2015 Eco with 2017 engine?

[Black9]

Just recently bought a 2015 Ecoboost, it has about 41,000 miles...reading as much as I can , deciding on future mods, as of now just catching up on “must do” stuff ...oil catch can, and replacing fuel sensor.The car looks to be well kept but today I looked at the engine manufacture date and it reads Oct. 2017 Cleveland....do you think this is a replacement?

Sponsored

 

[Maggneto]

Just recently bought a 2015 Ecoboost, it has about 41,000 miles...reading as much as I can , deciding on future mods, as of now just catching up on “must do” stuff ...oil catch can, and replacing fuel sensor.The car looks to be well kept but today I looked at the engine manufacture date and it reads Oct. 2017 Cleveland....do you think this is a replacement?

Yes, that is definitely a replacement engine. I would stay away from catch cans as they are useless and can introduce problems where problems don't exist.

 

[302@12psi]

If it isn't a replacement how did they get a 2017 engine into a 2015?

 

[Ecoboosted]

Yes, that is definitely a replacement engine. I would stay away from catch cans as they are useless and can introduce problems where problems don't exist.

Are you saying catch cans are useless for an EB or GT or both?

 

[EcoVert]

If it isn't a replacement how did they get a 2017 engine into a 2015?

Doc brought it back in the DeLorean

 

[Silver Bullitt]

I would stay away from catch cans as they are useless and can introduce problems where problems don't exist.

You have proof of this? I've ran catch cans on my four previous vehicles without any issues. They do provide benefits with minimal maintenance.

 

[Silver Bullitt]

Just recently bought a 2015 Ecoboost, it has about 41,000 miles...reading as much as I can , deciding on future mods, as of now just catching up on “must do” stuff ...oil catch can, and replacing fuel sensor.The car looks to be well kept but today I looked at the engine manufacture date and it reads Oct. 2017 Cleveland....do you think this is a replacement?

If you're sure that 7 isn't a 4, then yes, that would be a different engine than what originally came in the car.

 

[Maggneto]

You have proof of this? I've ran catch cans on my four previous vehicles without any issues. They do provide benefits with minimal maintenance.

Anytime you introduce something like a catch can there is a possibility that something may go wrong and cause problems. A faulty installation, a faulty part, forget to empty the catch can, etc. And for what? Some phantom carbon build-up that doesn't appear to be an issue with the 2.3 engine? The 2.3 is available in several cars and SUV's dating back to 2014 and I am not seeing any evidence of carbon build-up or problems associated with carbon build-up. The Ford dealership I use is the 3rd highest Mustang volume dealer and numero uno Roush dealer in the US. Number of blown 2.3 engines or problems associated with carbon build-up = ZERO. Ford says that carbon build-up isn't a problem on the 2.3 as well. Until I start seeing problems associated with carbon build-up on the 2.3 it doesn't exist.

We currently have 2 GDI Turbos in the garage, and had 2 GDI's previously. ZERO catch cans, ZERO problems. We use top tier gas ONLY which is supposed to help keep things clean.

There was a GT member who blew an engine shortly after installing a catch can and the dealership replaced the engine under warranty and told him NOT to install another catch can or they would deny any more warranty claims on the engine.

 

[Maggneto]

Are you saying catch cans are useless for an EB or GT or both?

I am only referring to the 2.3 engine and for carbon build-up issues only.

 

[Ecoboosted]

I am only referring to the 2.3 engine and for carbon build-up issues only.

I didn’t put one on my 15’ EB or my 15 GT but I have one on my current 18’ GT and checked it twice in about 6K miles and both times there was about an ounce or 2 in the catch can.

 

[Black9]

Didn’t mean for this to be a catch can or not argument, the catch can is on and wouldn’t have put it on if I thought it would harm anything, Whether it prevents carbon build up or not I believe that you get a cleaner intake charge....Honestly am relieved that the engine apparently has been changed as I wasn’t aware of some of the earlier problems with 15’s until after I bought the car and searched for dedicated web sites, which by the way have been surprised at the following of the Ecoboost .

 

[Silver Bullitt]

I am only referring to the 2.3 engine and for carbon build-up issues only.

