2.3 ecoboost? - Page 2 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Notices
2019 Ranger Everything about the new 2019 Ford Ranger.

2.3 ecoboost?

Reply

 
 
 
  #16  
Old 05-05-2018, 12:49 PM
YoGeorge
YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,102
YoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud of
There are other brands like Honda that are moving to smaller turbo engines in virtually every new vehicle they bring out, maybe with the exception of really small cars and hybrids.

Other brands like Chrysler and GM are using various cylinder shut-off schemes in V6 and V8 engines, and although they may not be as complex as turbos, still may be a reliability concern in the long run. And GM is also moving to turbo 4 cylinder engines.

The world is definitely changing. When Ford went to overhead cams in almost all of its engines (circa 1997 when the trucks got Tritons) there were people that said they refused to buy Fords any more. In the end, they worked out OK.
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-05-2018, 10:37 PM
Tom's Avatar
Tom
Tom is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Isanti, MN
Posts: 23,416
Tom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputation
Iíd agree with that, George. And the tricks used to make larger engines efficient in recent years adds a lot of complexity as well. GM has had lots of issues with collapsed lifters with their AFM system in their V8s, which require head removal to fix.

Just last week I traded my Escape for a slightly used Pacifica, and just reading about the latest-gen Pentastar V6 under the hood is almost enough to make me dizzy. Four cam phasers, a cooled EGR system, four timing chains, and an oil pressure-actuated dual lift cam profile on the intake valves on both heads. I donít think this thing is any less complex than the EcoBoost engines Iíve had in recent years.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-03-2018, 05:04 PM
jsee
jsee is offline
New User
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2
jsee is starting off with a positive reputation.
People have a tendency to look at the 2.3 EB and see 310hp or a 3.5 (plus or minus) normally aspirated V6 making 300+ horsepower and think they would probably prefer the V6. And they might.

It's important to consider the following:

The non-turbo V6 will probably achieve its torque peak at 4,000 rpm or more. For many of these engines, the peak is less than 300 ft-lb. That wonderful horsepower also doesn't show up until the engine is spinning pretty fast. For many, the peak hp is at somewhere over 6,000rpm.

The turbo 4, on the other hand, can be configured to produce a fat torque curve with a peak well over 300 ft-lb between 2,000 and 3,000 rpm. This means that, in this important range where you actually use the engine every day, the turbo 4 is producing more torque than the V6 does at its peak.

Power is torque that is actually moving something at a specific rate. In rotating engines (e.g., gas, diesel, electric), you can calculate horsepower for a specific rpm if the torque is known at that rpm. A little fooling around with the calculator on your phone will show you that the turbo 4 makes a whole bunch more power in that range between 2,000 and 3,000 rpm than the non-turbo V6.

Power counts. It's what pulls the trailer and makes the truck quicker. Put a trailer behind the non-turbo V6, and you will find you don't use top gear very much. The turbo engine is able to run more in the longest (highest) gear because it has the power where it counts. This means better fuel mileage and less engine wear.

An extreme example is something like GM's "baby Duramax" diesel. It lacks any top end, so you haven't got that 300hp at 5,000 or 6,000rpm to hustle it from 0-60 in a hurry. But it does have a fat torque curve from 2,000-3,000rpm, so fuel mileage doesn't take as much of a hit when it's pulling, and the engine feels plenty strong for daily driving. In fact, the torque from 2,000-3,000 is so strong, it produces more torque in that range (and more power) than many non-turbo V8 engines. The V8, of course, will walk away from it if you spin it a little. So will the V6. But is that the way you want to drive cross-country?

For many daily applications, my vote goes to a turbo 4 correctly sized and configured for the job.
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:49 PM
ODwyerPW
ODwyerPW is offline
New User
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 7
ODwyerPW is starting off with a positive reputation.
I just rented a 2018 Chevy Colorado Crew Cab LT V6 4WD for 3 weeks. Allot of City and some Highway and a little Mountain. I received 19.5 to 21.0 mpg mixed driving over the 3 weeks. It was an absolutely brand new truck and the mileage improved each week...

