Our motors are already strokers? E code theory and other interesting stuff

[5.0yote]

Just posting this was at the bottom of the article.

Bottom end
High Pressure Die-cast block with ladder-frame strengthening ribs molded around the cylinders and enlarged oil and cooling passages (deck height same as 2L).
9.5:1 CR 87.5mm bore high strength aluminum pistons with fully floating wristpins and steel piston ring carriers. Teflon coated low friction skirts (same bore as 2L but 0.5 lower compression).
94mm 'stroker' crankshaft, Forged 4340 steel (compared to 83mm cast steel on the 2L) lubricated by a chain driven oil pump
Upgraded high volume / high pressure oil pump and pickup.
Die-cast deep sump aluminum oil pan, baffled pickup area to prevent oil slosh, cavitation and starvation during high-G situations.
High volume piston-cooling jets.
Premium multi-layer bearings with low friction coating.

Of course its an older article, and if you continue even to the final pages you will see the prototype heads look to have standard exhaust ports instead of the integrated TS one that we see on the factory part so. IF the internals changed as much as the head, which I am not sure they did that much then who knows, but a "stroker" crankshaft is interesting. So is the forged rods statements. Considering some of the engines that have thrown a rod (albeit wrist pin weakness).

Sponsored

 

[ElAviator72]

Just posting this was at the bottom of the article.

Bottom end
High Pressure Die-cast block with ladder-frame strengthening ribs molded around the cylinders and enlarged oil and cooling passages (deck height same as 2L).
9.5:1 CR 87.5mm bore high strength aluminum pistons with fully floating wristpins and steel piston ring carriers. Teflon coated low friction skirts (same bore as 2L but 0.5 lower compression).
94mm 'stroker' crankshaft, Forged 4340 steel (compared to 83mm cast steel on the 2L) lubricated by a chain driven oil pump
Upgraded high volume / high pressure oil pump and pickup.
Die-cast deep sump aluminum oil pan, baffled pickup area to prevent oil slosh, cavitation and starvation during high-G situations.
High volume piston-cooling jets.
Premium multi-layer bearings with low friction coating.

Of course its an older article, and if you continue even to the final pages you will see the prototype heads look to have standard exhaust ports instead of the integrated TS one that we see on the factory part so. IF the internals changed as much as the head, which I am not sure they did that much then who knows, but a "stroker" crankshaft is interesting. So is the forged rods statements. Considering some of the engines that have thrown a rod (albeit wrist pin weakness).

Yep, it appears the transition from 2.0-->2.3 was accomplished by increasing the stroke of the engine, not the bore...:headbonk: However, as Adam has reminded us, there were lots of other changes made that make our engine blocks more like a cousin of the Focus ST 2.0, rather than a full bolt-on kissing cousin...

So, Adam, I still say it's a Stroker...addle: in the traditional sense, it means that a long throw crank (and connecting rods, wrist pins, etc.) were used by somebody (maybe the factory) to increase the stroke of the engine above what it was originally intended for.

 

[perfweld]

Yep, it appears the transition from 2.0-->2.3 was accomplished by increasing the stroke of the engine, not the bore...:headbonk: However, as Adam has reminded us, there were lots of other changes made that make our engine blocks more like a cousin of the Focus ST 2.0, rather than a full bolt-on kissing cousin...

So, Adam, I still say it's a Stroker...addle: in the traditional sense, it means that a long throw crank (and connecting rods, wrist pins, etc.) were used by somebody (maybe the factory) to increase the stroke of the engine above what it was originally intended for.

I agree as well, especially since this article was written before the car was out. A simple way to say its got a bigger engine then the 2.0 and was done with more arm, so to us guys that have been around a while its cool to say its a " stroker " we understand it easily.

 

[arghx7]

Oversquare motors are declining in the industry (as far as new engines for new vehicles go) because they for various reasons tend to be less fuel efficient.

 

[TheLion]

Just posting this was at the bottom of the article.

Bottom end
High Pressure Die-cast block with ladder-frame strengthening ribs molded around the cylinders and enlarged oil and cooling passages (deck height same as 2L).
9.5:1 CR 87.5mm bore high strength aluminum pistons with fully floating wristpins and steel piston ring carriers. Teflon coated low friction skirts (same bore as 2L but 0.5 lower compression).
94mm 'stroker' crankshaft, Forged 4340 steel (compared to 83mm cast steel on the 2L) lubricated by a chain driven oil pump
Upgraded high volume / high pressure oil pump and pickup.
Die-cast deep sump aluminum oil pan, baffled pickup area to prevent oil slosh, cavitation and starvation during high-G situations.
High volume piston-cooling jets.
Premium multi-layer bearings with low friction coating.

Of course its an older article, and if you continue even to the final pages you will see the prototype heads look to have standard exhaust ports instead of the integrated TS one that we see on the factory part so. IF the internals changed as much as the head, which I am not sure they did that much then who knows, but a "stroker" crankshaft is interesting. So is the forged rods statements. Considering some of the engines that have thrown a rod (albeit wrist pin weakness).

Same with the Duratec 2.3L and 2.5L. Each one is a stroked version of the smallest cibling 2.0L. There are of course other changes that ago along with it to accommodate higher fuel consumption, air flow needs etc.

It seems however the bottom end is built tougher on the 2.3L than on the 2.0L. To my knowledge the 2.0L still does not use forged crank or rods. There are many other changes noted, such as the oil pan and pump, the structural cast block design etc. which are unique to the 2.3L EB. Not mention it's a twin scroll design vs. a traditional single in all other current production EB engines.

 

[ElAviator72]

Oversquare motors are declining in the industry (as far as new engines for new vehicles go) because they for various reasons tend to be less fuel efficient.

Which seems strange to me...the reason oversquare configs were favored by manufacturers is because they rev easier and freer than long stroke engines, and new engines are great at making high RPM horsepower ;)

Another design issue with a stroker engine is that the long stroke increases internal friction within the engine, creating more friction losses that have to be overcome elsewhere. You'd think that would be detrimental to fuel economy? :shrug:

Sponsored