Are there different 2.3 Ecoboost engines?

[shogun32]

Ford had to do a deal to keep the Spanish plant/pipeline open and doing something after killing off the Focus. Maybe it's just castings instead of short-blocks but either way the Mustang 2.3 block has problems in fundamental design.

Sponsored

 

[Turbong]

Ford had to do a deal to keep the Spanish plant/pipeline open and doing something after killing off the Focus. Maybe it's just castings instead of short-blocks but either way the Mustang 2.3 block has problems in fundamental design.

How so? They seem to be using that block on just about every model now how problematic can it be? Maybe pushing too much power\tuning strategy is the real problem. They have the 2.0 semi-deck too why not just use that one instead if the 2.3 if its so problematic.

 

[BlueHPP]

This is from the aforementioned Mr. Brunson. According to him, all Eco blocks are the same. He says that all of the 'bonus' features of the HPP engine, aside from the head gasket, is exactly the same as the base, but marketed differently.

Why would Ford lie about different cylinder liners? Different head casting? The block casting is probably the same, with the same cooling jacket weaknesses, but It is relatively easy to change the liner material to create a stronger combustion chamber. Easy way to check is to compare part numbers, which I am planning on doing. Then you do not have to rely on anyone else. See the tech specs.

 

[GuardEcoBeast]

It doesn't make financial sense for Ford to make different heads and blocks for such a limited production vehicle.

 

[TeeLew]

Why would Ford lie about different cylinder liners? Different head casting? The block casting is probably the same, with the same cooling jacket weaknesses, but It is relatively easy to change the liner material to create a stronger combustion chamber. Easy way to check is to compare part numbers, which I am planning on doing. Then you do not have to rely on anyone else. See the tech specs.

Ford says the HPP has 'X' cylinder liners. It never says the base Eco doesn't. They're not lying, it's just a trivial detail.

 

[TeeLew]

How so? They seem to be using that block on just about every model now how problematic can it be? Maybe pushing too much power\tuning strategy is the real problem. They have the 2.0 semi-deck too why not just use that one instead if the 2.3 if its so problematic.

That what everyone does. The 2.0 block is easy enough to find and accepts sleeves. Done properly, these things will take some serious boost.

 

[shogun32]

Sure a 'weak' design isn't a problem as long as you stay under the point where it fails.

As an engineer I consider a 'weak' design a 'bad' design and will call it faulty no matter what. A program manager with the arm of a beancounter shoved up his poop chute will choke out the words "it's just fine to use(1)" and then bury the caveat in a footnote. Because a corporate culture of "there are no bad engineers and no bad results" doesn't tolerate admitting mistakes and undoing the "too cute by half" optimization some twit made because the software said he could get away with it.

Hell, Ford could have just looked at a zillion different pictures of KNOWN GOOD designs (2JZ, various BMW) and intuited what their design should have looked like. There is no excuse for EVER building a boosted engine with an open-deck design.

 

[Turbong]

Sure a 'weak' design isn't a problem as long as you stay under the point where it fails.

As an engineer I consider a 'weak' design a 'bad' design and will call it faulty no matter what. A program manager with the arm of a beancounter shoved up his poop chute will choke out the words "it's just fine to use(1)" and then bury the caveat in a footnote. Because a corporate culture of "there are no bad engineers and no bad results" doesn't tolerate admitting mistakes and undoing the "too cute by half" optimization some twit made because the software said he could get away with it.

Hell, Ford could have just looked at a zillion different pictures of KNOWN GOOD designs (2JZ, various BMW) and intuited what their design should have looked like. There is no excuse for EVER building a boosted engine with an open-deck design.

In engineering I consider your definitions wrong just because the block cannot handle 600whp does not make it "faulty", if you look at the definition it means "working badly or unreliably because of imperfections", they were never designed to make big horse power, can it be better well anything can, its all about goals and cost. The block works, just not to your standards in your opinion two completely different things.

@TeeLew
"That what everyone does. The 2.0 block is easy enough to find and accepts sleeves. Done properly, these things will take some serious boost. "

I understand what I meant is Ford could of just used those instead if the 2.3 blocks were "so faulty"

 

[TeeLew]

I understand what I meant is Ford could of just used those instead if the 2.3 blocks were "so faulty"

Doing so admits there was an issue and makes you trash a huge investment on casting dies. There's a lot of moving parts to decisions of such big companies and most of them have little to do with making a better product. Even completely stock engines have a tough time logging over 100k miles. Ford is pretty lenient replacing these engines because they know there will be a class-action suit if they don't.


I've run a bunch of the Mazda variant of this engine and blown them to hell and back on a regular basis. I bought into the Eco knowing damn well what it was. More importantly, I know the fix.

At the end of the day, Shogun is right. Ford has produced an engine which has impressive airflow characteristics, but weak architecture. Somewhere, there's an engineer who is either shitty at stress analysis or not nearly strong-willed enough. There's a reason why I don't work for a 'Globo-Corp'.

