Are there different 2.3 Ecoboost engines?

[shogun32]

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

citation?

Sponsored

 

[TeeLew]

Here's the deal. I own an HPP & I don't really care where the engine was made. I'm going to have a ton of fun with it, eventually blow it up & then have fun with the new engine. If it's no stronger than any other Eco 2.3, I'm fine with that.

 

[w3rkn]

Shogun32 is just gaslighting you guys. He always does this...

 

[DruDru_97]

Just a thought I had while reading the rest of the posts in this thread but, if the EB mustang was the first vehicle to have the 2.3 EB engine, do you think that maybe Ford used this more fragile block to ensure it’s power output wouldn’t surpass the coyote engine? We’ve seen guys putting down 800whp with the 2.0 block and 2.3 cylinder head. I think it could be a redo all assumption that maybe there was some kind of notion within Ford that the 2.3 should not be capable of surpassing the 5.0 in power and that why this fragile block was approved even when they had the stronger 2.0 block that could hold the 2.3 internals and cylinder head.

Armand before it’s argued that the 2.3 is also in the RS and ranger that it was in the EB mustang first? I may be wrong this was just a thought that came to mind

 

[shogun32]

Ford goes cheap everywhere it can, with ~no regard for aftermarket possibilities. Don't ascribe to malice/cunning which is readily explained by stupidity/short-sighted cost cutting.

 

[TeeLew]

The base for this engine goes back almost 20 years during the joint venture between Ford & Mazda. For some reason, the 2.0 engine (both manufacturers) engine is a closed deck and the 2.3 is open. I don't know the reason, but it's not some grand conspiracy to limit power.

 

[Scootsmcgreggor]

I'm with TeeLaw.

Also I love everyone saying its a fragile block. Sure it should have been a closed or semi closed deck, agreed that there's little reason they should have made it open deck. Even still though, people call it fragile because they can't make 450-500WHP without fear of blowing it up ever? People are routinely taking these from 250WHP stock to 400WHP (with 450ft/lbs torque at 3k RPM!) and engines are living for years in some instances at these power levels. Even 10yrs ago, outside of a small handful of unicorn engines like 2jz's, that increase (especially on a hp/liter basis) on an OEM block running for more than a couple weeks was unheard of. Hell 10-15yrs ago if you wanted any turbo 4cyl to hold together at 400WHP it required a fully built block and even then people would blow bottom ends from time to time. Back to our engines, to top it off Ford gives us stock clutches and fuel systems that have enough headroom to make all this extra power. Remember when simple bolt-ons on an N/A engine caused a slipping clutch? I guess everything is relative, but at least from where I'm sitting the capability of these engines and drivelines is impressive. Same with most coyotes, Ford designed them with enough safety margin to run 750WHP pretty consistently (albeit with some ring land issues on that end too). But still impressive. They could have designed with a much lower safety margin as in the past and neither of these engines would hold up to what we throw at them consistently and complain about.

end rant.

 

[Jaymar]

The base for this engine goes back almost 20 years during the joint venture between Ford & Mazda. For some reason, the 2.0 engine (both manufacturers) engine is a closed deck and the 2.3 is open. I don't know the reason, but it's not some grand conspiracy to limit power.

Agreed, not some great conspiracy just a merger of engineering and accounting. The way I understood it the open deck design was used to accommodate the added cylinder wall cooling needed to run 87 octane in a motor that also has the boost/timing to make over 300 HP from 2.3 liters. As great as this little motor is it still has to fit under a warranty while catering to the rental car and nonperformance mass-market crowd to maximize sales.

 

[BlueHPP]

I have been trying to document the differences between the HPP and standard. The engine part number is different and is documented in the factory service manual (verified). When I used a regular ecoboost serial number vs my car's at the Ford dealer parts department, I got the same part numbers for block, head and head gasket. Between the head, head gasket and pistons, one part number has to change to match the reduction in compression ratio from 9.5 to 9.37 (multiple sources including Tech Specs). In the serial numbers the D is for HPP and the H is standard. If anybody can get some verified data of what is different, that would be great.

	1FA6P8TD8L5143XXX	1FA6P8TH8L5188091
	HPP	Regular
Engine	LR3E- 6007-AA	LR3E- 6007-CA
Cylinder head	?	EJ7Z-6049A
Head Gasket	Highly probable different	EJ7Z-6051E
Block	?	LR3Z-6010A
Piston	?
Piston Rings	Tech Specs say different
Exhaust Camshaft	Tee Lew?

 

[TeeLew]

I can't remember where I read about the cams, but somewhere I read it had the Focus RS exhaust camshaft, but the standard intake one. I have zero verification of that claim.

 

[Coyote Chase]

I can't remember where I read about the cams, but somewhere I read it had the Focus RS exhaust camshaft, but the standard intake one. I have zero verification of that claim.

I've also been curious about the 2.3 truck motor (state side and overseas).

 

[Mach VII]

citation?

Car & Driver for one:

"To get things started, Ford confirmed production availability of the Valencia, Spain-built turbocharged 2.3-liter engine from the Focus RS. Desirable for its die-cast alloy block and high-performance extra-strength cylinder head, it required a bit of engineering to utilize it for a rear-wheel-drive-only setting. While they were at it, Ford tweaked the head gasket, specified a 5 percent larger 63-mm twin-scroll turbo compressor and a larger radiator."

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27131311/2020-ford-mustang-2-3-liter-performance-package/

 

[shogun32]

Car & Driver for one:

"To get things started, Ford confirmed production availability of the Valencia, Spain-built turbocharged 2.3-liter engine from the Focus RS. Desirable for its die-cast alloy block and high-performance extra-strength cylinder head, it required a bit of engineering to utilize it for a rear-wheel-drive-only setting. While they were at it, Ford tweaked the head gasket, specified a 5 percent larger 63-mm twin-scroll turbo compressor and a larger radiator."

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27131311/2020-ford-mustang-2-3-liter-performance-package/

I'll give you the 'head', but the press-release regurgitating "article" says nothing about different alloys nor liners.

 

[TeeLew]

It's clever wording. They say the HPP has "its die-cast alloy block". What they fail to mention is that every Eco has the same one. It's not a lie, but it is disingenuous.

 

[BlueHPP]

The Focus RS is listed as having a 9.4 compression ratio. I believe there was a problem with some early cars having a head gasket issue. But I cannot find a 9.37 spec for the Focus. The Ford tech specs for HPP say high strength cylinder liners and hi strength cyl head, improved ring pack. It would be nice if we could confirm what is different with a part number. Like Tee Lew says Ford can be very disingenuous.

Sponsored