April C&D Ecoboost tested

[Oldguy]

Just got my April issue of Car and Driver. On page 98 is a test of the EB. They don't seem to be overly impressed with the engine. But what I found interesting (and I'm sure you owners will also) is in the last paragraph of the article is says "Ford Racing has an engine reflash coming later this year that will bring a yet-to-be-specified power bump covered by warranty. Maybe the following year that engine tune will be standard equipment and Ford will require premium rather than recommend it."

Interesting?

Sponsored

 

[Flak]

old news still no info, FR typically has these

 

[Oldguy]

Sorry. Didn't know it was old news.
The 2015 Mustang wasn't on my radar until a few weeks ago when my son-in-law got one. So forgive me for not being up to speed on this.

 

[MUSThavaSTANG]

I'd be very surprised to see it as standard on next year's Ecoboost. The reflash is supposed to be very similar to the one that added 90 lbs of torque to the Focus ST. If it does the same for the Ecoboost it would give it about 410 lbs, 10 more than the GT.

I will be picking one up for my Ecoboost as soon as it's for sale.

 

[TheZman]

I'd be very surprised to see it as standard on next year's Ecoboost. The reflash is supposed to be very similar to the one that added 90 lbs of torque to the Focus ST. If it does the same for the Ecoboost it would give it about 410 lbs, 10 more than the GT.

I will be picking one up for my Ecoboost as soon as it's for sale.

Best part about the Ecoboost its tunability.. i think FORD purposely kept this engine down tuned from the factory so they can creat a huge aftermarket for ther FORD racing parts. Kinda like what Harley does with there bikes. This way they can make all that extra money on the Tuners and all the other goodies! Its amazing with just a tune your right there with the V8 especially with the Ecoboost being about 200lbs lighter..

 

[analogman]

410 ft-lbs of torque would be very impressive to squeeze out of a 2.3 liter engine. But, I would imagine all the extra pressure and thermal stress would also shorten engine life. It's impressive efficiency for extracting power out of a small package, but I personally prefer a far less stressed V8 that has much less chance of grenading itself.

 

[MUSThavaSTANG]

410 ft-lbs of torque would be very impressive to squeeze out of a 2.3 liter engine. But, I would imagine all the extra pressure and thermal stress would also shorten engine life. It's impressive efficiency for extracting power out of a small package, but I personally prefer a far less stressed V8 that has much less chance of grenading itself.

I hear ya about the less stressed V8, but the fact that it's sold by Ford and doesn't void the warranty makes me think it doesn't stress the engine that much, if at all, especially if Ford left plenty of room for upgrade.

 

[Chlocli]

410 ft-lbs of torque would be very impressive to squeeze out of a 2.3 liter engine. But, I would imagine all the extra pressure and thermal stress would also shorten engine life. It's impressive efficiency for extracting power out of a small package, but I personally prefer a far less stressed V8 that has much less chance of grenading itself.

Most people get tired of their cars after 3-6 years and never have to worry about reduced engine life. My little 1.8T 4 cyl Audi has been chipped from 155 to 280 ft-lbs for 15 years and the engine keeps purring along. So 400 ft-lbs for a 2.3 Ecoboost with DI is not that ground breaking or scary. The engine oil cooled turbo's used to fail if you did not allow for proper cool down after spirited driving. These newer water cooled turbo's should be much more reliable.

If anything gets destroyed it would be most likely the transmission.

To get the most out of the ecoboost you really need to budget for an intercooler replacement. Heat soak in hot/humid climates kills the performance. For that reason I am planning on test driving an ecoboost on a 100F day and comparing engine response back to back with a GT before deciding on my purchase.

Sponsored