Ecoboost

[solodogg]

Presently I have modified the suspension , brakes and intercooler ... leaving the engine alone . I like the MPG .

There is to much wisdom floating around these threads to attempt tuning and bolt ons ...

Same here...too many people IMO trying to make a "quick" car fast. The EB was never meant to be a GT/GT350 killer, nor is it ever going to do it reliably. If that was an option, it wouldn't be the aftermarket doing it for sure.

For some crazy reason i'm still rocking my EB for now (although cross shopping a lot more lately with all of the evaporator issues). Suspension, wheels/tires, intercooler, and FP tune are all that's done and all that will ever be done...as long as she remains in one piece.

Sponsored

 

[Maggneto]

Same here...too many people IMO trying to make a "quick" car fast. The EB was never meant to be a GT/GT350 killer, nor is it ever going to do it reliably. If that was an option, it wouldn't be the aftermarket doing it for sure.

For some crazy reason i'm still rocking my EB for now (although cross shopping a lot more lately with all of the evaporator issues). Suspension, wheels/tires, intercooler, and FP tune are all that's done and all that will ever be done...as long as she remains in one piece.

I here you Dog, for some crazy reason I (actually my Wife) is still rocking the Valencia Mustang. We had the evaporator replaced and the warranty is up the end of August so we are probably going to get a 3 year extended warranty for $700.00. The 18's are nice but I don't want a 10 speed transmission. I really like the bullet proof ZF 6R80.

The only mod I have is a drop in air filter. With 93 octane the car is quick enough and handles like a proper American sized sports coupe and has vented seats to boot.

Early Valencia Mustangs with the ZF/PP were recording 0-60 times of 5.2 seconds. The 16-17s were breaching 6 seconds according to some publications. The 18's are now under 5 seconds with a 10 speed so what does that tell you about the early Valencia OEM tune?

 

[Brian V]

To add to this conversation ....the early engine failures were valencia built . Well of course those were until Fomoco opened up a plant here in the U.S. to assemble them .

The people here crying ( allowed ) had us all looking at build dates and assembly plants because there was no rational reason to explain why they were popping ..

1 could only assume today they have figured out the drawbacks and precautionary measures to stave off catastrophic failures .

There sure is a few realistic theories to come out that do give modders the ideas of what to watch for .
To add to the quirky subject . If you do not have the funds to rebuild than do not overboost . Especially if you have faulty sensors that are not cooperating as engineered .

 

[Maggneto]

I am not directing this to anyone in particular just commenting.

Nearly every engine failure was ecu tuned and doesn't count against Ford. I don't care how many years you have spent working on cars, or who you know at Ford, it is a simple fact that once ecu modified engines start popping it is not a Ford issue but an ecu tuning issue. Ecu tuned Cleveland engines fail in the same way as Valencia ecu tuned engines.

Anyone trying to pin ecu tuned failures on Ford or build plant is either an uninformed or trying to sell somethin

 

[Brian V]

What bothers me in todays headlines is the thoughts these New GT owners are experiencing .. FOMOCO has done a refresh and totally ruined the dependability of the engines and transmissions .. fucken ticking sounds , imploding , shifting forks snapping and these are the performance optioned from the factory .

Now I ponder that maybe I stood pat with what I purchased and did not take that leap to a GT was really based on sound obsevations from the reports issued by the Modders
Amongst us ..

All I can do is wish the 2018 owners the best of luck .....

 

[lisandra]

I am not directing this to anyone in particular just commenting.

Nearly every engine failure was ecu tuned and doesn't count against Ford. I don't care how many years you have spent working on cars, or who you know at Ford, it is a simple fact that once ecu modified engines start popping it is not a Ford issue but an ecu tuning issue. Ecu tuned Cleveland engines fail in the same way as Valencia ecu tuned engines.

