Ford Performance selling HPP turbo

[D K]

Well it has been proven that the RS 2.3 is more stout than the Mustang 2.3.
That said, they are both fairly weak.

I'm looking at the 2.5 Duratec right now.
Closed deck. Girdle mains.

Would really like to know if the 2.3EB head will fit. I will have to use the 2.3 crank already.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member]

Well it has been proven that the RS 2.3 is more stout than the Mustang 2.3.
That said, they are both fairly weak.

I'm looking at the 2.5 Duratec right now.
Closed deck. Girdle mains.

Would really like to know if the 2.3EB head will fit. I will have to use the 2.3 crank already.

There is absolutely no difference in the exterior casting on the eco mustang and the focus rs between cylinders 2 and 3. The block is open deck in both applications with a slightly different water jacket and headgasket on the RS. The cylinders are just as prone to flex in both apps, the blocks are just as prone to cracking between 2 and 3 in both apps. The limits are the same on both.

The reason you may think your seeing less issues with the focus rs, is one less production volume. There's more eco mustangs out there so you will see any issues amplified over the rs. Also the 2.3 in the RS is moving a car that is 300lbs lighter, while the limits of the block still exist the motor isn't working as hard under normal operating conditions to move the vehicle down the road, so if you're not beating on it there's less daily wear and tear.

great video of a 2.3 tear down/cutaway skip to 1:00 to see weak point on block.

 

[shogun32]

great video of a 2.3 tear down/cutaway skip to 1:00 to see weak point on block.

indeed. So yet another case of either FEA giving false numbers, a few too many 'CAD optimizations', or insufficient practical knowledge by the designer who thought saving a few OZ in a casting was a worthy endeavor.

 

[Deleted member]

indeed. So yet another case of either FEA giving false numbers, a few too many 'CAD optimizations', or insufficient practical knowledge by the designer who thought saving a few OZ in a casting was a worthy endeavor.

I just can't wrap my head around what ford was thinking here. Honestly probably 2-4lbs of metal on the side of the block, or why the hell didn't they use the 2.0 block with 2.3 internals and head?

 

[DavidEcobeast]

I just can't wrap my head around what ford was thinking here. Honestly probably 2-4lbs of metal on the side of the block, or why the hell didn't they use the 2.0 block with 2.3 internals and head?

So we would blow them up and go for a GT

 

[D K]

I don't doubt that at all. I was just going off of what one shop was saying.
I have not first hand experience.

This is why I'm looking into the Duratec. Does anyone have any experience with that motor?
I have 'heard' some people getting over 700 with supporting mods.

Can anyone who knows the Duratecs confirm if they have the same bellhousing pattern as the EB2.3?

David

There is absolutely no difference in the exterior casting on the eco mustang and the focus rs between cylinders 2 and 3. The block is open deck in both applications with a slightly different water jacket and headgasket on the RS. The cylinders are just as prone to flex in both apps, the blocks are just as prone to cracking between 2 and 3 in both apps. The limits are the same on both.

The reason you may think your seeing less issues with the focus rs, is one less production volume. There's more eco mustangs out there so you will see any issues amplified over the rs. Also the 2.3 in the RS is moving a car that is 300lbs lighter, while the limits of the block still exist the motor isn't working as hard under normal operating conditions to move the vehicle down the road, so if you're not beating on it there's less daily wear and tear.

great video of a 2.3 tear down/cutaway skip to 1:00 to see weak point on block.

 

[Scootsmcgreggor]

I don’t understand. I mean sure I’d love my stock block to hold up 500whp forever but that’s not a realistic expectation. The fact that we have stock 4cyl blocks that can hold 400 whp (460-480bhp), and a drivetrain to match it is pretty amazing to me.

There are a lot of legendary turbo 4cyl engines (eg SR20DET) that are semi-sketchy to keep together fully built at 400whp.

 

[Deleted member]

I don’t understand. I mean sure I’d love my stock block to hold up 500whp forever but that’s not a realistic expectation. The fact that we have stock 4cyl blocks that can hold 400 whp (460-480bhp), and a drivetrain to match it is pretty amazing to me.

There are a lot of legendary turbo 4cyl engines (eg SR20DET) that are semi-sketchy to keep together fully built at 400whp.

I blame the 2jz, and RB nissans for everyones unrealistic expectations when it comes to modern turbo engines. We all wanted our little eco's to be the next 2J 4banger when they came out, where we could throw 5 or 6 grand into them and double the hp.

