How bad did ford Sandbag the Ecoboost?

[Turbong]

@whatdoyoufeedit?

You're insane if you think 4 cylinder engines should come out the factory ready to make big HP which seems to be your main thesis aside from complaining about dumb minor things like the IC, yes it sucks nothing new just replace it done. Yea 350 400tq is nothing these days... if your comparing it to an engine with twice the displacement yea no sht you want more power get a bigger engine.

The truth is Ecoboom is only found in the confines of forums like this where it's mostly modders and enthusiast, no articles on it being an issue or acknowledging it's known problem. You use tuners as a reference that turned out to be bs, that big tuner started blaming Spanish motors(which has now been debunked) for his failures, no dealerships loaded with Eb's waiting for blocks, this engine is not new it's been out for over half a decade, yea it's not perfect, yes they cut corners but now all your doing now is gas lighting with over exaggerated anecdotal evidence.

Sponsored

 

[whatdoyoufeedit?]

@whatdoyoufeedit?

You're insane if you think 4 cylinder engines should come out the factory ready to make big HP which seems to be your main thesis aside from complaining about dumb minor things like the IC, yes it sucks nothing new just replace it done. Yea 350 400tq is nothing these days... if your comparing it to an engine with twice the displacement yea no sht you want more power get a bigger engine.

Lol wtf? I do not see why you are popping off on me and getting emotional for providing a simple answer for those who do want to make numbers over 350whp. And I am sorry but yes these engines are fragile compared to similar displacement engines from the same engine family from Ford in the past in even cars less performance oriented than the EB Mustang, that is fact. Did I say they are a ticking timebomb that can go off any minute if driven as a commuter? Of course not. I am not complaining about using the engine as intended, however I'm sorry if my car threw a wrench light and I documented what happened.

Ford took care of me and I have no gripes with them. Props to the NXT turbo guys making decent numbers w/ great setups but those guys are outnumbered by blown engine reports. Your evidence is just as anecdotal as if the dealerships are going to be proud to advertise something of this nature and PR teams do not exist to cover issues. I've already updated my IC going on 2 years ago to an ATM and will be happy to pay to play to upgrade if I choose to do so and share knowledge on proven better block choices and you are not going to prevent me from doing so. Do you have something against block upgrades?

if your comparing it to an engine with twice the displacement yea no sht you want more power get a bigger engine

Where in the hell did I compare it to an engine twice it size? Poster before me basically asked me why expect more than 330HP and I replied because the same reason some people expect more than 460 out of the Coyote. Nowhere did I say it should do what the Coyote does nor do I expect it to, please do not twist my words.

The truth is Ecoboom is only found in the confines of forums like this where it's mostly modders and enthusiast, no articles on it being an issue or acknowledging it's known problem. You use tuners as a reference that turned out to be bs, that big tuner started blaming Spanish motors(which has now been debunked) for his failures, no dealerships loaded with Eb's waiting for blocks, this engine is not new it's been out for over half a decade, yea it's not perfect, yes they cut corners but now all your doing now is gas lighting with over exaggerated anecdotal evidence.

So you are calling Lund BS? That is the only tuner I mentioned outside of PD and I know they both stand behind their word. Lund even mention the head gasket lifting issues happening stock. Nowhere did I mention anything about whatever tuner you are talking about or mention anything about Spanish castings versus later castings. That seems to be your personal issue with said tuner. I gave props to ALL tuners pushing this platform.

 

[Turbong]

@whatdoyoufeedit?

I am not popping off or emotional, I just tell it how it is all. You're just zig zagging around, I mean you're right 350 400tq is nothing, I was not aware all boosted 4 cylinder engines have been able to make that power with no internal upgrades, right out the factory, thanks professor. BTW I am FP tuned nothing personal against any tuner, again just calling it out as it unfolded, point is tuners can say anything. You're the one making big claims, where is the proof of this exodus of blown stock EB's do to sandbags? five years later I don't find it, just cause you know some have blown thats all you got? Ford must be doing a good job from it leaking to the real world supressing angry customers and journalist all over waiting to get their engines replaced, there are hundreds of thousands of these things think about how many engines that would be with just a 3 percent failure rate out of 500,000 thats 15,000 engines, you can combine all failures on here would it even pass 100? Here's a recent article written on October of last year on the 2.3 engine, your turn show me some articles proving otherwise.