Anyone trying to pin ecu tuned failures on Ford or build plant is either an uninformed or trying to sell somethin

Cant agree, my local dealer has had to replace bone stock eb engines from the mustang and the 3.5 raptor more than once. Theyve also replaced a good amount of coyotes since 2013. Yes i know someone at the dealer:lol: It will happen. Especially on new plataforms. My ecu died bone stock, with no explanation. Fuel pump did the same, valve cover gasket, and spark plug tubes. Stock. Air conditioning died twice. It is when i tuned the car that i actually made it MORE reliable. Changed the crappy pcv plate, the low side sensor, the crappy head gasket, seals, oil and such. Now i use the car daily on a pretty agressive 93 tune with bolt ons. Runs 12.6 on my unforgiving heat and humidity.
The problem are not the cars, its the owners. Deal with the weak points first, mod it after, maintain it regularly.

 

[Maggneto]

With all due respect, The 2.3 is not a new platform as it is based on the 2.0 that has been in production for years at Valencia. The 2.0 started production at Valencia in 2009 so that is 5 years before the 2.3. Hardly a "new" platform.

I use 2 dealerships with 1 being the number 1 roush dealership in the world and not a single 2.3 engine has been replaced in 4 years at either dealership. This is not evidence that there are never any 2.3 engine failures in STOCK (non ECU tuned) engines but it sure is suspicious when I hear someone claim their dealership has replaced several STOCK (non ECU tuned) 2.3 engines.

My neighbor is a retired lifer at Ford credit with deep connections within both Ford/Lincoln and many local dealerships and according to him the 2.3 is solid with no known defects or abnormal failure rates. Again, this is not evidence that there are never any 2.3 STOCK (non ECU Tuned) engine failures but if a defect exists it would be random and not impact 6 2.3 engines at 1 Ohio dealership, or 3 2.3 engines at 1 dealership PR, or 90% ECU tuned engines. These are not random events but localized events that are highly suspicious.

There is simply no evidence online of abnormal 2.3 failures in "STOCK" (non ECU tuned) engines. There are failures in all engines, but the 2.3 failures are almost entirely ECU tuned that we can read about online. The current 5.0 piston slap, ticking and engine failures are a perfect example of what content is available when a defect exists in stock (non modified) form. The internet is alive with content.

When I hear that 1 dealership has had multiple 2.3 STOCK (non ECU tuned) failures I am very suspicious since there is no evidence to support these claims. If 2.3 engines were popping without an ECU tune in abnormally high numbers there would be evidence of those failures online. Where are these STOCK (non ECU tuned) engine failures?

The Evaporator and pcv are not engine failures so that is irrelevant.

 

[lisandra]

With all due respect, The 2.3 is not a new platform as it is based on the 2.0 that has been in production for years at Valencia. The 2.0 started production at Valencia in 2009 so that is 5 years before the 2.3. Hardly a "new" platform.

I use 2 dealerships with 1 being the number 1 roush dealership in the world and not a single 2.3 engine has been replaced in 4 years at either dealership. This is not evidence that there are never any 2.3 engine failures in STOCK (non ECU tuned) engines but it sure is suspicious when I hear someone claim their dealership has replaced several STOCK (non ECU tuned) 2.3 engines.

My neighbor is a retired lifer at Ford credit with deep connections within both Ford/Lincoln and many local dealerships and according to him the 2.3 is solid with no known defects or abnormal failure rates. Again, this is not evidence that there are never any 2.3 STOCK (non ECU Tuned) engine failures but if a defect exists it would be random and not impact 6 2.3 engines at 1 Ohio dealership, or 3 2.3 engines at 1 dealership PR, or 90% ECU tuned engines. These are not random events but localized events that are highly suspicious.

There is simply no evidence online of abnormal 2.3 failures in "STOCK" (non ECU tuned) engines. There are failures in all engines, but the 2.3 failures are almost entirely ECU tuned that we can read about online. The current 5.0 piston slap, ticking and engine failures are a perfect example of what content is available when a defect exists in stock (non modified) form. The internet is alive with content.

When I hear that 1 dealership has had multiple 2.3 STOCK (non ECU tuned) failures I am very suspicious since there is no evidence to support these claims. If 2.3 engines were popping without an ECU tune in abnormally high numbers there would be evidence of those failures online. Where are these STOCK (non ECU tuned) engine failures?

The Evaporator and pcv are not engine failures so that is irrelevant.

