Sponsored

Have you blown an engine? If so, what rod (cylinder) failed?

What rod (cylinder) failed on your engine?


  • Total voters
    44

trippleyelo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
504
Reaction score
78
Location
vancouver wa
Vehicle(s)
ford f250 turbo diesel and 2016 mustang svo
:ford:A mustang is a mustang ..lol

4,6,8 are the engines available I'm glad your happy now v8 fan boy not for me take them off the line and on the track all the time 450 whp and 42,000 modes from day one 32 mpg and handles like a dream to me..,and that is a guy who only had corvettes that cornered.

STOCK BLOCK AND INTERNALS:first:


Very happy with my choice they will be the day of the doedo bird when we talk about them in junkyard's .lol

Will miss you mate..:cheers:
Sponsored

 

tw557

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2016
Threads
40
Messages
573
Reaction score
105
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
16 GT automatic
Lion, just wondering your opinion on the roll on power of the Gt. I was sure I wanted a GT too and even test drove 5. I just kept being disappointed with the low rpm grunt. I liked the top end pull though. I was just looking for your comparison with FP tune vs stock Gt in the 2000 to 3500 rpm range where most of my driving is. I was expecting that old school short shifting grunt. I really only enjoyed the test drives when over 4000 rpm.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
^ After all the books from [MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION]. I am so happy that I dont have a V8. Move-on [MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] and find Fault with your V8 to share with your new found V8 world. I bought the car that I wanted and not the car someone else wanted. I would not even do an even trade for a GT350R. Its not the car for me. EB feer Life...
That's great you love your EB. I had a love / hate relationship with mine. Was it reliable? Yes. Did it sound like it was dying most of the time? Yes (especially the base models with a manual, have very little sound dampening). Did it have moments where I really enjoyed driving it? Yes. Did it have moments where I felt it needed more power even with the modifications? Yes. Did it get better gas mileage than my GT? Yes.

Does my GT consume so much gas I can single handedly empty a station? No, it's actually not that bad. My buddies V6 2014 Dodge ram with an 8 speed auto (and far less power) gets worse gas mileage than my 435 HP GT....lots of people drive full sized trucks / suv's or full sized cars that get worse mileage than I do by quite a bit. So not sure why that's such a big deal. It all depends on your budget. My Finace' also drives a Prius...I know completely opposite lol. She gets 51 in the city and 48 on the highway...they balance each other out, like having two normal every day compact cars like two Ford Focus's or Honda Civics etc. So it works for me.

I wanted a V8 from the get go, but finances at the time didn't permit the buy in price of a new or nearly new PP optioned V8 (about 36k). Got mine slightly used for just a little under 28k with only 5,500 miles on the clock and and a 100k warranty from Ford, only a bit more than paid for my base EB of the same year and my GT PP is far better equipped from the factory in every way.

Don't think I hate EB's or think they are crap, they are not, but they aren't perfect either. GT PP has it's own gripes but for my needs, personal situation and what I want from the car it is 99% there right out of the box :headbang:.

I love it, love the Corsa exhaust with it's melodic growl and high pitched howl at WOT. I love the endless power this NA V8 has. It just has power in situations the 2.3T did not.

Running ethanol blends is a no go for me, never will be. Non FP tunes is also a no go for me as this is my daily and it needs to last at least 150k before being replaced, preferably 200k+ like all my other cars.

You can hate all you want, but I like what I have. Glad I got an EB Stang though, just like I'm glad I owned a MX-5 which wasn't nearly as fast as the EB Stang. I've learned a lot about TDI engines through all of the research, this forum and my own discoveries / projects with that car. But I wasn't able to get it where I was happy with it with what I felt was still a reliable daily setup. So my only choice was really to step up to a larger NA V8, which also has a huge amount of room to grow itself.

I will own TDI cars in the future, but I like them more in a passenger car application than a performance car, at least pony cars. There's just nothing like a big power NA V8 in a Mustang, Camaro or Charger / Challenger. I absoutely love the classic NA V8 engine configurations and they tend to be darn near bullet proof in stock form as well. Biggest down side is fuel costs are higher, but it's also often blown out of proportion by people who don't own one.

Might not be your cup of tea, but is mine. You enjoy your mustang flavor and I"ll enjoy mine. I wish ya'll the very best, but don't be afraid to PM me if you want info on diff swaps and other EB mods and what I did learn, I have no problem sharing in excessively long posts and e-mails. That's just me, but I give you everything I know instead of just 50%, leaving you with more questions than you started with. I love problem solving but I also love helping others, period. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but I guess in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter, don't like what I have to say, don't read it.
 
