Ecoboost 2.3 Engine Heritage?

[JustinR]

Here's what I hope is a simple question, and I apologize in advance if it has been asked before and I haven't found it in the forum.
Browsing Wikipedia today after watching TFL Truck's new Youtube video comparing the F150 to the new Hurricane-powered Ram, I read up on the Ecoboost engine family on Wikipedia: Ford EcoBoost engine - Wikipedia
What I saw there was that their chart says the 2.3L is descendant from the Mazda L, while the 2.0L Twin-scroll is a clean-sheet motor. I have the 2.0L Twin-scroll in my wife's Nautilus, and aside from it being turned 90 degrees from the 2.3 in the Ranger, they look visually identical. Same valve cover, even (or so it appears - whether they're actually interchangeable I'm not going to try just to find out). There are some minor differences, like oil filter location, but that kind of thing is expected since the motor is transverse in the Lincoln and longitudinal in the Ford.
My understanding was that the main difference between the 2.0L Twin-scoll and 2.3L Twin-scroll was in the stroke, since the 2.3 uses a different crank. My understanding was that the 2.0 was derived but different from the Mazda L, but is the 2.3 still a Mazda L, or a "stroked" 2.0? I thought it was the latter.

Sponsored

 

[Dr_Strangelove]

Here's an older R&T article about how the 2.3 from the Focus RS was sourced and modified to be produced for the Ranger. That's one step back in heritage for you.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/detroit-auto-show/a15840269/ford-focus-rs-ranger-engine/

 

[Dgc333]

FWIW, one of the more popular mods people make when building a high horsepower 2.3 is to use a 2.0 Ecoboost block with the 2.3 internals. The 2.0 block is a closed deck design that is more stout than the 2.3 block. This tells me that the two engines are very much related.

 

[theprinceofsnj]

All I know is that the 2.3 in my 2019 is not the same as the 2.3 I had in my 1997.

 

[Dunedain Ranger]

While this is strictly from my idealistic point of view, I like to think that the Ecoboost Engine technology which was used to win the 2016 LeMans in the Ford GT40, may have spilled down to the 2.3L Ecoboost Engines in our beloved Rangers. But that's just me without any empirical evidence.

 

[Big Blue]

While this is strictly from my idealistic point of view, I like to think that the Ecoboost Engine technology which was used to win the 2016 LeMans in the Ford GT40, may have spilled down to the 2.3L Ecoboost Engines in our beloved Rangers. But that's just me without any empirical evidence.

Not sure what you are talking about the 2016 Le Man's. It was won by a Porsche. The GT40s won in 1966 thru 1969 and we're powered by naturally aspirated V8s of 427 and 302 CID

 

[Dgc333]

Not sure what you are talking about the 2016 Le Man's. It was won by a Porsche. The GT40s won in 1966 thru 1969 and we're powered by naturally aspirated V8s of 427 and 302 CID

The Ford GT #68 won the LMGTE Pro class at the 2016 24 hours of LeMans race. This was an all out effort on Ford's part to commemorate the 1966 win by a GT40.

The Ford GTs were powered by 3.5 liter V6 Ecoboost engines.

 

[Big Blue]

The Ford GT #68 won the LMGTE Pro class at the 2016 24 hours of LeMans race. This was an all out effort on Ford's part to commemorate the 1966 win by a GT40.

The Ford GTs were powered by 3.5 liter V6 Ecoboost engines.

OK, those are Ford GTs not GT40s as you said on your original post. Two entirely different animals.

But yeah we can hope for a little of that to trickle down into our 2.3s.

 

[bill_AUS]

Both the original 2.0L and 2.3L EcoBoost engines are derived from the Mazda L engine, however the two do not share a block, the 2.0 is semi closed deck and the 2.3 is open. The 2.3 also has a taller deck height (the top of the block is further away from the centre of the crank).

FWIW, one of the more popular mods people make when building a high horsepower 2.3 is to use a 2.0 Ecoboost block with the 2.3 internals. The 2.0 block is a closed deck design that is more stout than the 2.3 block. This tells me that the two engines are very much related.

Ford has refreshed the 2.0L and 2.3L EcoBoosts, deviating further from their Mazda L origins. They started out as basically the same engine as their older naturally aspirated cousins with a different head whacked on top. The 5G Ranger uses a blend of Focus RS and Mustang S550 2.3, with the head and internals being Focus RS like, and the block being Mustang like (set up for RWD engine mounts etc).

 

[Dunedain Ranger]

Not sure what you are talking about the 2016 Le Man's. It was won by a Porsche. The GT40s won in 1966 thru 1969 and we're powered by naturally aspirated V8s of 427 and 302 CID

There are three classes of cars at Lemans. Hypercar, LMP2, and LMGT3. Ford won the LMGT3 Class in 2016 with the Ford GT40. Porsche won the Hypercar Class - the classes of cars don't compete with the cars outside of their class because they aren't the same - apples to oranges. No GT car could ever beat a Hypercar. Different engines and speed technologies.

Here you go from the 2016 LeMans (GT Class):

Ford

LE MANS, France -- The No. 68 Ford GT of Sébastien Bourdais (FRA), Joey Hand (US) and Dirk Müller (GER) crossed the finish line at Le Mans at three o'clock on Sunday, as the overall GT winner of the 2016 Le Mans 24 Hours.Jun 19, 2016
Ford Wins Le Mans! | Ford Media Center
Ford Media
https://media.ford.com › fna › news › 2016/06/19 › for...