I dont know what to tell you, ive actually seen them swap failed 2.3 engines confirmed to have untouched ecus. Theres a 3.5 eco block on the shop floor right now. My cousin owns the 5.0 that misteriously gave up. And while the 2.3 is loosely based on the 2.0, the 2.3 block is very different, lets say, its new to ford. At any rate, id be more suspicious at anyone telling me theres nothing wrong with an engine and that theyve NEVER had one fail. Thats a lie. Somebody lied to somebody. Perhaps not an engine but how bout a block? A head? Something short of catastrophic failure counts as catastrophic failure to me. Maybe that dealer is really good at fixing potwntial problems, i know dealers who actually call owners when a recall gets posted. The pcv, the random gasket leaks, the underside heating, the failling pumps, bad oil, bad maintenance and all those things can absolutely lead to a blown engine, i have a 2015 and if i werent so adamant on checking everything every week and having the dealer deal with them id have a blown engine for sure.
I do see your point, of course tuning and moding incrrases the odds of things going wrong, but to me it increases them sooner. A fuel pump that fails with a tune is a fuel pump that'll eventually fail no matter what.

 

[5.0yote]

I dont know what to tell you, ive actually seen them swap failed 2.3 engines confirmed to have untouched ecus. Theres a 3.5 eco block on the shop floor right now. My cousin owns the 5.0 that misteriously gave up. And while the 2.3 is loosely based on the 2.0, the 2.3 block is very different, lets say, its new to ford. At any rate, id be more suspicious at anyone telling me theres nothing wrong with an engine and that theyve NEVER had one fail. Thats a lie. Somebody lied to somebody. Perhaps not an engine but how bout a block? A head? Something short of catastrophic failure counts as catastrophic failure to me. Maybe that dealer is really good at fixing potwntial problems, i know dealers who actually call owners when a recall gets posted. The pcv, the random gasket leaks, the underside heating, the failling pumps, bad oil, bad maintenance and all those things can absolutely lead to a blown engine, i have a 2015 and if i werent so adamant on checking everything every week and having the dealer deal with them id have a blown engine for sure.
I do see your point, of course tuning and moding incrrases the odds of things going wrong, but to me it increases them sooner. A fuel pump that fails with a tune is a fuel pump that'll eventually fail no matter what.

Unfortunately in order to get a moderate amount of decent performance you have to tune it bare minimum in order to get it to feel like a 300hp car. Stock it just does not. Sure it has good low and mid range but to die off at 5k like falling off a cliff feels like your running 4.10s in the rear.

I feel they dropped the ball, they should have made a twin turbo 3.5 drop in or the 2.7 for the Mustang, and moved the 2.3L to the rental car section instead of them taking 3.7L as the base then dissolve the V6 afterward. Especially since the 2.3 is getting pretty much the same gas mileage as the 3.7 anyway.

 

[Maggneto]

I hope everything is well in PR. I know it's been rough and I really hope it gets back to normal. My cousin is a US congressman, and Mustang owner, of PR decent and has been doing a lot to help PR recover.I have been to old San Juan and it was beautiful.

The 2.3 is a heavily fortified version of the ,2.0 but they are the same architecture. Valencia was making the same 2.0 blocks for 5 years before the 2.3 block was cast but somehow after making 1 million 2.0 blocks the 2.3 block was an inigma?. I know there are a few block version counters hanging around so which block version are we on now, 13?

There will be 2.3 stock failures, no one is stating otherwise. The point I am making here is that in Stock non ECU tuned format the 2.3 is not failing at an unreasonable or abnormally high rate. As a matter of fact, I can't find any evidence of more than a couple stock failures in 4 years when searching online.

The 2.3 Is a highly reliable engine that is making it's way into the Ranger which will give us yet another view of 2.3 reliability.

If there are in fact multiple stock 2.3 failures in a small area I would suspect poor fuel quality or contaimination. The chances of defective engines affecting small geographic areas around certain dealerships in Ohio or PR and not NC/SC are extremely small. I would also suspect Ford techs or dealerships are covering for ECU tuned failures as we have seen this ocuur.on M6G as well.


https://www.full-race.com/articles/ecoboost-2-3l-i4-engine-and-drivetrain/

"The 2.3L I4 is based on the same 2L Duratec engine architecture as the 240hp 2.0L EcoBoost engine found in Focus ST and Fusion. However, this unique ‘stroker’ 2.3L motor is heavily fortified in almost every way to make more reliable horsepower in the high performance Mustang application. It represents the state-of-the-art for production engines and may prove to be the strongest and most robust turbocharged inline-4 GDI motor we’ve seen yet."