Last edited:

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
Lion, just wondering your opinion on the roll on power of the Gt. I was sure I wanted a GT too and even test drove 5. I just kept being disappointed with the low rpm grunt. I liked the top end pull though. I was just looking for your comparison with FP tune vs stock Gt in the 2000 to 3500 rpm range where most of my driving is. I was expecting that old school short shifting grunt. I really only enjoyed the test drives when over 4000 rpm.
You ready for another novel? Here you go:

No, 5.0 doesn't have that old school low end grunt. The 6.2L in the Camaro does though if your after a V8 with that kind of a power band. It's a big block push rod beast all the way, but with a lower rev range, red line for the 6.2L is at 6500 and peak power is right around 6k, torque falls off very fast after 6k in the GM 6.2. The 5.0 is more of a high tech European-esque high rever. Look at the dynos for a FP Stage 3 Power Pack on the 5.0...it climbs all the way to peak at about 7200 RPM...that's pretty high for a 90 degree crank V8...it's really high.

Just two different ways to get there. Low end grunt, or a long legged high rever that goes all the way up. The EB's 2.3T with it's low inertia smallish twin scroll turbo mimics more of the low end grunt of the Camaro's 6.2L V8 instead of the high reving 5.0 coyote and 5.2 voodoo.

The 5.0 does have very strong mid-range torque though with 93 however. Having switched between 87 and 93 now (ran at least two consecutive tanks of each to allow it to fully learn the octane) I can tell quite a difference in my GT.

Dynos show about 25~30 ft-lbs torque loss with 87 in the mid-range / low end. So with 93 you get a really nice table top torque of 400 ft-lbs from 3500 all the way to a little over 5k. After that power takes over and it just climbs and climbs. With 87 you have more of a torque peak instead of that nice mid-range torque table top. Makes it feel more sluggish in the mid-range and low end, especially compared to a modded 2.3.

Out on the highway the GT will spank a FP tuned EB all day long. On a short and tight Auto X course the EB will spank the GT, it's more nimble and power / torque comes on at a lower RPM range. Stock to stock, the EB takes 30 seconds to hit 130 mph...the GT takes just 17.8 seconds. That's a HUGE difference. Modified I'd estimated the EB is in the mid to low 20 second range to 130 on pump gas.

On a full sized circuit track the V8's all the way. Large Auto X course they are a closer race (and that's comparing a highly modified EB vs. stock GT in call comparisons). Stock to stock it's a no contest though unless your on a short auto x course, GT is a beast in all but very tight auto x course, but that's not really what it was designed for (that's where the momentum cars like the MX-5, BRZ etc really shine).

My EB made 315 whp PEAK at 5800 RPM. That's with one of the best FMIC's on the market, high flow charge pipes, ram air ducting, 93 octane, good oil, oil cooler, PP radiator, lightweight wheel setup and short 3.73 gearing. It's also technically the only street legal tune (FP tune) other than stock presently and the only one I found based on all the failures etc. that I believe would be safe long term on a daily.

Remember the EB's torque falls off after just 3500 RPM. My modified EB may have made the same 400 ft-lbs torque at the crank as the GT, but it only does so in a lower RPM range. Where the car makes torque determines how fast it will accelerate. So where the EB has plateaued and peaked, the GT is just getting started. If you don't really ever rev the engine up past 3500, the EB will feel much stronger and is a better choice for your needs. For daily driving though, I have no problem revving it up when merging on highways, passing or getting on a back country road. No I don't go WOT all the time, but even at light throttle, just letting the RPM climb to 4500~5k the 5.0 feels every bit as lively as the 2.3T, but it doesn't feel as labored. It just does it very effortlessly. That might be partly due to FI vs. NA. FI you need to really get into the pedal to get the power compared to the NA V8 which you can just let it rev even without heavy throttle.

The 5.0's power just keeps going up and up all the way. It really does feel like it has endless power. They are two different animals though, two different sets of attributes even if they share the same chassis. The EB stang feels more like a modern sports car (like some mid-range Audi's or VW's I've driven) wrapped in a muscle car body, where the GT feels more like a V8 race car that you need to rev up. That's just my impression especially after having a lot of first hand viewing as a spectator (right in the pits) of Late Model Dirt Track cars, which might be a bit of a bias. My fiance's dad races them, 500+ HP on a 2200 lbs chassis! Those things are FAST. Their power to weight ratio is crazy high and darn near bullet proof to boot. NA V8 for the win there! But that's more of what the intention of the GT seems like to me compared to my EB. It's a big power car and well suited to big power car tracks. It's also great for the GT part, grand touring. Highway with the GT I average about 25~27 with cruise on using 87 at about 70. Not bad for a 435 HP NA V8...my EB was about 30~31, but I HAD to run 91 or higher (most stations around here only carry 87, 89 and 93).