You did say they were useless, which they are not. With DI, no gas is going to spray on the valves to help keep them clean. However, a cleaner intake, reduction in fuel dilution in the crankcase (particularly with short trips and being under boost), and no octane dilution are all benefits of a catch can. I know there are nonbelievers who think they're snake oil, but I've seen firsthand the difference it can make in the intake which is reason enough for me to be a proponent. To each their own.

 

[Maggneto]

Didn’t mean for this to be a catch can or not argument, the catch can is on and wouldn’t have put it on if I thought it would harm anything, Whether it prevents carbon build up or not I believe that you get a cleaner intake charge....Honestly am relieved that the engine apparently has been changed as I wasn’t aware of some of the earlier problems with 15’s until after I bought the car and searched for dedicated web sites, which by the way have been surprised at the following of the Ecoboost .

How the hell did you buy a car without knowing the engine was replaced? Why did the engine need to be replaced? Who replaced the engine, was it ECU tuned, was the ECU replaced?

Most 2015 EB's have the Valencia engine but not all. There are some 2015 Cleveland engines as the change from Valencia to Cleveland occurred during 2015 production, in March I believe. Most 2015 have the Valencia engine since there was about a 2 month lead time for the engine to be built and shipped to the US in time for placement into the Mustang. My 01-05-2015 build has a Valencia engine date 10/2014.

Many blown 2.3 engines (Valencia and Cleveland) were modified and were ECU tuned. There have been a few bone stock failures but the vast majority of failures were modified in some way and/or user error. If you have the same tuned ECU and the previous engine blew, the current engine may reach the same result.

There are many blown Cleveland engines as well so don't think there is a problem with the 2015 engine as there is no physical evidence of any difference between Valencia and Cleveland engines. This has been debited for 4 years so we have seen and heard it all my friend.

The 2014-2015 Valencia cars had a more aggressive factory tune and are about 1 second quicker to 60 than the 2016-2017 Cleveland cars.

The more aggressive factory tune is evident in the 0-60 tests overtime showing the 2014 and early 2015 Valencia powered cars hitting 60 in 5.2 seconds vs Cleveland powered cars taking 6+ seconds. For comparison, the 2018 EB with an A10 and 310hp/350trq is only .3 seconds quicker to 60 than the Valencia A6 with 310hp/320trq.

IMO, 2015 failures were the result of trial and error and overtime there were less failures as tuners who were blowing engines changed their tune, pun intended. One tuner in particular who was blowing engines left and right started blaming a phantom engine defect in 2014 Valencia engines to cover his ass. No other tuners blamed 2014 engine defects.

This tuner gave the impression that the Cleveland engines were better and safer to modify than the 2015. Of course this was false and 2015-2016 Cleveland engines started blowing just like the 2014 Valencia engines, no surprise to intelligent people, and the tuner packed up and left M6G for FactlessBook.

I leave you with this clip from millennial Mohammed who thought he was safe because he had a Cleveland engine and didn't have a Valencia engine. I guess he was reading the same B.S as you.

 

[Maggneto]

You did say they were useless, which they are not. With DI, no gas is going to spray on the valves to help keep them clean. However, a cleaner intake, reduction in fuel dilution in the crankcase (particularly with short trips and being under boost), and no octane dilution are all benefits of a catch can. I know there are nonbelievers who think they're snake oil, but I've seen firsthand the difference it can make in the intake which is reason enough for me to be a proponent. To each their own.

You got me there, they are not completely useless and do offer some benefits. My apologies sir. In 30 years I have never looked at an intake or measured octane dilution. I guess I was too busy enjoying my cars, motorcycles, and speed boats to care how clean my intake was or is. I never had any type of failure or problem related to intake cleanliness.

You bring up a good point regarding octane dilution as a low octane event can cause something like detonation to occur which could result in damaged pistons, etc. At least that is my understanding but I am no expert on the subject. However, I see catch cans are present on many failed engines including one recent one reported in the I4 section so catch cans do not appear to be helping much in the octane dilution department during "around town" driving. It is my understanding that catch cans are beneficial in racing applications where engines have a much lower tolerance for octane dilution.

Sponsored