 

[Maggneto]

Unfortunately in order to get a moderate amount of decent performance you have to tune it bare minimum in order to get it to feel like a 300hp car. Stock it just does not. Sure it has good low and mid range but to die off at 5k like falling off a cliff feels like your running 4.10s in the rear.

I feel they dropped the ball, they should have made a twin turbo 3.5 drop in or the 2.7 for the Mustang, and moved the 2.3L to the rental car section instead of them taking 3.7L as the base then dissolve the V6 afterward. Especially since the 2.3 is getting pretty much the same gas mileage as the 3.7 anyway.

The 2.3 makes good enough HP for me on 93 octane and I would rather have a better handling and braking car than more HP and weight up front. It really comes down to personal preference and driving environment. The Mustang Ecoboost is a well balanced car but there is nothing wrong with adding more HP as long as you understand the risks of ECU tuning the engine.

 

[dgc333]

The 2.3 Is a highly reliable engine that is making it's way into the Ranger which will give us yet another view of 2.3 reliability.

Don't forget, it has been used in the Ford Explorer for the past couple of years too.

 

[Maggneto]

Don't forget, it has been used in the Ford Explorer for the past couple of years too.

Lincoln MKC, Mustang, Explorer, Focus RS(head gasket issues) and now the Ranger. Will the Bronco get the 2.3?

I did find a STOCK non ECU tuned failure on another EB forum. There is no doubt that STOCK 2.3 engines have failed and will continue to fail but there are few reports of these types of failures.

"wife just bought an 2017 Mustang Ecoboost premium and it had 2,870 miles on it. put 20 miles on the car and the engine locked up"

https://www.mustangecoboost.net/threads/2017-ecoboost-mustang-engine-fail.13369/

 

[TorqueMan]

Unfortunately in order to get a moderate amount of decent performance you have to tune it bare minimum in order to get it to feel like a 300hp car.

I don't know what this means. Zero-sixty and quarter-mile times for the EcoBoost are comparable to other 300 hp cars.

I feel they dropped the ball, they should have made a twin turbo 3.5 drop in or the 2.7 for the Mustang, and moved the 2.3L to the rental car section instead of them taking 3.7L as the base then dissolve the V6 afterward.

Everyone would love to have more power, but there has to be some space between the base Mustang and the GT, otherwise why would anyone fork over an additional $15K for the GT? For the sound? If you look at past model years the base Mustang with the 2.4L is LIGHTYEARS ahead. Take 1972 as an example. The lowest performance engine that year was the 250 cubic inch inline 6 producing 98 horsepower. The high-output 351 was rated at 275hp. I think the 2.3L is pretty potent for a base engine.

Especially since the 2.3 is getting pretty much the same gas mileage as the 3.7 anyway.

I'm averaging just a tick below 30mpg over 12K miles of ownership. EPA estimates 30 mpg highway for the 2.3L, which tracks with my observations (most of my driving is highway), and 27mph highway for the V6. That means the 2.4L gets a +10% improvement in mileage over the V6 while making the same horsepower and more torque. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I know EPA estimates are often trashed by the media, but if you head over to fuelly.com and look at the averages self-reported by owners the numbers track pretty closely with EPA testing.

The bottom line is I'm satisfied with the mileage vs. power numbers for EcoBoost.

 

[panhandler62]

Mine is stock (I have some stereo upgrades) ... lol I Have a FP Procal on order.

It did seem like a small step back from my G37, but the comfort, style and drop top were worth it. Installing the ProCal should make it a touch faster than my G37 was.

I don't know how you can get 44+ mpg unless you are rolling off a mountain and do a lot of coasting though.. lol ... The best I can manage is about 31 mpg, and that's optimum conditions. I get about 24 mpg over time in mixed driving.

Sponsored