How bad did ford Sandbag the Ecoboost?

[TorqueMan]

Ford didn’t want the EcoBoost with a turbo upgrade competing with the coyote. Pretty simple why they didn’t over engineer like the coyote.

The 2.3L EcoBoost can absolutely compete with the Coyote--with appropriate upgrades. It's just that by the time you get done paying for the appropriate upgrades you will have likely paid more than if you had simply bought a GT.

That aside, how do you know the Coyote engine is overengineered? If it is overengineered, by how much? What's the safety margin? Can you push it to 25% over designed power? 50%? If you have a number in mind on what data is it based?

I believe when it comes to modern automotive engines overengineering is a thing of the past, for the reasons I already outlined in my previous post. Making something more durable than necessary costs money, and if you're trying to compete in an increasingly crowded marketplace you make parts at the lowest cost possible.

Sponsored

 

[TeeLew]

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 ?

HPP engines are really no different than a 'standard' 2.3Eco. Beyond the fact that these things really don't make good power at high rpm, they are a relatively long-stroke engine that will physically not support 8k revs even if it were modified to make power there.

 

[FreePenguin]

I never even get to redline, I feel the most power 3-5k so I shift at like 5500. Atleast I think I shift that early

 

[TeeLew]

I never even get to redline, I feel the most power 3-5k so I shift at like 5500. Atleast I think I shift that early

I think my HPP would pull reasonably to 5500-6k, but it definitely fell off on the top. After my engine changes, what I've noticed the most is how it breathes well all the way to redline. I'm still on stock boost, but that is an obvious difference. Stock, the ECU was going stupid rich (~9:1. or ~0.6 lambda) for no apparent reason. Just cleaning that up is gain.

 

[whatdoyoufeedit?]

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.

Thank you for a level-headed response. I respectfully disagree and say it is a problem for us as enthusiasts. We will see with time how much of it is a problem to the standard owner as most do not keep a car into the 100K range in modern times. Yes, you are correct they hands are tied with cost-cutting to get the car into a decent price range, however one can counter-argue to say Ford already had pre-existing blocks capable of doing that with tooling costs already taken care of. They could have shared running-gear with the ST or even 2.0T Escapes to further drive down costs. It does not have to out-power a Coyote but extra reinforcement and dual-injection (which hopefully we'll see in later iterations of the 2.3) would have been nice.

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.

Thank you because that's all I wanted to do in the first place before all of this was severely blown out of proportion. I am well-aware it cannot be done with few simple bolt-ons (hence me bringing up the block swaps in the first place). I still trust the stock tune for the longest life and believe I have fair proof to see even some mild tunes severely affect engine longevity more than comparable engines. To put in perspective, GM's Ecotec turbo (around the same price range) with aggressive tunes do not have anywhere near as documented failures. Reallly, it would be nice just to have a decent non-OTS shelf tune with little worry but that is simply not the case and that is totally cool, there are solutions. What Ford done is all water under the bridge. My answer will the same if anyone asks me for advice on modding before they risk their warranty etc. Do it right the first time.

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

That alone proves there is a physical weakness. Blaming the tuners (all of them including the FP have blown them at this point) with actually more access to more parameters to change to give you more power proves the point. There are most likely less documented FP tunes failing because for one less are running it because it simply does not make as much power as a pro-tune from vetted tuners like PD, Lund, Unleashed, etc. It is also undeniable that these engines crack all damn near in the same place also showing repeat patterns with structural integrity. The only reason the FP may be safer because it probably leaves some of the torque reduction Ford has in the stock tune (which is what we want removed ideally) if I had to take an educated guess.

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..

Yes, they are blowing up less because they simply make less power learning closer to the stock-tune side thus again proving my point that referring to my earlier part about torque reductions left in place. The aftermarket tuners are not blowing up more because they do not know what they are doing or poor AFRs, they are blowing up because the block is flexing causing the head-gasket to lift. Fyi general OTS tunes are very generic and i would be weary of running them in anything LSPI prone or not versus a vetted/dialed in and data-logged tune.

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.

I simply do not want any tune (as the block sits as is) because it's been documented even going slightly out of the stock threshold these engines have been known to fail w/o even hooning the car. Is it as bad as timebomb? Probably not but too excessive for me. I am not sure what tuner you're referring to but names like Lund (who is responsible for one of the 9 sec cars) is well aware of the issue and documented it. They have tons of resources to do (and have done it) that testing and tuning and they would love it if someone said they don't know what they're talking about and gladly prove them wrong. There is a reason they reject money from this platform as there is too much liability behind it despite its huge following. Tuning wise for them (not me before anyone says "well then why don't you tune it yourself?") or any professional tuner, there is nothing complicated about the EB EEC which is why we have many tuning options in the first place.