Therefore, I can well imagine a lighter Ford Ranger w/ the 2.3 Eco and 10spd auto driven carefully on a long trip could see 25mpg.. maybe better. Imagine a 2WD Extended Cab would do even better.
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-23-2018, 05:56 AM
ssls6's Avatar
ssls6
ssls6 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 247
ssls6 is starting off with a positive reputation.
"Light" as in "low weight" is the key for eco boost mileage. If you want high mpg's then the base engine before boost needs to be able to handle the truck most of the time. That is my biggest gripe with using a 2.3L eco in the Ranger as the only option. Sure, the low trim ex-cab version could be light enough (like a mustang) where a NA 2.3L I4 is plenty. Then boosting that when you need it makes sense to me. A heavier version "Lariat" with bigger tires, 4x4, dual cabs, ... will be more than a 2.3L I4 can handle daily without boost (I'm guessing).

There is a reason the 2.7eco only shows up in the lightest F150s. I think Ford is smart enough to know this so after the first year or two we should (I expect) to see more engine options.
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-23-2018, 07:05 AM
Tom's Avatar
Tom
Tom is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Isanti, MN
Posts: 23,416
Tom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post
"

There is a reason the 2.7eco only shows up in the lightest F150s. I think Ford is smart enough to know this so after the first year or two we should (I expect) to see more engine options.
Thatís not accurate. I have two close friends with crew cab 4x4 F150s with the 2.7L engine. Both XLT 302A models, and they both get better fuel economy than I ever did in the same truck with a 3.5L EB.

The 2.7L is the highest volume engine in the line, and is offered in nearly all trim levels and configurations.
 
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-23-2018, 01:32 PM
ssls6's Avatar
ssls6
ssls6 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 247
ssls6 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by Tom View Post


Thatís not accurate. I have two close friends with crew cab 4x4 F150s with the 2.7L engine. Both XLT 302A models, and they both get better fuel economy than I ever did in the same truck with a 3.5L EB.

The 2.7L is the highest volume engine in the line, and is offered in nearly all trim levels and configurations.
2.7eco XLT 302A's come with the thinner frame and 8.8" rear end. If you push a 2.7eco to the payload package (heavier frame and 9.75" rear) then 302A is removed and you're limited to 300A. Ford plays games to keep the trucks light.

I think it is hard to argue with the fact that when you're into the boost your mpg's suffer.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-23-2018, 03:50 PM
Tom's Avatar
Tom
Tom is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Isanti, MN
Posts: 23,416
Tom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post
I think it is hard to argue with the fact that when you're into the boost your mpg's suffer.
More power is going to take more fuel, there's no getting around that. But efficiency isn't necessarily reduced with boost vs. achieving the same power with larger displacement.

I remember the Excursion forum guys telling me the same when I traded for an EcoBoost F150. But that little V6 was significantly more efficient towing my boat (GCW ~9,500 LBS) than the 7,000-lb Excursion ever was empty. Likewise the 2.0L EcoBoost in my Escape was the most efficient vehicle I've ever pulled with, pulling down a consistent 16-17 MPG towing the same boat loafing down the interstate at 1,800 RPMs @ 5-8 PSI of boost. It's more efficient than my current N/A V6-powered minivan pulling the same boat at the same speed.

I've had three EcoBoost vehicles over the years, and have pulled with all three, as well as various N/A V6es, V8s, and a V10. I have not seen this hypothetical decline in efficiency that everyone tells me I should have. I'm meticulous with fuel economy as well, tracking every tank on Fuelly.

tomb985's Profile | Fuelly
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
xjcamaro89
2015+ F150
4
03-27-2018 12:17 PM
mckayd2001
EcoBoost (all engine sizes)
90
04-12-2011 08:29 PM
builtfordtough13
Ford vs The Competition
17
01-24-2008 04:05 PM
V10_Cougar
Ford vs The Competition
0
01-08-2008 06:46 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 2.3 ecoboost?


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: