Jump to content

Revised 2023 2.3 Liter EcoBoost


Recommended Posts

I noticed that the Australian information on the 2023 Mustang talks about a revised 2.3 ecoboost I4 with a revised bore and stroke!

Does anyone know if this will affect all 2.3 liters utilized in other vehicles, like the 2023 Explorer?

I assume probably smaller bore with longer stroke?

85 mm bore and 101 mm stroke?

Will the 2.0 liter also get revised at the same time?

I assume this is being done to make design more robust for higher turbo boost and more power and torque?

rdselford

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford Mustang specs indicate “all new” engine is 84 mm bore and 102 mm stroke.  This appears to be a stroked variation of the common 84 mm bore and 90 mm stroke used by a few manufacturers that results in 500 cc per cylinder.  Apparently this displacement that yields 2-liter 4-cylinder and 3-liter 6-cylinder engines results in good fuel economy.

 

I expect bore spacing may be tighter at 90 mm like on competition, which makes for a shorter engine.  The 90 mm bore spacing may also support 3-liter (or higher) inline sixes.  If Ford were to build an in-line 6 with Mustang 84 mm bore and 102 mm stroke, it would be 3.4 liters.  I would personally love to see such an inline-6 engine.

 

 

5FFADE36-3311-4D82-82A5-E1F7F4B5CEC8.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whay aren't the new turbo I4s getting both port and direct injection to help keep the valves clean?  The 2.7L and 3.5L V6s both got it in the past few years so why aren't they adding it to the smaller motors too?  Or is that issue so small now it's not really worth addressing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, baggs32 said:

So whay aren't the new turbo I4s getting both port and direct injection to help keep the valves clean?  The 2.7L and 3.5L V6s both got it in the past few years so why aren't they adding it to the smaller motors too?  Or is that issue so small now it's not really worth addressing? 


1. Cost

2. Cost

3. Cost

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, baggs32 said:

So whay aren't the new turbo I4s getting both port and direct injection to help keep the valves clean?  The 2.7L and 3.5L V6s both got it in the past few years so why aren't they adding it to the smaller motors too?  Or is that issue so small now it's not really worth addressing? 

The dual injection is all about controlling the combustion process to keep emissions within the required limits. One of those is particulate emissions caused by DI which normally occur at cold engine start up so you could imagine that smaller engines at cold idle would produce less. Ford has obviously made a decision not to change DI to include port injection because they see it as unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Ford Mustang specs indicate “all new” engine is 84 mm bore and 102 mm stroke.  This appears to be a stroked variation of the common 84 mm bore and 90 mm stroke used by a few manufacturers that results in 500 cc per cylinder.  Apparently this displacement that yields 2-liter 4-cylinder and 3-liter 6-cylinder engines results in good fuel economy.

 

I expect bore spacing may be tighter at 90 mm like on competition, which makes for a shorter engine.  The 90 mm bore spacing may also support 3-liter (or higher) inline sixes.  If Ford were to build an in-line 6 with Mustang 84 mm bore and 102 mm stroke, it would be 3.4 liters.  I would personally love to see such an inline-6 engine.

 

 

5FFADE36-3311-4D82-82A5-E1F7F4B5CEC8.jpeg


Thinking about all the cuts to budgets associated with the Ford blue side of the business, I think the change in Bore/stroke change is more about simplification of say, casting supply and reduction in different parts count. Ford can dress this as better for emissions and fuel efficiency but I think most who know Ford’s processes will see this as cost reduction driven.

 

While an I-6 based off the I-4s is possible, the current 2.7, 3.3, 3.5 V6 already exist and fill the required roles. Ram going to an I-6 turbo would no doubt support a possible case, especially now that Ford no longer sells a transverse V6 FWD/AWD vehicle (reason for V6s in the first instance)

(building I-6s would allow Ford Blue to close down V6 plants, I don’t know if Ford is at that point)

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:


Thinking about all the cuts to budgets associated with the Ford blue side of the business, I think the change in Bore/stroke change is more about simplification of say, casting supply and reduction in different parts count. Ford can dress this as better for emissions and fuel efficiency but I think most who know Ford’s processes will see this as cost reduction driven.

