What would you swap an Ecoboost into?

[wildosvt]

Ahh perspective.......the Chevrolet ZZ4 350 crate engine which is a staple in the street rod world produces 355 hp and a mere 405 lb./ft. of torque. That's 10 less horsepower and 15 lb/ft. less torque out of an engine which is much heavier than the 3.5 EB. BTW freer flowing intake and exhaust on the typical hot rod will wake the EB even more. I trust the fuel efficiency and emissions are far better with the Ecoboost engine as well in similar vehicles. The technology involved in the Ecoboost sytem is far more than tacking turbos to a V6. It IS a game changer. In the F150 the 3.5 EB delivers power that is on par with the competitions largest optional engines, at the same time it delivers fuel efficiency that is comparable to the smaller bread and butter V8's.

 

Shoot, Just tossing a Livernois Tune on that 3.5L and your over 400HP. It will laugh at the ZZ4 all the way to the finish line.

[Hugh]

I'd take out the D30 and 4A out of my Taurus for a EB20 and 6A S/S. Lot's or torque and better mileage. A new lease on life. For the money and time, I'll just get a new car.

[fordmantpw]

...it's not any more efficient than the other V8 options on the market...

 

Interesting, the EPA doesn't agree with you.

 

It's not only more powerful and has more torque than the 5.0, but it also gets 1 MPG better fuel economy.

 

Now, if you want to compare it to comparable engines, the 6.2L is really the best comparison in the F150, and the EB blows it away in fuel economy.

[silvrsvt]

Biggest problem the Ecoboost has going against it is that its an expensive engine!

[NickF1011]

Biggest problem the Ecoboost has going against it is that its an expensive engine!

No question. It's far beyond the grasp of a lot of shade tree mechanic types as well.

[EBFlex]

Interesting, the EPA doesn't agree with you.

 

It's not only more powerful and has more torque than the 5.0, but it also gets 1 MPG better fuel economy.

 

Now, if you want to compare it to comparable engines, the 6.2L is really the best comparison in the F150, and the EB blows it away in fuel economy.

 

Meh, I care about what I can get, not what the EPA says. We all know how real world figures can differ from what the manufactures send for the EPA to use.

[fordmantpw]

Meh, I care about what I can get, not what the EPA says. We all know how real world figures can differ from what the manufactures send for the EPA to use.

 

I agree. But, have you tried all of the engines I mentioned in identical configurations in identical conditions and compared the differences?

[Stray Kat]

Doubters should realize that a 3.5 EB swap into say a Falcon, Comet, Mustang or Maverick could have the potential to demolish the performance of even the burliest muscle cars of the 1960's. All while delivering 20mpg's and superb drive ability. Also I believe an Ecoboost would have a way better chance of fitting 'tween the shock towers of most of those aforementioned vehicle chassis.

[NickF1011]

Also I believe an Ecoboost would have a way better chance of fitting 'tween the shock towers of most of those aforementioned vehicle chassis.

Eh, most of those vehicles were designed to accomodate 90-degree V8's in the first place, so there's generally plenty of width under the hood.

[Pioneer]

I thought the 1.0EB would make a good motorcycle engine...

I wouldn't mind trying to stuff it into my Harley.

[akirby]

We all know how real world figures can differ from what the manufactures send for the EPA to use.

 

Why does everyone think that Ford just makes up their mpg figures and "sends them to the EPA to use"?

Edited July 30, 2013 by akirby

[SoonerLS]

Eh, most of those vehicles were designed to accomodate 90-degree V8's in the first place, so there's generally plenty of width under the hood.

The 90-Degree V8s (Windsors) are much more compact than the Mod Motors and the Coyote V8--overhead cams add a decent amount of width. I'm not saying it can't be done (I know of someone who stuffed a 5.0 Coyote into an '82 Mustang, after all), but I don't know that I'd go so far as saying there's "plenty of width under the hood."

 

FWIW, I looked at transplanting the 3.0SHO from my '95 SHO into my brother's '65 Mustang; IIRC, it would've fit between the shock towers, but just barely.

Edited July 30, 2013 by SoonerLS

[NickF1011]

The 90-Degree V8s (Windsors) are much more compact than the Mod Motors and the Coyote V8--overhead cams add a decent amount of width. I'm not saying it can't be done (I know of someone who stuffed a 5.0 Coyote into an '82 Mustang, after all), but I don't know that I'd go so far as saying there's "plenty of width under the hood."

 

FWIW, I looked at transplanting the 3.0SHO from my '95 SHO into my brother's '65 Mustang; IIRC, it would've fit between the shock towers, but just barely.

If a 4.6 DOHC can fit into a first gen Mustang (seen it done) then hell, just about anything will fit in there.

[Stray Kat]

I think that the 1.0 EB has, if Ford would let it, the potential to be a great multipurpose engine. If it is as really "power dense" as initial testers have claimed it would be a shame not to leverage some other business out of it. As I mentioned earlier, sand buggies,but also small 4-wheel drive farm trucks could benefit. Why couldn't it be used in the motorcycle industry? How about on the heavier tryke's with a reverse gear? That could be a neat possibility for physically challenged folks that want to ride. Don't forget boating, example; small tow boats used for waterskiing or wakeboarding etc. Could they be used in a snow machine? Why couldn't it? This little beast may be perfect for a ton of apps. Let's see if it catches on.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Stray Kat

[White99GT]

Doubters should realize that a 3.5 EB swap into say a Falcon, Comet, Mustang or Maverick could have the potential to demolish the performance of even the burliest muscle cars of the 1960's. All while delivering 20mpg's and superb drive ability. Also I believe an Ecoboost would have a way better chance of fitting 'tween the shock towers of most of those aforementioned vehicle chassis.

 

 

The 90-Degree V8s (Windsors) are much more compact than the Mod Motors and the Coyote V8--overhead cams add a decent amount of width. I'm not saying it can't be done (I know of someone who stuffed a 5.0 Coyote into an '82 Mustang, after all), but I don't know that I'd go so far as saying there's "plenty of width under the hood."

 

 

Edited July 30, 2013 by White99GT

[SoonerLS]

Deletias

And your point would be? I neither said nor implied that it couldn't be done, just that it was a tight fit. Go look at the engine bay of a '65 Mustang with a 289 or 302 in it--now that has plenty of width under the hood...

[White99GT]

And your point would be?

 

I think the real question is, what was your point?

 

If it fits, it fits.

 

The 4.6 4V measures 26-5/8" cover to cover (the ~30" measurements are exhaust manifold flange width, which can be reduced with a set of headers), I would be interested to see what a EB 35 measures turbo to turbo including cold side plumbing.

[YT90SC]

If it would fit, the 2.0 in an first gen SVT Focus. Drop the current Focus's tubby weight and bad road manners, combined with that sweet little 6 speed...

[EBFlex]

I agree. But, have you tried all of the engines I mentioned in identical configurations in identical conditions and compared the differences?

 

No, that would be irrational. What I do look at when buying a vehicle is multiple sources (forums/fueleconomy.gov/fuelly/magazines/etc) as that can be more accurate in predicting real world mileage.

Edited July 31, 2013 by EBFlex

[Edstock]

1982-1985 Ford EXP/Mercury LN7 Series I

 

 

Forgotten.

 

With today's brakes and transmission and suspension, a 2.0 EB would be really quick.

 

 

[EBFlex]

FWIW, I looked at transplanting the 3.0SHO from my '95 SHO into my brother's '65 Mustang; IIRC, it would've fit between the shock towers, but just barely.

That 3.0/3.2 Yamaha was one of the greatest modern engines of our time. Sounded amazing, looked absolutely fantastic, was very reliable, etc.

 

I would love to have the intake manifold of that engine on my wall. It truly is a work of art. It's a shame that the new "SHO" couldn't have featured an equally nice looking engine.

[RichardJensen]

No, that would be irrational. What I do look at when buying a vehicle is multiple sources (forums/fueleconomy.gov/fuelly/magazines/etc) as that can be more accurate in predicting real world mileage.

 

It would be irrational to subject vehicles to identical tests in order to gauge their comparative fuel economy?

[Hugh]

Thanks Edstock for the inspiration. How could I have forgotten a car I really wanted when it came out. The 1993 - 1997 Probe GT.

[fordmantpw]

No, that would be irrational. What I do look at when buying a vehicle is multiple sources (forums/fueleconomy.gov/fuelly/magazines/etc) as that can be more accurate in predicting real world mileage.

 

How can that predict YOUR real world economy in comparison to other models better than the EPA tests using those means?

 

EPA tests do a MUCH better job of comparing vehicle A to B to C than any type of forum/fuelly/magazine site out there. Do the EPA tests predict real world results? Not necessarily, but you can't get a better repeatable test for comparing different models than anywhere else.

 

Tell me how the fuelly rating for my 2008 Super Duty (which sits at 13.2, BTW) will help you gauge real world mileage more accurately than you actually driving one? You have no idea how I drive, what I tow, how much city/highway driving I do, etc. Sure, you can look at all of those numbers and get an aggregate, but it tells you nothing if you don't know the circumstances.

 

Odds are, heavy duty pickup trucks with diesels spend more time towing than 6.2L-equipped F150s. So, if the fuelly rating for the 6.2L is, say, 2 MPG higher than the Super Duty, does that represent what your mileage would be? If those two trucks are driven identically, especially towing, I'm betting the diesel trucks are going to get better fuel economy than the 6.2L. But if the 6.2L spends 80% of the time unloaded, and the diesel spends 80% of the time loaded, what's fuelly going to say about it?

 

Bottom line is, if you want comparisons for real world driving, either take the EPA ratings, or devise your own test. I guarantee you that your tests won't be as repeatable as the EPA's.

[buddysystem]

Thanks Edstock for the inspiration. How could I have forgotten a car I really wanted when it came out. The 1993 - 1997 Probe GT.

Same here. I had a whiie 1989 Ford Probe GT with the Mazda turbo engine (lots of torque steer) that would make a nice 4 or 6 cyl Ecoboost transplant candidate.