 

[whatdoyoufeedit?]

@whatdoyoufeedit?

I am not popping off or emotional, I just tell it how it is all. You're just zig zagging around, I mean you're right 350 400tq is nothing, I was not aware all boosted 4 cylinder engines have been able to make that power with no internal upgrades, right out the factory, thanks professor. BTW I am FP tuned nothing personal against any tuner, again just calling it out as it unfolded, point is tuners can say anything.

Annd there you go again twisting my words and projecting. I said "all" 4 cylinders should be able to do that? Please cite that. I am also still waiting for the cite of where I mentioned anything referring to a tuner talking about Spanish castings vs. later castings? Both castings are irrelevant to me as the difference is negligible and neither would be my block of choice for something over 350whp. Once again, that's your gripe not mine. I mentioned Ford already has/had 4 cylinder blocks more capable and not are they only more capable some (the 2.5 Duratec) make more power @ less boost in comparison to the 2.3EB and those are options for those who want more than 350whp with much larger margin of safety. I do not see your issue.

You're the one making big claims, where is the proof of this exodus of blown stock EB's do to sandbags? five years later I don't find it, just cause you know some have blown thats all you got?

What are you looking for legal documents or a evening news report? It is not hard to see that there is a disproportionate amount of mildly modded cars popping engines early between this community, the other forum(s), and locally where I can make an informed decision to not remove the safety window from the stock tune without properly addressing an issue which oddly coincidences with information straight from the horses mouth from a Ford Engineer himself in this very thread. It is also logical take an educated guess that because of the amount of people with failed engines that not all of them are user induced (especially when many failures occur are at low speed). It's called critical thinking.

Ford must be doing a good job from it leaking to the real world supressing angry customers and journalist all over waiting to get their engines replaced, there are hundreds of thousands of these things think about how many engines that would be with just a 3 percent failure rate out of 500,000 thats 15,000 engines, you can combine all failures on here would it even pass 100? Here's a recent article written on October of last year on the 2.3 engine, your turn show me some articles proving otherwise.

Yes, they and many other major automotive companies do a great job and have departments that do just that called Public Relations (your pasted article is an example of just that). As long Ford makes it right people are not going to complain; however this thread is not even about warranty issues or Ford customer service. This thread is about addressing a block weakness, why Ford did it, and how to circumvent a brick wall which exists whether some like it or not.

 

[TorqueMan]

@whatdoyoufeedit?

You're insane if you think 4 cylinder engines should come out the factory ready to make big HP

Agreed. As far as I know, there is only one manufacturer selling a production 4cyl engine producing more than 400 HP, and I don't believe it's available in the U.S.

If it were easy everyone would be doing it.

 

[FreePenguin]

Annd there you go again twisting my words and projecting. I said "all" 4 cylinders should be able to do that? Please cite that. I am also still waiting for the cite of where I mentioned anything referring to a tuner talking about Spanish castings vs. later castings? Both castings are irrelevant to me as the difference is negligible and neither would be my block of choice for something over 350whp. Once again, that's your gripe not mine. I mentioned Ford already has/had 4 cylinder blocks more capable and not are they only more capable some (the 2.5 Duratec) make more power @ less boost in comparison to the 2.3EB and those are options for those who want more than 350whp with much larger margin of safety. I do not see your issue.



What are you looking for legal documents or a evening news report? It is not hard to see that there is a disproportionate amount of mildly modded cars popping engines early between this community, the other forum(s), and locally where I can make an informed decision to not remove the safety window from the stock tune without properly addressing an issue which oddly coincidences with information straight from the horses mouth from a Ford Engineer himself in this very thread. It is also logical take an educated guess that because of the amount of people with failed engines that not all of them are user induced (especially when many failures occur are at low speed). It's called critical thinking.





