Ecoboost Comparisons, Analysis, and Opinion
03-02-2015, 12:42 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 38
Ecoboost Comparisons, Analysis, and Opinion
This will be a little trip down memory lane comparing MY previous Mystangs to the Ecoboost and then an opinion on the car, engine, and the criticisms that are so humorously bestowed.
My Mustang path started when a friend bought a 1969 back in, oh, about 1975, and then restored it and modified it. The 1969 and 1970 Mach 1 are still my all-time favorite but that is another story. Yes, I am old!!!
My first Mustang was a 1983 GT Coupe. No options on that pony whatsoever. Needless to say, the 5.0L 4 speed manual was a blast to drive but I was surprised to go back and read that it was good for 175 HP and 245 lb-ft of Torque. This thing was...ready....carbureted. Carb a what?
Next was a 1997 GT Convertible. That one was opioned up well and top down cruising was a blast. The 4.6L 5 speed was rated for 215 HP and 285 lb-ft of Torque. Up from my old school 5.0L from a smaller engine.
Next was a 2004 V6 Coupe. Not many options on this one either but it was a blast with the 3.8L 5 speed. This car is rated at 190 HP and 220 lb-ft of Torque. I still have this car. It drives nice, has okay get up and go for a daily driver, and returns good fuel economy. Not bad for 150,000 miles now.
Next, on order, is a 2015 Ecoboost Premium. The 2.3L 6 speed manual is rated for 305 HP and 300 lb-ft of Torque. It should be here sometime in April I hope.
Some interesting observations about this path:
1. The engine in my Mustangs has been decreasing over the years. I wonder in 10 years what it will be...the 1.0L Ecoboost? Gads.
2. Except for the 3.8L the HP and Torque has been increasing even though power and torque have been going up.
3. Fuel economy is getting better with each iteration as well.
4. This Ecoboost Mustang, being criticized as 'not being worthy of carrying the Mustang badge' by self-proclaimed experts is going to be the highest performance Mustang I have owned so far. In fact, this car outperforms the two V8's quite handily. Ah, no fair I hear people claim; those are old and stock they were slow but easily modified.' Yup, and so is the 2.3L easy to modify. Very interesting predicament.
Back in 1979 the new platform had the (then) 2.3L I4, 2.9L V6, and the GT had the 2.3L I4 Turbo. By 1982 the 5.0L was reintroduced as an optional engine as the GT came with the 2.3L Turbo. The SVT for 1984 and 1985 had a 2.3L Turbo as well. I guess none of these people have real Mustangs either according to these self-proclaimed experts. My opinion is yes, it is a real Mustang and for crying out loud, based on my previous cars, you better hold on tight!
My Mustang path started when a friend bought a 1969 back in, oh, about 1975, and then restored it and modified it. The 1969 and 1970 Mach 1 are still my all-time favorite but that is another story. Yes, I am old!!!
My first Mustang was a 1983 GT Coupe. No options on that pony whatsoever. Needless to say, the 5.0L 4 speed manual was a blast to drive but I was surprised to go back and read that it was good for 175 HP and 245 lb-ft of Torque. This thing was...ready....carbureted. Carb a what?
Next was a 1997 GT Convertible. That one was opioned up well and top down cruising was a blast. The 4.6L 5 speed was rated for 215 HP and 285 lb-ft of Torque. Up from my old school 5.0L from a smaller engine.
Next was a 2004 V6 Coupe. Not many options on this one either but it was a blast with the 3.8L 5 speed. This car is rated at 190 HP and 220 lb-ft of Torque. I still have this car. It drives nice, has okay get up and go for a daily driver, and returns good fuel economy. Not bad for 150,000 miles now.
Next, on order, is a 2015 Ecoboost Premium. The 2.3L 6 speed manual is rated for 305 HP and 300 lb-ft of Torque. It should be here sometime in April I hope.
Some interesting observations about this path:
1. The engine in my Mustangs has been decreasing over the years. I wonder in 10 years what it will be...the 1.0L Ecoboost? Gads.