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.

I see why tuners no longer participate here. I don't know Adam, never dealt with him, I'll probably disagree with him on the Spanish vs later castings debate which imho was a waste of time as the difference is negligible in structural integrity. I will still say he would not be wrong about there being structural weaknesses in this engine in general which I'm guessing offended a lot of people (which I see many have traded up to GTs since then and I can't blame them). Either way I could care less about that debate. If the time came for a tune with proper supporting mods, I would probably be going with PD just looking at his track record of the 2.3 in and customer service.
Your "Ford" tune is not even made by Ford, it is a Mountune licensed to redistribute by Ford with a limited warranty. If you were to get pro-tune/dialed in tune from Mountune, the results of block flexing would still be the same. I'm not throwing a fit on the 2.3 or demanding Ford change it but I know the flaw is still there and have effective documented solutions. Perplexes me why this upsets some.

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.

Yet there are also Ford tune cars with the same failures. It is not the tune it's the inherent weaknesses in the block. To say all the tuners are at fault for blown engines because they do not know what they are doing even though some of those same tuners do not seem to have any problems blowing up other platforms. Some of them tune a TON of platforms so we would be hearing about them blowing up engines in general at the same level if that were the case. There is plenty of things missed or that simply cannot be captured in testing that happens in the real world.

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.

Once again another debate I stay out about like the Spanish vs Cleveland stuff; these engines have failed with all tunes (including the vaunted FP tune) at this point and to say all tuners do not know how to tune a 2.3 EB as if it is some specialty equipment would be reaching. There is just a structural weakness plain and simple. These engines are nothing new other new and have been used in Ford and Mazda applications for years in some form or another.

The 2.3L EcoBoost can absolutely compete with the Coyote--with appropriate upgrades. It's just that by the time you get done paying for the appropriate upgrades you will have likely paid more than if you had simply bought a GT.

Agreed, the value proposition for the GT is just better especially when you start playing with a base car. That's the thing though, I and many others are not asking this to compete with the GT just better safety margins with mild mods.

That aside, how do you know the Coyote engine is overengineered? If it is overengineered, by how much? What's the safety margin? Can you push it to 25% over designed power? 50%? If you have a number in mind on what data is it based?

That's an easy one and I would recommend not walking into that one lol. Overengineered is not even the word. The thing continues to set records and loves boost on stock sealed engine (not some rebuild after short time BS either). Not expecting the 2.3 to do any of that but since you asked lol. When you can bolt a blower and double your power it is safe to say yes, you can go well beyond its thresholds.

I believe when it comes to modern automotive engines overengineering is a thing of the past, for the reasons I already outlined in my previous post. Making something more durable than necessary costs money, and if you're trying to compete in an increasingly crowded marketplace you make parts at the lowest cost possible.

The Coyote would like to have a word with you on overengineering being a "thing of the past" Are there costs cut on it? Yes but they are cut in places where it does not hurt overall-longevity of the engine. Once again before anyone twists my words and say I want the EB to make these numbers or do what the Coyote does, I only referenced it to show Ford does infact have the ability to make an overengineered engine.

 

[FreePenguin]

I think the torque targeting and removing the torque in replacement of psi target is the biggest killer.

cobb uses same psi targeting, they remove all the torque restrictions.
Imo, I think it’s smart to have those power limitor in place.

if the car doesn’t need 6 extra psi, why make it add it? That’s a lot of stress!

I’d pay, top Dollar for a custom tune if they used torque targeting algorithm (ford algorithm) but take in account all my mods. Dare I say I’d even pay double that of other tuners. But they want no part of torque targeting even though I’ve read it’s far more complicated and superior for longevity.

therewas adam aNd several other tuners arguing over this, and I tend toside with the ford algorithm for safety/no reason to give all the powaaaa if it makes the targets with boost saved



Side note does amsoil signature series really defeat 100% lspi? Because it claims so. I’ve been tuned 22k miles and such, I consider myself full bolt on with stock turbo. Not sure if I’d make any diff power. But my data monitoring shows FP doing fine with my fuel trims on catted dp, maybe 5% off. The trims balance it out, like -5% and add 5% type making trims fine

 

[whatdoyoufeedit?]