Any enthusiasts who tries to tell you that this wasn't there first thought when hearing about the ecoboost mustang is just lying to you... How many of us 10-12 years ago would have give a turbo 4 banger the time of day?

 

[Scootsmcgreggor]

I blame the 2jz, and RB nissans for everyones unrealistic expectations when it comes to modern turbo engines. We all wanted our little eco's to be the next 2J 4banger when they came out, where we could throw 5 or 6 grand into them and double the hp.

Any enthusiasts who tries to tell you that this wasn't there first thought when hearing about the ecoboost mustang is just lying to you... How many of us 10-12 years ago would have give a turbo 4 banger the time of day?

Which is funny because 2j’s and RB’s are unicorns in reality, and they’re I6’s so it’s not a fair comparison. If that’s someones baseline for our motors then I guess that’s on them. An SR or 4g63 should be our baseline in which case our stock motors are beasts.

 

[StealthStang]

I think the block weakness tells us one thing, cost cutting and lazyness rather than excellent engineering. Ford didnt really do too much when they took the Mazda MZR design and modified it. Considering this was supposed to be Fords best turbo 4 platform for the new few years they really could have done a lot better.
When it came to the mk3 Focus RS Ford got caught with their pants down since they didnt expect the A45, Audi RS3 to pack so much power out the gates. They could barely surpass the old Volvo Mk2 RS motor in terms of power and the project suffered delays due to Ford trying to squeeze out more power on the RS so that they didnt look too stupid launching a severely underpowered super hot hatch that was supposed to be king of the hill. Clearly they hit the same limits with the block design and thats why the mk3 RS ended up not being able to hang with the best super hatches. Im pretty sure in retrospect Ford would have built it stronger but they didnt forsee the power war the Europeans would bring with small displacement engines.

Think about this, Ford could have easily bought the Volvo T5 design and used that instead since Volvo canned it anyway. That engine was already making over 300HP without any of the fancy Ecoboost tech. So we could have been living with 400HP plus cars that would have had an amazing exhaust sound. Sure it was open deck too but it was a much nicer engine, i know because ive owned both.

Oh well ifs and buts dont change reality, but im pretty sure the next high performance 4 cylinder engine Ford wont make the same mistakes again, they cant since they would be miles behind the Germans if they did.

 

[shogun32]

Ford wont make the same mistakes again

I'm not taking that bet. When Ford killed the IRS which was ready for production in 2005 over "budget cuts", I have reason to believe Ford has infinite supply of STUPID in their decision matrix.

 

[Juben]

I don't doubt that at all. I was just going off of what one shop was saying.
I have not first hand experience.

This is why I'm looking into the Duratec. Does anyone have any experience with that motor?
I have 'heard' some people getting over 700 with supporting mods.

Can anyone who knows the Duratecs confirm if they have the same bellhousing pattern as the EB2.3?

David

I’d leave that Duratec idea alone. The deck is going to be slightly different in regards to the oil and coolant passages, there’s no provisions for oil/coolant feed and return, etc. If you want a robust and reliable block then grab a 2.0 twin scroll block out of a 17+ Fusion/Escape. That block will hold more than 95% of people will ever throw at it and gets away from the thin casting and open deck of the factory 2.3. FB5Z-6010-B is the part number for it.

 

[RubyRed15]

$1,100 from https://www.levittownfordparts.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=M-9348-23T

Has anyone installed one yet?

 

[kent0464]

$1,100 from https://www.levittownfordparts.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=M-9348-23T

Has anyone installed one yet?

You can also use pretty much any turbo, twin or single scroll, just by changing the flange, then you could use a Borge Warner 256 or 366, for hundreds less, or really step up to one of the fantastic EFR turbos.

 

[D K]

I will leave this idea alone as soon as I find a better solution.
Currently the Duratec is the bst option as it will mount to th chassis very easily and although there arent too many transmissions available, there are some.
Also no direct injectionon that motor, so its easier.

Im no sure what the limitations of the 2.0 block are and if there are any rwd transmissions out there?

I will do some research on the 2.0 though.

I’d leave that Duratec idea alone. The deck is going to be slightly different in regards to the oil and coolant passages, there’s no provisions for oil/coolant feed and return, etc. If you want a robust and reliable block then grab a 2.0 twin scroll block out of a 17+ Fusion/Escape. That block will hold more than 95% of people will ever throw at it and gets away from the thin casting and open deck of the factory 2.3. FB5Z-6010-B is the part number for it.

Sponsored