Yes, they and many other major automotive companies do a great job and have departments that do just that called Public Relations (your pasted article is an example of just that). As long Ford makes it right people are not going to complain; however this thread is not even about warranty issues or Ford customer service. This thread is about addressing a block weakness, why Ford did it, and how to circumvent a brick wall which exists whether some like it or not.

honestly you made it sound like its a terrible engine with all kinds of faults. fact is, its actually perfect for the application. it isn't weak, or going to fail anymore than any other % of manufacture engines, its just we are on a forum, we are the 1% of people pushing these cars and most likely the most aggressive drivers, heck half the Ecoboost guys are tracking and dragging their cars.

this doesn't apply to a normal driver, and its completely reliable probably forever all doing this, while on 87 as well.

 

[Turbong]

@whatdoyoufeedit?

You did say 350 400 was nothing these days right? That implies either a majority of boosted 4 cylinders are able to make that power with ease or your comparing to larger displacement engines, its called reading comprehension. Your basically having a fit because this engine can't be tuned to 600hp, who would buy a 4cylinder already boosted expecting big HP gains that's not rational thought or equates to the engine being sht, then you get called out on it and you say don't put words in my mouth I said diarrhea, no need to beat around the bush anyone can clearly see what you're saying. It's a sub 26k car not a 100k Godzilla GTR for Christ sake. There are already plenty of them reaching over 100k miles stock and tuned surely with this inherent flawed paper thin engine shouldn't be happening.


"What are you looking for legal documents or a evening news report?"

How about some articles like other engines with real documented issues have had? Surely that doesn't require any critical thinking to figure out what I'm asking for. Of course you will provide nothing cause it isn't there, you got nothing but opinions.

"Many failures happen at low speeds" exactly, LSPI can destroy ANY engine you answered your own question.

 

[whatdoyoufeedit?]

honestly you made it sound like its a terrible engine with all kinds of faults. fact is, its actually perfect for the application. it isn't weak, or going to fail anymore than any other % of manufacture engines, its just we are on a forum, we are the 1% of people pushing these cars and most likely the most aggressive drivers, heck half the Ecoboost guys are tracking and dragging their cars.

this doesn't apply to a normal driver, and its completely reliable probably forever all doing this, while on 87 as well.

That is you adding tone to text, that still doesn't change the fact that it is weaker than legacy pedestrian engines (not the Coyote or GTR engines or whatever absurd comparisons but comparable economy engines from Ford) from Ford of the past from the same family that surpass the EB without even opening the engine. They also make more HP on less boost. Also it does apply to a normal daily driver as some (including myself) experienced issues that should not happen to a new car from normal driving conditions because of less than ideal running gear (an IC sized for a 1.7L) due to cost-cutting documented by the Ford engineer who originally wrote the article.

Agreed. As far as I know, there is only one manufacturer selling a production 4cyl engine producing more than 400 HP, and I don't believe it's available in the U.S.

If it were easy everyone would be doing it.

Ok, we are over the fact this engine has a huge risk over 350whp which you are really agreeing with me. We are talking solutions to addressing a known problem (and the backstory on why Ford did it) to an engine that does not offer a lot of headroom in growth after mild mods and tune. Telling people that the 2.3 has little to no issues is pure dishonesty, we can agree to disagree that is completely fine. The 2.7 and 3.5 EB do not have near the negative reputation as the 2.3EB.

@whatdoyoufeedit?


You're basically having a fit because this engine can't be tuned to 600hp, who would buy a 4cylinder already boosted expecting big HP gains that's not rational thought or equates to the engine being sht, then you get called out on it and you say don't put words in my mouth I said diarrhea, no need to beat around the bush anyone can clearly see what you're saying.