The power to weight ratio of the GT is quite a bit higher than even a FP tuned and Inter Cooled EB. But can the GT put it's power to use? On some tracks it can and others it can't. It all depends on the situation, the driver, conditions etc.

There really is no fastest car, each has it's merits. There are Auto X courses where the MX-5's with their paltry 160 hp spank a 400 HP highly modified wide body EB or even the new Vettes with 480 hp+ (about 3300 lbs)....I've seen the numbers on the fast lists for Auto x. Why?

Because the EB is still a 3500 lb car and the vett is still a 3300 lb car. The MX-5 (ND's) are only 2400 lbs and on a short tight turning track there's a huge bias towards transition, lighter cars simply transition faster, period. Each transition adds time to the heavier cars and the sum total ends up being substantial. They can't really use their power. Handling counts a lot more than power in those situations so the much lower powered but lighter cars are the faster cars. The situation is different on a track like gingerman, the MX-5's and BRZ's (assuming they aren't high modified with FI), just can't keep up.

Do you want a big power high speed fast or do you want short tight turning track fast? Only cars that typically have most of both attributes are kit cars that you can't drive every day (tube frame with a LS2 V8, 2400 ish lbs). But when were talking about street cars you can drive in the rain, summer, winter, fall or for more than 50 miles without wanting to blow your brains out, you typically can have one or the other or a middle ground (Audi S3's or modified EB's are kind of a middle of the two extremes) unless you spend excessive amounts of cash.

I love my GT, it's darn near everything I've been after. But my EB was great too in it's own way. It has it's merits and so does the GT. You would really need to spend some time with both to see which one is more suited to your situation and needs. Try driving a GT and just let it rev up a bit even if your not into the throttle. It might surprise you, but hey, maybe it's just not your cup of tea and there's nothing wrong with that! Anyway, I think this thread is going in a direction that it wasn't intended, so I'll stop posting now.
 
Last edited:

tw557

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2016
Threads
40
Messages
573
Reaction score
105
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
16 GT automatic
Lion, Thanks for the comparison. I did auto-x mine and I was pleasantly surprised. It does have the sports car feel to it especially since I have the ford racing performance package suspension. Yes revving out the EB is really not an inspiring adventure. The instant torque is nice though and I guess I have grown to enjoy the FI low end torque being my last cars were turbo. A stage 2 APR tuned Audi TTS. Very strong running car. I did test drive the manual GT's and enjoyed them better then the Automatic for reasons you mentioned above but an automatic is my only real option with my wife and daughter driving it occasionally. What I found in the auto, it was always shifting moderately quickly at part throttle and keeping it out of the torque range. Then I was pushing the peddle farther and farther but then I was constantly downshifting it which got annoying. I then ended up taking the extra $10000 that was needed to trade up, and picked up a pretty heavily modded bolt on, 05 GT and having fun with that for now along with the ecoboost. I still see myself getting into the GT one day though. Although if it wasn't so much trouble an ecoboost with better rods and pistons installed with a strong tune would probably fit my needs. Of course a FI coyote would be awesome.
 

Sponsored

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
Lion, Thanks for the comparison. I did auto-x mine and I was pleasantly surprised. It does have the sports car feel to it especially since I have the ford racing performance package suspension. Yes revving out the EB is really not an inspiring adventure. The instant torque is nice though and I guess I have grown to enjoy the FI low end torque being my last cars were turbo. A stage 2 APR tuned Audi TTS. Very strong running car. I did test drive the manual GT's and enjoyed them better then the Automatic for reasons you mentioned above but an automatic is my only real option with my wife and daughter driving it occasionally. What I found in the auto, it was always shifting moderately quickly at part throttle and keeping it out of the torque range. Then I was pushing the peddle farther and farther but then I was constantly downshifting it which got annoying. I then ended up taking the extra $10000 that was needed to trade up, and picked up a pretty heavily modded bolt on, 05 GT and having fun with that for now along with the ecoboost. I still see myself getting into the GT one day though. Although if it wasn't so much trouble an ecoboost with better rods and pistons installed with a strong tune would probably fit my needs. Of course a FI coyote would be awesome.
Possibilities are endless if you throw enough money at it. Look up V6 Honda Insight. Dumbest looking car I've seen in a long time. Company takes an AWD drive train, guts the car, puts in a 500 HP+ turbo 6 in it.

It looks nothing like a sports car, but it's crazy fast lol. Only 1900 lbs because the first gen insight chassis was all aluminum for weight savings. T Throw enough cash at it and just about any car can be fast. It's just a matter of how do you get there and what it costs, does it meet your needs / desires. So cheers to Mustangs in general of all flavors :cheers:.
 