 

While an I-6 based off the I-4s is possible, the current 2.7, 3.3, 3.5 V6 already exist and fill the required roles. Ram going to an I-6 turbo would no doubt support a possible case, especially now that Ford no longer sells a transverse V6 FWD/AWD vehicle (reason for V6s in the first instance)

(building I-6s would allow Ford Blue to close down V6 plants, I don’t know if Ford is at that point)

 

It is possible a lower-cost engine can also be more efficient, so replacement of V6s with a future inline-6 could accomplish multiple goals.  About a year ago Motor Trend reported Ford was researching an advanced F-150 I-6 engine technology; which may or may not work out, but that it was an inline six was quite interesting.

 

A straight six should cost less to manufacture than a similar V6, and if built with Dragon 84 mm bore X 90 mm stroke, or even better Mustang 84 mm bore X 102 mm stroke, could also make a more-efficient Atkinson-cycle engine for hybrids.  I expect this family of engines could grow to multiple applications from 2L fours to 3.4L sixes in naturally aspirated, Atkinson for hybrid, and EcoBoost.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

It is possible a lower-cost engine can also be more efficient, so replacement of V6s with a future inline-6 could accomplish multiple goals.  About a year ago Motor Trend reported Ford was researching an advanced F-150 I-6 engine technology; which may or may not work out, but that it was an inline six was quite interesting.

While that research used an I-6, the point was using pre-chamber combustion for up to 23% improvement in fuel economy

which in theory could be applied to several existing engine designs in the future. Which may be why Ford didn’t bother 

with dual injection on the I-4 EBs. This from 18 months ago:

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/40036/the-next-ford-f-150-may-use-a-twin-turbo-inline-six-with-f1-inspired-pre-chamber-ignition

 

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

A straight six should cost less to manufacture than a similar V6, and if built with Dragon 84 mm bore X 90 mm stroke, or even better Mustang 84 mm bore X 102 mm stroke, could also make a more-efficient Atkinson-cycle engine for hybrids.  I expect this family of engines could grow to multiple applications from 2L fours to 3.4L sixes in naturally aspirated, Atkinson for hybrid, and EcoBoost.  

Let’s see what in the next UAW agreement, that should give us a good guide of what’s actually planned in the next 3 years with regards to plans for engine plants and closures..I’m thinking that Ford might simply adapts cylinder head technology to existing engines…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Let’s see what in the next UAW agreement, that should give us a good guide of what’s actually planned in the next 3 years with regards to plans for engine plants and closures..I’m thinking that Ford might simply adapts cylinder head technology to existing engines…

 

In case of 2.3L Mustang engine, it appears Ford did more than adapt a new cylinder head on modified old block.  I don’t know where these engines are built, but the new Mustang 2.3L looks like a new block also, and likely using tighter bore spacing.  I would guess 90 mm which would have not been possible with previous 2.3L-engine bore dimension.

 

The trend towards much greater stroke-to-bore ratio engines, particularly for Atkinson hybrid applications, makes it seem Ford must have additional plans for the new 2.3L.  The 1.21 ratio is in range of the reported ideal 1.2 .  While the Mustang EcoBoost engine is clearly meant for power, I expect fuel economy will play a greater role in naturally-aspirated hybrid applications similar to Maverick.

 

Regarding in-line sixes, a 3.4L naturally aspirated variant could replace the F-150’s 3.3L V6 base engine even if pre chamber technology is not used.   Other than longer length, a straight six makes a great engine compared to V6.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

In case of 2.3L Mustang engine, it appears Ford did more than adapt a new cylinder head on modified old block.  I don’t know where these engines are built, but the new Mustang 2.3L looks like a new block also, and likely using tighter bore spacing.  I would guess 90 mm which would have not been possible with previous 2.3L-engine bore dimension.

 

Understand that the original 2.0 and 2.3/2.5 were codeveloped with Mazda way back before Ecoboost became a thing, the engines were progressively evolved to take more advantage of combustion efficiency for Atkinson and Miller as in part throttle Ecoboost. At some point, it was an expectation that Ford would try to merge the designs to increase parts commonality for suppliers and engine assembly processes, also standardisation of engine bay layout. Not saying that all of that has been achieved but there’s major cost savings in doing so…it also gives them opportunity to cure mistakes/flaws in designs that are causing cracking in the block cylinder casing areas….

 

 

Quote

The trend towards much greater stroke-to-bore ratio engines, particularly for Atkinson hybrid applications, makes it seem Ford must have additional plans for the new 2.3L.  The 1.21 ratio is in range of the reported ideal 1.2 .  While the Mustang EcoBoost engine is clearly meant for power, I expect fuel economy will play a greater role in naturally-aspirated hybrid applications similar to Maverick.

 

Regarding in-line sixes, a 3.4L naturally aspirated variant could replace the F-150’s 3.3L V6 base engine even if pre chamber technology is not used.   Other than longer length, a straight six makes a great engine compared to V6.  

You do realise that there’s a 2.3 EB hybrid developed but now cancelled in Mustang, maybe shows up in Bronco/Ranger….maybe Explorer too.

 

The 3.3 V6 also used as a hybrid in the Explorer, the V6s are needed in CD6 because the shorter hood

was never designed to accept an I-6. Change one thing and it affects lots of other things.

 

An I-6 engine only works if the volume is justified and that would necessitate a turbo version that replaces 

many of the existing V6s. If it means closing other engine plants, then that will require consultation with UAW.

 

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

You do realise that there’s a 2.3 EB hybrid developed but now cancelled in Mustang, maybe shows up in Bronco/Ranger….maybe Explorer too.

 

The Explorer getting a 2.3L Hybrid would be a huge improvement and cost savings over the 3.3L HEV it currently has. The only downside is I'm assuming the Police Interceptor has that engine as an option to keep complexity down for maintenance reasons. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The Explorer getting a 2.3L Hybrid would be a huge improvement and cost savings over the 3.3L HEV it currently has. The only downside is I'm assuming the Police Interceptor has that engine as an option to keep complexity down for maintenance reasons. 

As I understand it, the 3.3 is basically the old 3.0 V6 Duratec that has been slowly evolved, enlarged, given the Cyclone’s direct acting cam buckets instead of the old indirect roller followers…..I think it has served its time and should go, the 3.5 as a hybrid engine would suffice or even the new 2.3 EB with a Powerboost  motor would best it easily in F150, Expedition, Explorer, Bronco and Ranger…lots of applications possible even if not for Mustang at the moment…..

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

As I understand it, the 3.3 is basically the old 3.0 V6 Duratec that has been slowly evolved, enlarged, given the Cyclone’s direct acting cam buckets instead of the old indirect roller followers…..I think it has served its time and should go, the 3.5 as a hybrid engine would suffice or even the new 2.3 EB with a Powerboost  motor would best it easily in F150, Expedition, Explorer, Bronco and Ranger…lots of applications possible even if not for Mustang at the moment…..


It’s a downsized 3.5L.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, akirby said:


It’s a downsized 3.5L.

Yes, my mistake as the 3.0 V6 Duratec that I was thinking of ended years before in 2012, 

Cyclone produced in three different bore sizes for 3.3, 3,5 and 3.7 (no longer in vehicles).

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ANTAUS said:

Speaking of, seen Mazda's new 3.3 I-6 Turbo just released some days ago with 280HP.  Honestly, they shouldn't have bothered. It has 3.3L V6 power.  I had to read the article a few times, thought the "turbo" was a misprint.

Sadly, Mazda forged ahead with its I-6 believing an exclusive niche existed for I-6 engines that just didn’t eventuate. The pace of hybrid and full electrification has over run many previous “good ideas”.

 

Who could have imagined ten years ago that the vehicle landscape would change so much….

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ice-capades changed the title to Revised 2023 2.3 Liter EcoBoost
15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Sadly, Mazda forged ahead with its I-6 believing an exclusive niche existed for I-6 engines that just didn’t eventuate. The pace of hybrid and full electrification has over run many previous “good ideas”.

 

Who could have imagined ten years ago that the vehicle landscape would change so much….

 

 

What is the largest displacement Atkinson-cycle engine Ford has for hybrid applications?  Is it the 2.5L I4?