 

[Big Blue]

There are three classes of cars at Lemans. Hypercar, LMP2, and LMGT3. Ford won the LMGT3 Class in 2016 with the Ford GT40. Porsche won the Hypercar Class - the classes of cars don't compete with the cars outside of their class because they aren't the same - apples to oranges. No GT car could ever beat a Hypercar. Different engines and speed technologies.

Here you go from the 2016 LeMans (GT Class):

Ford

LE MANS, France -- The No. 68 Ford GT of Sébastien Bourdais (FRA), Joey Hand (US) and Dirk Müller (GER) crossed the finish line at Le Mans at three o'clock on Sunday, as the overall GT winner of the 2016 Le Mans 24 Hours.Jun 19, 2016
Ford Wins Le Mans! | Ford Media Center
Ford Media
https://media.ford.com › fna › news › 2016/06/19 › for...

Agreed, the Ford GTs won their class in 2016. But those are NOT Ford GT40s as the first post said. Two very different cars from different eras. If the original post had said Ford GTs we would not be having this conversation.

 

[Dunedain Ranger]

Agreed, the Ford GTs won their class in 2016. But those are NOT Ford GT40s as the first post said. Two very different cars from different eras. If the original post had said Ford GTs we would not be having this conversation.

You are very correct. I'm just so used to putting 40 behind GT - it originally meant the car was 40" from the ground. My bad on that one.

 

[Blmpkn]

Just for the sake of pedantry.. the ROOF was 40" from the ground. If the car itself was 40" from the ground it woulda been at 'the hammers' and not Lemans

 

[Fawnbuster]

Here's what I hope is a simple question, and I apologize in advance if it has been asked before and I haven't found it in the forum.
Browsing Wikipedia today after watching TFL Truck's new Youtube video comparing the F150 to the new Hurricane-powered Ram, I read up on the Ecoboost engine family on Wikipedia: Ford EcoBoost engine - Wikipedia
What I saw there was that their chart says the 2.3L is descendant from the Mazda L, while the 2.0L Twin-scroll is a clean-sheet motor. I have the 2.0L Twin-scroll in my wife's Nautilus, and aside from it being turned 90 degrees from the 2.3 in the Ranger, they look visually identical. Same valve cover, even (or so it appears - whether they're actually interchangeable I'm not going to try just to find out). There are some minor differences, like oil filter location, but that kind of thing is expected since the motor is transverse in the Lincoln and longitudinal in the Ford.
My understanding was that the main difference between the 2.0L Twin-scoll and 2.3L Twin-scroll was in the stroke, since the 2.3 uses a different crank. My understanding was that the 2.0 was derived but different from the Mazda L, but is the 2.3 still a Mazda L, or a "stroked" 2.0? I thought it was the latter.

I had a 2010 screw F150 that had the 3.5l twin ecoboost, ran like a striped ape and towed like a dream, just didn't have the mileage I needed plus the wife is more comfy driving a Ranger. By watching all of the Ford torture tests on YouTube that Mike Rowe narrated I was convinced to buy it. They pulled a random motor off the line in Cleveland and used it stock for every test then tore it down live at the Detroit auto show.

 

[JustinR]

I had a 2010 screw F150 that had the 3.5l twin ecoboost, ran like a striped ape and towed like a dream, just didn't have the mileage I needed plus the wife is more comfy driving a Ranger. By watching all of the Ford torture tests on YouTube that Mike Rowe narrated I was convinced to buy it. They pulled a random motor off the line in Cleveland and used it stock for every test then tore it down live at the Detroit auto show.

Not to deviate too far from the 2.3L thread, but I like the Cyclone family - those are solid engines.
I have to believe that the various incarnations of the 3.5L EcoBoost are a fine engine based on my experience with a 3.7L Cyclone. I replaced the water pump on our old MKX, and that has the 3.7L in it - the Cyclone 3.5 is the base motor for the Ecoboost 3.5 - and I'm very happy with that engine having seen its internals up close when I pulled it apart for the water pump.
Outside of the water pump being in a silly place in the transverse-mounted Cyclone family, everything in there looks solid. I've always run synthetic oil (either Valvoline or Mobil 1, usually Mobil 1) in it, and changed its oil pretty much only when it asked, and even at that there were no visible traces of wear of any kind anywhere. The timing chain tensioner wasn't even fully extended. The valvetrain was immaculate, like you could eat off of it. Not even a scratch on any of the buckets, or any kind of forbidden glitter to be found anywhere. It's a solid motor. I changed that water pump at 100,000 to preempt a possible failure, and based on how good everything looked, I'm confident that motor could last long enough for another water pump maintenance at 200,000.
By the way, that water pump job was a real challenge (not something you'd have to consider on an F150 or Mustang using that engine family, as the longitudinally-mounted versions of that engine have a conventional, external water pump). My local mechanic refused to do it (and he's been servicing my cars for 25 years) and I wasn't about to take it to the dealer, so I took a week off of work last summer, moved the DeLorean out of the garage and the Lincoln in, and I took my time taking apart the Lincoln's motor. I impressed myself that I could get it done, but I was also very happy with the condition of everything I found inside that motor. If that Cyclone (or its Ecoboost 3.5 cousin) were an available option on the Ranger, I wouldn't hesitate to order it (the 2.7 Ecoboost with its wet-belt-driven oil pump, not so much...).
Before the Ranger, I used that MKX a few times to tow the boat around. The boat's weight comes in somewhere just under double the MKX's max-rated towing, so I was definitely, without question overloading it. It did it. That motor has plenty of power, and for something I was really asking it to do that was too much, it did the job.
The Ranger, of course, tows the boat like there's nothing attached to it. Sometimes I'll use the MKX to move the empty trailer around, but if there's a boat on it, there's no stopping the Ranger.

Sponsored