OP
OP
Juben

Juben

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Threads
35
Messages
2,519
Reaction score
807
Location
Chattanooga, TN
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 EcoBoost Mustang (AT) w/PP
For what it's worth, the '19 2.3 (Maverick code name) is going to have some significant changes, including the rods. The new rods will be a forged piece that's much more robust.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
For what it's worth, the '19 2.3 (Maverick code name) is going to have some significant changes, including the rods. The new rods will be a forged piece that's much more robust.
That's a good thing :D. Makes an already great motor even better! I think the reality is weather you have a 2.3 or a 5.0, each has it's merits. Two completely different motors in the same car with very different characteristics. Test drive them and find out which one suites your needs.

At this point, since both my EB and GT are 2016's and went about as far I could on the EB's stock block on 93 pump gas with LONG term reliability as my #1 concern (hence why the FP tune is about as far as I was willing to go), I have a pretty darn good idea of how they each perform, their pros and cons, limits (well at least with the EB, just getting to know the 5.0). I know which one I personally prefer and I have my reasons for it. But I'm not sure why people are arguing with me so much just because I traded up to a GT and pointed out some of the EB's limitations...:( It's not like I traded down to a Camaro or Subaru...;). Enjoy!
 

ElAviator72

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Threads
83
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
169
Location
Canby, OR
First Name
Brent
Vehicle(s)
2016 Ecoboost PP Deep Impact Blue (base 100A car)
For what it's worth, the '19 2.3 (Maverick code name) is going to have some significant changes, including the rods. The new rods will be a forged piece that's much more robust.
FWIW, I don't think it's the rods. A certain tuner did a writeup a while back where his opinion of the ecoboom is that a cheap component in the engine block is letting loose and letting oil into the combustion chamber, causing LSPI...

But I'm all for stronger connecting rods :thumbsup:
 

marjen

2015 Mustang Ecoboost
Joined
May 14, 2014
Threads
57
Messages
806
Reaction score
111
Location
Ct
Vehicle(s)
2015 mustang Ecoboost premium
For what it's worth, the '19 2.3 (Maverick code name) is going to have some significant changes, including the rods. The new rods will be a forged piece that's much more robust.
Hmm. Thats interesting. I am planning on moving to an 18 GT in the spring but if they are going to straighten things out with the EB for 19 I might wait a few months. 19s will be out this summer.
 

Sponsored

DontoMelbo

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2016
Threads
2
Messages
63
Reaction score
14
Location
East Coast FL
Vehicle(s)
Future EB Vert
FWIW, I don't think it's the rods. A certain tuner did a writeup a while back where his opinion of the ecoboom is that a cheap component in the engine block is letting loose and letting oil into the combustion chamber, causing LSPI...

But I'm all for stronger connecting rods :thumbsup:
IIRC, I thought that was for the RS issue not the EB.
 

ElAviator72

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Threads
83
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
169
Location
Canby, OR
First Name
Brent
Vehicle(s)
2016 Ecoboost PP Deep Impact Blue (base 100A car)
IIRC, I thought that was for the RS issue not the EB.
The RS issue is that someone at the factory was putting the EBM head gasket in the RS engine, which created undue stress on the gasket, because the EBM head gasket has an extra hole between the cylinders for a slotted cooling passage that the RS block doesn't have. The RS gasket failures originated around the extra hole in the gasket, and worked their way to the thin area between the cylinders.
 

K-Roll302

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Threads
46
Messages
827
Reaction score
401
Location
Southfield, MI
First Name
Karl
Vehicle(s)
'17 Mustang GT Premium, '80 Porsche 924 Turbo
FWIW, I don't think it's the rods. A certain tuner did a writeup a while back where his opinion of the ecoboom is that a cheap component in the engine block is letting loose and letting oil into the combustion chamber, causing LSPI...

But I'm all for stronger connecting rods :thumbsup:
Where's this write-up and info about a 2.3 Maverick engine? I wanna read this!
 
OP
OP
Juben

Juben

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Threads
35
Messages
2,519
Reaction score
807
Location
Chattanooga, TN
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 EcoBoost Mustang (AT) w/PP
Where's this write-up and info about a 2.3 Maverick engine? I wanna read this!
I have several connections at Ford, in both Dearborn and Cleveland. It's nothing that's been published yet, but I'm sure it will as some point soon. If I could send some pics without getting anyone in trouble, I would but I don't want to risk someone's job for that. I will say that the rods are going to be different, the oiling system, cylinder head, and some other minor changes, like the intake manifold.
Sponsored

 
Last edited:
 




Top