2. Except for the 3.8L the HP and Torque has been increasing even though power and torque have been going up.
3. Fuel economy is getting better with each iteration as well.
4. This Ecoboost Mustang, being criticized as 'not being worthy of carrying the Mustang badge' by self-proclaimed experts is going to be the highest performance Mustang I have owned so far. In fact, this car outperforms the two V8's quite handily. Ah, no fair I hear people claim; those are old and stock they were slow but easily modified.' Yup, and so is the 2.3L easy to modify. Very interesting predicament.
Back in 1979 the new platform had the (then) 2.3L I4, 2.9L V6, and the GT had the 2.3L I4 Turbo. By 1982 the 5.0L was reintroduced as an optional engine as the GT came with the 2.3L Turbo. The SVT for 1984 and 1985 had a 2.3L Turbo as well. I guess none of these people have real Mustangs either according to these self-proclaimed experts. My opinion is yes, it is a real Mustang and for crying out loud, based on my previous cars, you better hold on tight!
03-06-2015, 01:08 PM
#2
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 106
Some things I have read about the Ecoboost, good and bad:
The Good:
Handling. Test drivers really like the feel with a 4 banger.
Power is great for an inline 4. They respond to tuning very well, apparently. Gobs of torque to be had. I recently saw an acceleration comparison on YouTube that had a tuned EB (no other mods) vs. a GT. The GT pulled hard on the EB on the hwy but from a dead stop, the EB kept up and even beat the GT.
The Bad: I read that the direct injection EB across all of Ford's platforms suffer from valve deposits that build up quickly. Hopefully they will work that out.
Exhaust note. It will never sound like a V8 but many people can live with that.
Even Mercedes has an AMG car with a turbo 4 now, and they have been known for those sweet 6.3l engines. Alfa has the 4C. The big Japanese guys have been utilizing small engines for years. Ford is just following suit and doing what the rest of the world is doing.
The Good:
Handling. Test drivers really like the feel with a 4 banger.
Power is great for an inline 4. They respond to tuning very well, apparently. Gobs of torque to be had. I recently saw an acceleration comparison on YouTube that had a tuned EB (no other mods) vs. a GT. The GT pulled hard on the EB on the hwy but from a dead stop, the EB kept up and even beat the GT.
The Bad: I read that the direct injection EB across all of Ford's platforms suffer from valve deposits that build up quickly. Hopefully they will work that out.
Exhaust note. It will never sound like a V8 but many people can live with that.
Even Mercedes has an AMG car with a turbo 4 now, and they have been known for those sweet 6.3l engines. Alfa has the 4C. The big Japanese guys have been utilizing small engines for years. Ford is just following suit and doing what the rest of the world is doing.
03-06-2015, 02:13 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 38
Some things I have read about the Ecoboost, good and bad:
The Good:
Handling. Test drivers really like the feel with a 4 banger.
Power is great for an inline 4. They respond to tuning very well, apparently. Gobs of torque to be had. I recently saw an acceleration comparison on YouTube that had a tuned EB (no other mods) vs. a GT. The GT pulled hard on the EB on the hwy but from a dead stop, the EB kept up and even beat the GT.
The Bad: I read that the direct injection EB across all of Ford's platforms suffer from valve deposits that build up quickly. Hopefully they will work that out.
Exhaust note. It will never sound like a V8 but many people can live with that.
Even Mercedes has an AMG car with a turbo 4 now, and they have been known for those sweet 6.3l engines. Alfa has the 4C. The big Japanese guys have been utilizing small engines for years. Ford is just following suit and doing what the rest of the world is doing.
The Good:
Handling. Test drivers really like the feel with a 4 banger.
Power is great for an inline 4. They respond to tuning very well, apparently. Gobs of torque to be had. I recently saw an acceleration comparison on YouTube that had a tuned EB (no other mods) vs. a GT. The GT pulled hard on the EB on the hwy but from a dead stop, the EB kept up and even beat the GT.
The Bad: I read that the direct injection EB across all of Ford's platforms suffer from valve deposits that build up quickly. Hopefully they will work that out.
Exhaust note. It will never sound like a V8 but many people can live with that.
Even Mercedes has an AMG car with a turbo 4 now, and they have been known for those sweet 6.3l engines. Alfa has the 4C. The big Japanese guys have been utilizing small engines for years. Ford is just following suit and doing what the rest of the world is doing.
In the 'old days' (MPFI) the injector was in the runner and aimed fuel at the back side of the valve stem. The detergent additives, or the cleaner you put in the fuel tank, cleaned the deposits. With DI the fuel bypasses the intake valve completely.
Port Fuel Injection, or Carburators, may have had similar issues since liquid fuel would not be spraying on the valve directly either and I remember carburetted engines having many issues with carbon buildup on the valves. I hope a fix for this is found that is not too expensive. Carburetted engines did still have the fuel mixture in the air charge so some cleaning would still have occurred.
I wonder if a liquid cleaner could be drawn into the intake air while the engine is running through the idle control circuit or vacuum port, but this is just pure speculation on my part.
03-15-2015, 09:54 AM
#4
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Florida
Posts: 1
What most people don't seem to realize is that technology > all. "No replacement for displacement" my ***. There are plenty of things that can replace it. Forced induction is a huge one. Direct injection sure doesn't hurt, but the twin-scroll turbo setup seems to be perfect for this car. 2.3l is a tiny but smaller than other boosted motors I have owned (4g63 at 2.4, and supercharged KA24DE at 2.4), but produces way more torque. It is not like they just had an extra motor laying around they decided to throw in to this car. This motor is what I would consider the pinnacle of modern engineering and technology. To get that much power and torque out of a 2.3l, have very respectable MPG, and still have plenty of room for growth? What more could you ask for? Sure it isn't a v8, but lets be honest, aside from tradition, and yes... the sound... is a v8 really that great? To a point yes, and that point has been reached I would say. The new EcoBoost motor can hang with many v8s as is, stock.
I have always been a fan of technology, and always will be. I also have been and always will be a car guy. Mix the two? Yes please.
I have always been a fan of technology, and always will be. I also have been and always will be a car guy. Mix the two? Yes please.
03-22-2015, 09:59 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 38
The upcoming Focus RS will be using the 2.3L Ecoboost as well. I am not sure what the Torque spec will be yet but the HP is being leaked as 360 HP. That is amazing and I look forward to reading how the SVT team did it. Maybe some of that tuning work can make it into the Mustang as well!
03-23-2015, 06:46 PM
#6
S197 Section Modder-ator
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,373
Was just in different markets, like Europe...
03-24-2015, 09:04 PM
#8
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 417
I gotta say, after driving the GT and the Ecoboost...I still haven't decided. I hate to give up the V8 sound but I kinda like the idea of hotting up the car with the extra 10k I saved off the GT.
The fact that I am even still thinking about the ecoboost is crazy to me, but...here I am.
The fact that I am even still thinking about the ecoboost is crazy to me, but...here I am.
03-25-2015, 07:34 AM
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 38
I gotta say, after driving the GT and the Ecoboost...I still haven't decided. I hate to give up the V8 sound but I kinda like the idea of hotting up the car with the extra 10k I saved off the GT.
The fact that I am even still thinking about the ecoboost is crazy to me, but...here I am.
The fact that I am even still thinking about the ecoboost is crazy to me, but...here I am.
05-11-2015, 06:05 AM
#10
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: NY
Posts: 478
What most people don't seem to realize is that technology > all. "No replacement for displacement" my ***. There are plenty of things that can replace it. Forced induction is a huge one. Direct injection sure doesn't hurt, but the twin-scroll turbo setup seems to be perfect for this car. 2.3l is a tiny but smaller than other boosted motors I have owned (4g63 at 2.4, and supercharged KA24DE at 2.4), but produces way more torque. It is not like they just had an extra motor laying around they decided to throw in to this car. This motor is what I would consider the pinnacle of modern engineering and technology. To get that much power and torque out of a 2.3l, have very respectable MPG, and still have plenty of room for growth? What more could you ask for? Sure it isn't a v8, but lets be honest, aside from tradition, and yes... the sound... is a v8 really that great? To a point yes, and that point has been reached I would say. The new EcoBoost motor can hang with many v8s as is, stock.
I have always been a fan of technology, and always will be. I also have been and always will be a car guy. Mix the two? Yes please.
I have always been a fan of technology, and always will be. I also have been and always will be a car guy. Mix the two? Yes please.
There has to be a trade off when you squeeze that much power from a four cylinder,and that trade off is engine life.Doubtful that these are going 200k+,like some of the V8s.
Does that bother me? Not really.I only have 72k on my 2004 GT and I'm getting old.The EB will last longer than me.