 

[Turbong]

Doing so admits there was an issue and makes you trash a huge investment on casting dies. There's a lot of moving parts to decisions of such big companies and most of them have little to do with making a better product. Even completely stock engines have a tough time logging over 100k miles. Ford is pretty lenient replacing these engines because they know there will be a class-action suit if they don't.


I've run a bunch of the Mazda variant of this engine and blown them to hell and back on a regular basis. I bought into the Eco knowing damn well what it was. More importantly, I know the fix.

At the end of the day, Shogun is right. Ford has produced an engine which has impressive airflow characteristics, but weak architecture. Somewhere, there's an engineer who is either shitty at stress analysis or not nearly strong-willed enough. There's a reason why I don't work for a 'Globo-Corp'.

Sounds like too much conjecture, You think it's up to one guy to make sure hundreds of millions of dollars don't go to waste lol. The simple fact is they stress and test the shit out of blocks to make sure it works with what they are trying to achieve. Yet facts are they keep using the block, yet now it's because they are afraid of admitting a mistake? It makes no sense if it's a business, they already HAVE a 2.0 block they could use on other vehicles so you can't argue cost, you think that just slipped their mind? haha. there are no mass exodus of Mustangs and trucks on the side of the road. The only thing we can agree on is the block was not designed to make big HP, so that can be considered "weak".

 

[TeeLew]

They also 'have' the dies for casting the 2.3 block. That's a massive investment which needs to pay for itself.

Remember the financial calculus described in the book/movie _Fight Club_? Often it's cheaper to just compensate the few that have an issue as opposed to actually fixing the problem.

If you're running these engines at a 5500 rpm redline while naturally aspirated in grandma's grocery-getter, then I'm sure it will work fine. If you're ringing its neck and feeding it 20+#of boost, it's going to blow up prematurely. This is just reality. Other engines...almost _every other_ has the structural capacity to produce more power than stock. This one is significantly more fragile than most.

...And, yes, ultimately this choice came down to a single individual. Business decisions aren't arrived at democratically; they come from dictators. The best we can hope is that the dictator will lean towards supporting the engineering department as opposed to the bean-counters. That didn't happen here.

 

[Radiation Joe]

I have to agree with TeeLew and Shogun. I spent 30 years in nuclear power watching idiots make decisions that were not only wrong from an engineering standpoint, but wrong from an economic standpoint. It's not always the engineer's fault. You can only fight a decision so far.
I'm now working for a privately held company that has the opposite problem. Any yahoo with an idea can get money to implement it without good engineering to make it economical. So even if something works, it ends up costing 50% more than it should because it doesn't have practical engineering behind it.
Now on to the relevant information:
I got an oil analysis back from Blackstone that indicates coolant in my oil. I won't say for sure it's a problem until I get a second analysis showing the same. But if it does come back a second time as coolant, I have a pretty good idea of why. Open deck is not good.

 

[BlueHPP]

Ford says the HPP has 'X' cylinder liners. It never says the base Eco doesn't. They're not lying, it's just a trivial detail.

The Tech specs also say the HPP engine is built in Valencia. It does not say the regular Ecoboost is not. How many regular ecoboost engines have been built in Valencia since 2017? You say many decisions are made to lower the cost of the ecoboost engine, using the same logic, why build the HPP engine in Valencia with the much longer supply chain if there is no difference except the head gasket?

 

[shogun32]

why build the HPP engine in Valencia with the much longer supply chain if there is no difference except the head gasket?

I already said why - contractual obligations to keep the plant in Spain open and doing something useful after the killed off the FiST.

 

[Strokercrate]

I already said why - contractual obligations to keep the plant in Spain open and doing something useful after the killed off the FiST.

Proof of contractual obligations? Or are you just speaking from personal beliefs?

Facts: Multiple sources including Ford performance says the 2.3l in the RS and HPP have a different alloy, liners and head.

Fact: the RS block had to be modified to work in a Front wheel drive application.

Fact: many tuners will push more hp to a focus RS 2.3L over a mustang 2.3l.

Fact: 2.3l are casted both in Cleveland and Spain.. Ford has done this many times in the past with many different engines. And those engines all had different capabilities and overall specks. 4.6l as an example not to mention windsor and Cleveland blocks of old. Ford also makes a pre ecoboost 2.3l block.


Conjecture: casted in spain shipped to usa

Conjecture: a well respected tuner states all the same block. ( what exactly was he referring to? Design? Tech specks? Functionality? Or exactly the same block? Without calcification thats left up to speculation. Even then unless Ford told him, how would he know that the mineral makeup of the blocks were identical unless he did an analysis done ?)


Everyone can talk until they are blue in the face. People will believe what they want. All i can say if its that important to you call or email Ford Performance and ask they are chill and will say why they choose a Spain block over a Cleveland one.

Done and out.

Sponsored