Lincoln publishes it's 2.3 EB HP and torque

[S550Boss]

As seen in the new 2015 Lincoln MKC, the 2.3 EB officially makes 285 horsepower and 305 lb.-ft. of torque. Note that Ford's official spec lists the fuel requirement as 87 octane - but the sales website lists the HP and torque as "achieved" with 93 octane.

The standard 2.0 EB makes 240 and 270. So nothing new there, this is what we see elsewhere in the Ford lineup for this engine (including the Falcon and the Jaguars).

What's holding up Ford? Now that the "base" 2.3 is announced and in production, Mustang tuning can be finalized for North America. And then there are the worldwide tuning requirements - that's not easy as they are all different and Ford wants to ship the 2.3 EB Mustang this year too. So that may hold it up.

Or Ford might want to announce the final specs of all three engines at the same time. The F-150 donates the engine to the Mustang, and the specs for that have not yet been announced. So that will hold up the announcement of the 5.0 Mustang specs - or all of the specs.

Sponsored

 

[M.Senger]

More TQ than HP. I'm telling ya!

 

[xlover]

Probably that they want to announce all specs at the same time.

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

Why does the 2.3L get such terrible gas mileage in the MKC? Why is it detuned so much also?

 

[S550Boss]

It isn't detuned at all. It's making power proportional to the EcoBoost 2 liter we already know. And it's making the HP and torque curves that they wanted for the SUV type of customer.
There is no weight provided for the MKC in the official specs. Architecturally it's a loaded Escape (same shared platform as the Focus), but it would be a bit heavier than that. A 2 liter EB AWD Escape weighs 3769. So call the MKC 3900 or more. You can't put a motor that is jerky with boost lag into a vehicle like that.
And the MKC only has a 6-speed tranny... Ford is behind in the tranny game when everybody else is already into (or moving very quickly into) 8- and 9-speeds. Maybe they are at the torque peak for the 6-speed (although a heavier duty version of it from the SHO is available).

2014 Escape (and others): 2 liter 4: 240 HP, 120 HP/liter.
2014 Focus ST: 2 liter 4: 252 HP, 126 HP/liter.
2015 MKC: 2.3 liter 4: 285 HP, 124 HP/liter.

2015 Mustang 2.3 liter 4: at 126 HP/liter would be 289 HP.
The Mustang with it's longitudinal engine might have a freer flowing exhaust. Also the transmissions are stronger.

By comparison, our other favorite EB motors (improved HP and torque for trucks for 2015):
2014 Taurus SHO: 3.5 liter 6: 365 HP, 104 HP/liter.
2015 Lincoln Navigator: 3.5 liter 6: 380 HP, 108.5 HP/liter.

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

^I thought the second generation Ecoboost engines were supposed to be at 140 HP/liter?

2.3 * 140 = 322 > 305, which is the lowest we can expect from the EB4 in the Mustang.

The 2.3L has a lot more of technology than the 2.0L, including a twin-scroll turbo rather than just the single one on the 2.0L.

Ford should be making better power, not just proportional power related to an old engine. The 2.0L came out 5 years ago.

I was also under the impression that the 3.5L TT has a lot left on the table due to the FWD/AWD 6-speeds not able to handle any more power or torque reliably. That's why you see 460 tq in the new Navigator.

 

[S550Boss]

^I thought the second generation Ecoboost engines were supposed to be at 140 HP/liter?

All unsubstantiated rumor.... I am only reporting the numbers for the MKC EcoBoost, which just got announced.

Remember that the EcoBoost 4 is in the Mustang for fuel economy and CO2 compliance... designed as a worldwide product and not as a performance vehicle. What it's ultimate capabilities are and what it's mission is are two different things.

I was also under the impression that the 3.5L TT has a lot left on the table due to the FWD/AWD 6-speeds not able to handle any more power or torque reliably. That's why you see 460 tq in the new Navigator.

Yes, it's up against the torque rating wall. But then in the SHO who cares because it weighs a morbidly obese 4368 pounds and really has no sporting appeal (keep in mind the original 1st gen SHO was exactly 1000 pounds less!). It's in it's roughly second last year, and the writing is on the wall.

 

[MustangSteve]

^I thought the second generation Ecoboost engines were supposed to be at 140 HP/liter?

2.3 * 140 = 322 > 305, which is the lowest we can expect from the EB4 in the Mustang.

The 2.3L has a lot more of technology than the 2.0L, including a twin-scroll turbo rather than just the single one on the 2.0L.

Ford should be making better power, not just proportional power related to an old engine. The 2.0L came out 5 years ago.

I was also under the impression that the 3.5L TT has a lot left on the table due to the FWD/AWD 6-speeds not able to handle any more power or torque reliably. That's why you see 460 tq in the new Navigator.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/feature...rful-will-the-ford-mustang-ecoboost-really-be

Balancing fuel economy requirements and power

 

[w3rkn]

Mustang 2.3 EB = 310 horsepower & 312ft-lbs of torque.

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

Remember that the EcoBoost 4 is in the Mustang for fuel economy and CO2 compliance... designed as a worldwide product and not as a performance vehicle. What it's ultimate capabilities are and what it's mission is are two different things.

I know it's geared towards fuel economy, but Ford has already come out and said at least over 305 HP, which is more than 120 HP/liter, so that's why I was thinking the MKC engine was detuned.

But then in the SHO who cares because it weighs a morbidly obese 4368 pounds and really has no sporting appeal (keep in mind the original 1st gen SHO was exactly 1000 pounds less!). It's in it's roughly second last year, and the writing is on the wall.

Yeah, I've seen the stretched Fusion mule with the MKS grille. Hopefully the new Taurus SHO comes under 4000 lbs and the new 9 speed is ready and more importantly capable and we see over 400 HP & 400 TQ. That's what a SHO should be!

Mustang 2.3 EB = 310 horsepower & 312ft-lbs of torque.

Proof???

 

[jeebuspwnz]

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2015-...isingly-sweet-small-1585822971/+matthardigree

Seems jalopnik thought the acceleration was "adequate" but they weren't thrilled. Granted this motor is lugging 3900lbs around in this instance and is somewhat detuned compared to the Mustang variant.

 

[S550Boss]

The junior member of the Jalopnik team is running on only a few cylinders himself, as usual. And Ford only gets a couple of hundred words for flying him out there, and some confusion is introduced into the press about panel gap that we may or may not ever see in production. And not a word about off-idle torque or anything valuable. Typical Matt.
For the Mustang, subtract 400 pounds (or 500?), get better gearing and more torque, and here you have it. The recent autocross rides were a better indication of what to expect.

 

[Stuntman]

^I thought the second generation Ecoboost engines were supposed to be at 140 HP/liter?

2.3 * 140 = 322 > 305, which is the lowest we can expect from the EB4 in the Mustang.

The 2.3L has a lot more of technology than the 2.0L, including a twin-scroll turbo rather than just the single one on the 2.0L.

Ford should be making better power, not just proportional power related to an old engine. The 2.0L came out 5 years ago.

I was also under the impression that the 3.5L TT has a lot left on the table due to the FWD/AWD 6-speeds not able to handle any more power or torque reliably. That's why you see 460 tq in the new Navigator.

Is the MKC's 2.3L the same twin scroll motor?

 

[Brent302]

2015 EcoBoost HP/MPG Released by Ford...kind of...

Not sure if this has been posted but I just found this article and figured I would share.

http://www.torquenews.com/106/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-power-mpgs-previewed-lincoln-mkc-form

 

[thePill]

More estimating... This is basically all anyone is doing. It has logic to it and that's all you can really ask for on the internet.

Sponsored