Ecoboost Engine Video
 

I don't know if this is the right place, but it seems good enough to me. Around 6:50 in the video theres an awesome taurus with the 3.5L ecoboost engine and it killed the cadillac and bmw! Heres the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgilKUwMl2A

Pretty cool stuff... Like one of the comment's on YouTube says, make a 6-speed 3.5L AWD Focus.

I'm left wondering if engine longevity will suffer from forcing a smaller engine to work harder.

I'm all for better MPG but I also remember how poorly those turbo charged Chrysler 2.2 held up to pulling a relitivly heavy minivan around.

Those Chrysler 2.2's were an accident waiting to happen without even pushing the gas pedal...

Lots of motors last a long time, little itty bitty things with a turbo, putting out decent amounts of torque. Just gotta have enough bearing width ;)

I don't know if you have rhe 2.2 but my daughter did for several years. Tough little engine and no problems with it or with the ones owned by other people I knew. The 2.2 had plenty of bearing width. It was a copy of the Rabbit engine that was designed to be converted to a diesel (VW did, MOPAR didn't). The bearings were oversized and seldom gave any problems. I've seen many 2.2 turbos with high miles on them and no problems.

My parents at one time had a K Car with the 2.2L. Let me just say that turning on the A/C would render the car more gutless ( if that was possible ) to the point of being dangerous if you were trying to pass anything faster than a 10 speed bike on the highway.

( that was a long sentence.....)

Not to get even further off-topic, I meant that the 2.2 was known as a gutless, unreliable, wonder. Not that it's bearings were too narrow.

When I said something about bearings, I was referring to any engine that can handle the power of a turbo should be upgraded enough to handle the power, AND last a while.

but the Dodge and Plymouth K Cars didn't have turbos. I bought my daughter a Shelby Charger with the 2.2 turbo and it was pretty gutless until it hit about 3,000 RPMs. Once it hit that and the turbo kicked in, it would snap your neck. Of course the torque steer would scare you to death if you were turning at all. Very powerful and tough little car. About as refined as a John Deere tractor but tough, powerful and dependable.

[QUOTE=builtfordtough13]I don't know if this is the right place, but it seems good enough to me. Around 6:50 in the video theres an awesome taurus with the 3.5L ecoboost engine and it killed the cadillac and bmw! Heres the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgilKUwMl2A[/QUOTE]


That is very interesting..I like to see how it plays out..Might help Ford with sales.

Having owned 3 Chrysler 2.2/2.5 powered vehicles, I can say that you are incorrect. You must look at the time frame of when the engines were used. What American car company built a really good 4 cyl in the 80's? The Ford 2.3 is a turd, slow as heck thought it lasts a while. The 1.8/1.9L escort engine were turds, the GM 2.0, 2.2, and Iron duke 2.5's were pathetic.

Anyway, the Turbo dodges had no more problems than their NA counterparts, it is quite a shame that when they came out in 84, the 5.0L mustang could barley out pull an engine with half the displacement, and In 1987 (the year of My mustang), the GLHS charger could do anything better than my stang except top speed.

Are you kidding? The cylinder heads on these engines were unbelievably fragile. I've seen several of these engines go through 2 and 3 cyl heads in the first 70K. They're so bad that you can pertty well bet that if a head had been run on an engine that it has cracked.

None of these cars are on the road today due to the lack of uncracked servicable heads. If you have a 2.2 turbo cyl head that ISN'T cracked (very unlikely) you can just about name your price for it.

I wasn't going to keep thrashing this topic, but had to agree with this.

My machinist told me about all the turbo heads he used to see, and a long-lost girlfriend had one that she babied to the point of NEVER going into the boost part of the boost gauge - on advice from her mechanic who had already done the head on it - at somewhere near 30K or so.

But what do I know?

Maybe the NA motors held together, I don't know. I just know that my machinist had LOADS of them in his shop all the time. But hey, maybe they were Ford 5.0's, and I didn't know the difference :-X03

Oddly enough it didn't seem to make much diffrence with reguard to head cracking. N/A or turbo they were both garbage!

But those poor van's their engines were just were too overtaxed. They lived even more briefly than the cars. Hence my comment on forcing a smaller engine to work harded than it should.

Weren't those motors made by Mitsubishi??

No that was a diffrent engine, But almost as crappy!