HPP engines are really no different than a 'standard' 2.3Eco. Beyond the fact that these things really don't make good power at high rpm, they are a relatively long-stroke engine that will physically not support 8k revs even if it were modified to make power there.

Strongly agreed, simply the wrong tool for that job.

 

[Turbong]

@whatdoyoufeedit?

I don't know what you're on about anymore lol, I don't think anyone disagrees there are short comings on the platform is the stock IC inadequate yes, is the downpipe little restrictive seems to be, could the stock turbo be bigger yes. Talking about the engine will just be going in circles again your providing anecdotal accounts as proof from forum/s like it's proof or something new, but I think torqueman elaborated on the matter well.

I don't know many manufacturers that give a lot of leeway on a high strung boosted 4 cylinder engine out the gate, Il give you Subaru for example their FA20 WRX can barely go above 300-350HP reliably is everyone making unreliable engines cause it can't do above 350hp, I don't understand your argument logically sensible. You say the 2.7 3.5 are fine, these are not being applied to cheaper sport cars like these and people with trucks are not tunning and sporting like you would in bigger numbers, its a truck after all. Also the bigger the displacement the bigger headroom for gains that's common sense such as the coyote it's NA 5.0 litters to work with already at 450+ you think it's a surprise when going FI you get big gains? How would that translate to over engineering? it's a bigo V8 NA, Let's put this in perspective to make better sense if it came out the factory boosted lets say @650 all of a sudden your bigger gains % gap shortens from internal stock tuning potential would that make it flawed engine because you can't do 1000hp out the gate? It's all a money problem always.


public relations wth are you talking about now lol? This article was from tuningpro.co they list a lot of engines some of which they say negative things about you should check it out you might learn a few things. Here is another piece on the 2.3 a lot of which you might agree with and anyone else that wants to check it out. https://tuningpro.co/best-ford-mustang-2-3l-ecoboost-bolt-on-performance-mods/

 

[whatdoyoufeedit?]

I think the torque targeting and removing the torque in replacement of psi target is the biggest killer.

cobb uses same psi targeting, they remove all the torque restrictions.
Imo, I think it’s smart to have those power limitor in place.

if the car doesn’t need 6 extra psi, why make it add it? That’s a lot of stress!

I’d pay, top Dollar for a custom tune if they used torque targeting algorithm (ford algorithm) but take in account all my mods. Dare I say I’d even pay double that of other tuners. But they want no part of torque targeting even though I’ve read it’s far more complicated and superior for longevity.

You're right and wrong at the same time. Removing the torque reduction (which includes making little to no boost in 1st gear) is what would speed up the death of the 2.3EB. In an ideal situation (where block flexing isn't an issue) you do want it remove which is what makes your car quicker and on most platforms torque reduction is removed successfully. In Coyotes and other EB applications it is removed and they are not popping engines. It goes back to structural rigidity, which is why some tuners are walking away from the platform. Imagine the liabiility and legal issues they would go through doing what works on most other platforms.

therewas adam aNd several other tuners arguing over this, and I tend toside with the ford algorithm for safety/no reason to give all the powaaaa if it makes the targets with boost saved

That is on them if they choose to mimic the FP tune or not, either way structural weaknesses are still there if you have to be this careful with the engine, the whole point I am trying to make. If they were to leave those reductions in place you would probably just have just another carbon copy of the FP tune with no significant gains over it.

Side note does amsoil signature series really defeat 100% lspi? Because it claims so. I’ve been tuned 22k miles and such, I consider myself full bolt on with stock turbo. Not sure if I’d make any diff power. But my data monitoring shows FP doing fine with my fuel trims on catted dp, maybe 5% off. The trims balance it out, like -5% and add 5% type making trims fine

It's pure marketing for botique oil, most modern synthetics are rated for turbo engines along with some having more approval ratings (such as Dexos) than Amsoil. What quality synthetic does help with is reducing fuel-wash in GDI applications however it is not going to flat out stop LSPI. Truth is, even if one was to run the stock non synthetic Ford Motorcraft oil and change at recommended intervals you will be fine as long you do not abuse the engine.

 

[TorqueMan]

I only referenced it to show Ford does infact have the ability to make an overengineered engine.

The fact that someone was able to boost a Coyote engine (or 3, or 100) long enough to run 1/4 mile without blowing it up says nothing about whether it's overengineered or not. This is anecdote; you need data to make that claim. Unless you have access to the engineering data used by the designers you cannot claim any more knowledge about the engine's durability than the rest of us.