Lol, once again projecting, where did I ever call the engine "shi*t" for it's intended purpose? I called it Sh*t after 350whp and offered proven solutions to fix it not sitting here throwing a hissy fit like you for no reason because I am not a fanboy. I am also sorry that the pedestrian Ford Fusion 2.5 naturally aspirated block makes 400whp safely without headgasket lifting issues. Fwiw these motors still popped stock under moderate conditions whether you accept that or not which shows excessive cost-cutting. I still respect and enjoy the engine and yes it still is the most bang for your buck stock. 4 banger. I also mentioned head gasket lifing issues from tuners more reputable than you (that pushed these engines into the 9's) that offered nothing but someone looking for an argument because I don't see I don't take what you state as "gospel". Turbong, do you have a high mileage modded/tuned car (not some low 53K)? If you do, share what you did to make it live and I will gladly listen and take notes versus you picking worthless quarrels. Coming at people sideways who do not see your point of view and calling them "insane" is not an effective way to get your point across.

It's a sub 26k car not a 100k Godzilla GTR for Christ sake. There are already plenty of them reaching over 100k miles stock and tuned surely with this inherent flawed paper thin engine shouldn't be happening.

Lol wth? Now I am expecting the engine to be a GTR powerplant? What will I be accused of next according to Turbong... C'mon Turbong you're better than that. How about counter the list of the ones failing with the ones making it to 100k and providing knowledge to what was done to make them live. Seems like there is a lot of honest people with minor mods in combined communities not abusing the car and doing everything right to have it fail. There are a few threads such as the NXT big turbo threads that positively show success but why are they dwarfed/outnumbered by people with much less mods losing engines? Why is that Turbong?

"What are you looking for legal documents or a evening news report?"

How about some articles like other engines with real documented issues have had? Surely that doesn't require any critical thinking to figure out what I'm asking for. Of course you will provide nothing cause it isn't there, you got nothing but opinions.

"Many failures happen at low speeds" exactly, LSPI can destroy ANY engine you answered your own question.

You mean like the Ford engineer referenced in this thread that wrote about the weaknesses of this engine in this thread? That must be only his "opinion"? Truth is, no matter what is posted that shows obvious failure points you will twist words to fit your point of view looking at your past posts in response to others who also kindly pointed out flaws. Other engines also have thicker blocks with either siamese bores or thick open deck blocks to counter the risks of LSPI not thinner blocks more suited for n/a applications. https://www.mustangecoboost.net/threads/ecoboom.22903/

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/ecoboomed-where-do-i-start.114433/
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/unleashed-tune-blew-my-ecoboost-mustang-up.89274/
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/2017-ecoboom-mustang-why.138411/

 

[Hi-PO Stang]

I notice most mention of engine problems is on the pre 2020 non HPP engines. I would think one could keep the 2.3 HPP mostly stock and tune it to rev to 8000 RPM for track use. If not 8000 max RPM, then what is max Rpm ?

 

[whatdoyoufeedit?]

I notice most mention of engine problems is on the pre 2020 non HPP engines. I would think one could keep the 2.3 HPP mostly stock and tune it to rev to 8000 RPM for track use. If not 8000 max RPM, then what is max Rpm ?

The 2.3 does not have a suitable valvetrain stock to hit 8k RPM on HPP or non-HPP. These are not Voodoos. I do not believe a reputable tuner would allow you to rev that high without the proper supporting valvetrain mods to avoid float etc. There have been engines in the Duratec family in other platforms with stg. 3 cams that hit 7.5K RPM with proper springs/retainers etc. Are cam options and valvetrain upgrades for the 2.3 GDI head available of that nature I cannot answer. These engines are not high RPM screamers by nature and has its' best moves are down low to mid range.

 

[TorqueMan]

We are talking solutions to addressing a known problem (and the backstory on why Ford did it) to an engine that does not offer a lot of headroom in growth after mild mods and tune.

The "problem" is that you think this is a problem. The fact Ford didn't "overengineer" the engine to produce more power than designed is a feature, not a bug. Since when is it incumbent on a manufacturer to design their engines to produce more-than-stock power? Modern engine designers and engineers use computers to model components, assemblies, and materials to determine the stresses they will encounter in situ. This process allows manufacturers to set tolerances on parts durability that are astoundingly accurate. Parts in modern engines are as durable as they need to be, but no more. Making parts more durable than necessary (overengineering) increases costs, and cost is one of the reasons we love these cars. Where else can you go to get this kind of styling and performance in a 2+2 coupe at this price?

And that's the point. The EcoBoost Mustang is an efficient, economical, and most importantly AFFORDABLE sports car. The styling is what makes this car so desirable to enthusiasts, but it's the low cost that makes it available to so many.

If you want to talk about the kind of mechanical modifications necessary to make the 2.3L EcoBoost engine reliably--RELIABLY--produce 400+ horsepower that's fine. But that it can't be done with a few simple bolt-ons and some clever software coding is not a "problem." This is not a cheap or easy proposition, because this engine simply wasn't designed to do it.

 

[FreePenguin]

Honestly, the other variable are tunes. I am blaming tunes for 99% of the booms. Conservative tune doesn’t mean shit really.

it can’t be coincidence that I have read more aftermarket tunersblowing, and I’ve seen like one ford perf? If that?

cobb stage 1 vs ford perf. I’d bet 100 bucks the ford perf outlived Cobb stage one all day.

I sinply don’t trust the tunes put out aftermarket, they don’t have the ability or testing to take full advantage of the full ecu and algorithms. I mean I could be wrong but I did read about a tuner talking about ford perf tune saying they simply don’t have the resources to do those types of testing and tuning.

instead, people like adam Brunson just test the limits on customers seeing how far they can go and boom on new engine platform, then reels back power in future tunes or correcting tune mistakes and blames engines Etc.

 

[TorqueMan]

I mean I could be wrong but I did read about a tuner talking about ford perf tune saying they simply don’t have the resources to do those types of testing and tuning.

According to Dave Percak, chief engineer for the S550 program, cars running the software used for the FP tune were tested on fully instrumented test cars alongside those running the stock software for the equivalent of 60K miles. Test engines are torn down and measured following testing, with everything documented. I think it's safe to say that no tuner on the planet has that kind of data.

instead, people like adam Brunson just test the limits on customers seeing how far they can go and boom on new engine platform, then reels back power in future tunes or correcting tune mistakes and blames engines Etc.

Or parts, like the much-maligned low-side fuel pressure sensor. Can anomalous readings from these sensors cause a catastrophic engine failure? Maybe. I've never heard of a stock engine munching itself because of a bad fuel pressure sensor. What's more likely is that when you modify the software to get more power you have to remove safeguards included in the stock software, one of which is to protect the engine from anomalous sensor readings.

 

[Smunczen]

The Ecoboost and 5.0 debate reminds me of the SVO and 5.0 days in the late 80’s.

 

[FreePenguin]

According to Dave Percak, chief engineer for the S550 program, cars running the software used for the FP software were tested on fully instrumented test cars alongside those running the stock software for the equivalent of 60K miles. Test engines are torn down and measured following testing, with everything documented. I think it's safe to say that no tuner on the planet has that kind of data.



Or parts, like the much-maligned low-side fuel pressure sensor. Can anomalous readings from these sensors cause a catastrophic engine failure? Maybe. I've never heard of a stock engine munching itself because of a bad fuel pressure sensor. What's more likely is that when you modify the software to get more power you have to remove safeguards included in the stock software, one of which is to protect the engine from anomalous sensor readings.

Oh yeah. The largest diff between tuners and oem is the algorithm. Ford uses torque targeting. Meaning it has wayyyy more going on to figure out its tunes. Ie, it hits a goal of 300hp in hot weather making 24psi, but in cold weather it hits sane 300hp but only goes 18psi, the car is smart enough to pull back, and each gear has its own torque tables so won’t pull too much power too low

I remember adam arguing with someone saying his boost target, where I guess it aims for same Psi regardless of gear or weather. Itl hit the same boost regardless of all others, so it may do fine on its limit in summer but in winter, maybe one wot will be too much and blow it from excess power exceeding capability

my only wrench in my car is I have acatted downpipewith full flowing3 inch into dual 2.5 exhaust meaning my car can spool Quicker, fuel trims are within reason. Within the 10% threshold LTFTand stft balancing eachother out.

if something blows. I’m putting stock downpipe back on with my replacement engine as safety. But I really like the additional sound that came with it. Makes me smile, chose catted to try and keep the fueling a little closer to stock than Catless

Sponsored