a load that is below this threshold (lower speeds than 65 MPH lets say), the smaller engine would give you better economy.

Again, this all ties into getting cheap low mileage motors from wrecked vehicles somewhere down the line. The small ECO's are going to be avail by the 10's of thousands not that far in the future.........

 

[ren71]

I'm with OX1's side of this benchracing.

The 2.3 4 banger is an upgrade option for current explorers for better MPG over the base NA V6

V6 = 290 horsepower and 255 lb-ft of torque. which is probably equivalent or better than an old stock carbureted bronco 302

The 2.3 is rated at 280 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque and specd for 3000lbs of towing.
How is this not good enough for a Bronco?

Keep in mind this in a 5000lb, SEVEN PASSENGER boat that gets 19/28 mpg (FWD) and 18/26 mpg (AWD). 2 more city and 4 more than the V6

Sure it's probably got better aero but unless you guys have a wind tunnel we can't really know by how much. Contrary to popular belief you can't eyeball aerodynamics.

Sure it's got a modern 6 speed automatic but it's not like it has an 8 speed to overcompensate. Slap in a 5 speed manual with some kinda adapter and it'll probably come close to efficiency.

Ford engineer's aint just gonna drop any ol marginal engine that they can't warranty on one of their best selling vehicles.

 

[sprdv1]

------------The walking dead----------

 

[1sicbronconut]

A lot of you know I've been a Ford tech for close to 30 years, 15 as a senior master tech. The Ecoboost engines for the most part have been great but for the most part are a PITA to work on. The cac tubing runs everywhere on the V6's and NONE of them have power steering pumps which to me is a huge work around for most folks. I just replace a early production 2.7 for a oil consumption problem and have replaced quite a few early production 3.5L timing chains for a "stretch" problem not fun in the least bit!

 

[broncnaz]

Well swap one in and let us know how it is. That's the only real way for you to know.

I'm not real sure why you think most of the 5.0's swapped into broncos wont pass emissions. I think most will even if they are missing some of the equipment they came with stock. Even a lot of built engines will still pass emissions. The factory pumps out thousands of vehicles they cover there bases by adding equipment to pass emissions with little tuning needed so if things are a little out of spec they still pass. Yes they are getting much better on there specs but still they don't have the time to tune each engine. Where a enthusiast will tune his engine to get better results. That doesn't mean it wont pass emissions. It also doesn't mean they gained a lot more power.

Don't need a wind tunnel to figure drag coefficient. and park a bronco next to a explorer you'll see the difference. I'm not sure what the new explorers CD is but the 2000's were like .43 and if I remember correctly a bronco was figured at about .68 Most likely new explorers are lower than .43. I'm not into a lot of math but you could figure the differences and possible power requirements all on paper it would get you close.
The problem is that 200 ft lbs in a 4c cyl engine is not really the same as 200 ft lbs in a V8 at least not from the powerband perspective. That 2.3 has to rev plus be into boost to maintain. You'd probably be just the opposite of the 6cyl powered broncos does ok up to about 55 then cant get out of its own way.
The 2.3 is a good engine its been around for a long time so its proven in its base form. Still small engines that make lots of power don't last long. Heck even big engines that make lots of power don't last long. Todays vehicles are really throw away vehicles after 10 years there really pretty much done for. What's fords warranty? 5years 60,000 miles. There's a reason for that.
All said and done yes a 2.3 could power a bronco I just don't see it doing all you think it will. Or maybe it will it depends what you want.