Ford's 5.0L engine is used for a lot of different applications, so it very well could be that some of its parts and assemblies are more durable than they need to be for the Mustang application. That doesn't mean it's overengineered specifically to allow gear heads to tinker with it.

I simply don't understand how anyone gets the idea a manufacturer is obligated to manufacture engines with durability tolerances beyond a design standard to necessitate the power demands of enthusiasts. Ford's head honchos decided they wanted an engine that produces 300-350 hp while still getting 30 mpg on the highway, and that's what the design team gave them. To me, it makes far more sense to design an engine to meet a spec at the lowest cost so that it's more affordable to more people than to "overengineer" to meet the demands of a few gear heads. Parts should be as durable as they need to be, but no more. If gear heads want more power they can spend the money on the necessary upgraded parts; don't make everyone else pay for them too.

 

[TorqueMan]

What planet do you live on? Coyotes are living healthy lives at 2x factory horsepower. You can buy a factory warrantied system with 40% more HP. They are most definitely over engineered.

I live on Earth, where last time I checked the laws of physics still apply. When it comes to discussions like this you have to get away from squishy terms like "healthy." What does that mean? Top fuel dragster engines live "healthy" lives...for about 4 seconds. Words like "reliable" and "durable" are relative terms.

And no, you cannot get a factory warrantied system for a Coyote making 40% more power. Ford Performance parts are not factory parts, and they do not come with a factory warranty. Your factory warranty remains intact, but Ford Performance parts are covered by the warranty that comes with those parts, and that warranty ends at 3yr/36K. Here is the relevant clause from the warranty document:

Ford Performance superchargers are aftermarket parts. The use of Ford Performance superchargers may impact the performance characteristics of other systems of the vehicle. Even when operating properly, Ford Performance superchargers, such as these, have the potential to adversely impact other systems of the vehicle. Engine, driveline and suspension concerns caused by an installed Ford Performance supercharger are not eligible for warranty coverage according to the terms of the New Vehicle Limited Warranty or this Ford Performance Supercharger Limited Warranty.

Further, the Ford Performance tune for the 2017 2.3L EcoBoost offers a 100 horsepower maximum gain at 6000 RPM. If I did my math right that's nearly 30% above stock. If that's your standard then Ford Performance believes the Coyote has 10% more overhead than the EcoBoost.

Ford could have cut corners on the engine but didn’t. 1k wheel out of the factory shortblock has happed. 8s in the quarter. Yep.

This is anecdote. As I noted in a previous post the 5.0L is used in many different applications for Ford, so it's very likely some parts and assemblies may have higher durability tolerances than necessary for the Mustang application. That doesn't mean it's "overengineered."

And no a EcoBoost will not compete with a E85 coyote for very long with the factory shortblock. That’s the point.

That's not what I said. I said a properly modified EcoBoost can most certainly compete with a Coyote engine. Not a boosted or otherwise modified Coyote, just a stock Coyote.

 

[TorqueMan]

Really had to stretch to disagree with me. I am not trying to troll so I will just make my point again.

Please let me know if anything I posted is not factual.

I love turbo cars and Ford could have made these to support 600 hp with ease. They didn’t and we all know why.

No, not with ease, with money. The Ford Mustang has always been about high performance for the masses. There's a reason why the EcoBoost outsells the GT.

Since you repeated yourself I will too: There's only one car manufacturer on the planet producing a 400+ HP 4 cyl. If it was so easy everyone would be doing it.

 

[TeeLew]

I see why tuners no longer participate here. I don't know Adam, never dealt with him, I'll probably disagree with him on the Spanish vs later castings debate which imho was a waste of time as the difference is negligible in structural integrity.

Adam will tell you there's no difference between the standard and HPP blocks.

 

[Turbong]

Really had to stretch to disagree with me. I am not trying to troll so I will just make my point again.

Ford didn’t want completion from the EcoBoost with a new turbo and tune. I love turbo cars and Ford could have made these to support 600 hp with ease. They didn’t and we all know why.

600hp So easy huh, so easy Subaru sabotaged their EJ2.5 STI engines from being able to make 400hp without major internal upgrades, they didn't want to compete against their 8 cylinder boxer engine either...

 

[Hi-PO Stang]

I have heard the 2.3 HPP is the same as the regular 2.3 but with a better tune by the Ford engineers. I have read that the 2.3 HPP engine is the 2.3 Focus RS engine but setup to mount inline with the drive train. I have also heard the 2.3 HPP engine has a larger turbo than the regular 2.3. I am just trying to find out the truth about these Ecoboost fours.

Sponsored