 

The most efficient gasoline-fueled vehicles seem to be hybrids powered by relatively small naturally aspirated Atkinson-cycle engines, many exceeding 50 MPG.  While there is no doubt a market for 500 HP twin-turbo sixes, is there also a market for larger vehicles with NA Atkinson sixes?  Longer term could Ford be looking at hybrid Expeditions, pickup trucks and vans with newer NA fuel-efficient engines?  If so, wouldn’t displacement need to be much higher than 2.5L?  A six-cylinder Atkinson version of the new Mustang  2.3L would be about the right displacement (3.4L) for vehicles larger than a Maverick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, j2sys said:

 

Right.  Used to be 2.5L, then they downsized it to 2.0L.  With 2020 Escape, it's back to 2.5L.

Correct, the previous 2.0 hybrid set up was found to be insufficient capacity to perform as expected by customers.

 

Ford also uses the 3.3 V6 in a hybrid role in Explorer and PI applications, it is possible that the VCT allows this engine to function in Atkinson cycle under certain circumstances….

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

 

What is the largest displacement Atkinson-cycle engine Ford has for hybrid applications?  Is it the 2.5L I4?

 

The most efficient gasoline-fueled vehicles seem to be hybrids powered by relatively small naturally aspirated Atkinson-cycle engines, many exceeding 50 MPG.  While there is no doubt a market for 500 HP twin-turbo sixes, is there also a market for larger vehicles with NA Atkinson sixes?  Longer term could Ford be looking at hybrid Expeditions, pickup trucks and vans with newer NA fuel-efficient engines?  If so, wouldn’t displacement need to be much higher than 2.5L?  A six-cylinder Atkinson version of the new Mustang  2.3L would be about the right displacement (3.4L) for vehicles larger than a Maverick.

For hybrids to function effectively in larger vehicles, they need more capacity, the 3.3 V6 hybrid in the Explorer is an example of this but  as a main seller, I think vehicles like F150 and Expedition would benefit more from options like Powerboost where linked to hybrid and Ecoboost technology.

 

Superior economy is relevant to driving conditions, vehicle weight and frontal area, most vehicles the size and weight of F150 and Expedition are pretty much anchored to sub 30 mpg even with aggressive hybriding which is of more advantage in variable speed situations where regenerative braking improved the city cycle more than the highway cycle.

 

It’s interesting to speculate about future use of an I-6 in full sized vehicles but until we get any feedback from things like UAW negotiations, the thought of Ford developing another six cylinder should be offset against its usability and whether discarding all of the current V6s is worth the effort (for now).
 

I’m sure at some future point, Ford will want to scale down the number of engines going into F150 as a way of simplifying build complexity and eliminating a  V6 engine plant or two. Since the V6s are still required in Expedition, Bronco and Ranger, I think they stay for now…..

 

an I-6 may ultimately replace the cyclones but again, that’s depends on Ford.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Correct, the previous 2.0 hybrid set up was found to be insufficient capacity to perform as expected by customers.

 

Ford also uses the 3.3 V6 in a hybrid role in Explorer and PI applications, it is possible that the VCT allows this engine

to function in Atkinson cycle under certain circumstances….

 

Fusion 2010-2012 was 2.5L at 191 HP.  2013-2020 was 2.0L at 188 HP.

 

2020+ Escape is 2.5L at 200 HP, but 2022+ Maverick is 2.5L at the original 191 HP, interestingly.  Mind you, the eCVT, motors, and batteries have seen a lot of change along the way.

 

Officially, the Explorer and F-150 hybrids aren't Atkinson-cycle engines, but you may be onto something there.  Those platforms don't use an eCVT but rather a 10-speed mated to the MHT setup.

 

The impression that gives me is that Escape (as well as C-Max and Fusion before) is geared more toward efficiency (and perhaps durability?) whereas the others are better tuned for performance.  Not that 200HP in an Escape is terribly weak.  That's a Prius that still only has 121 HP.  :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2022 at 3:19 PM, j2sys said:

 

Fusion 2010-2012 was 2.5L at 191 HP.  2013-2020 was 2.0L at 188 HP.

 

2020+ Escape is 2.5L at 200 HP, but 2022+ Maverick is 2.5L at the original 191 HP, interestingly.  Mind you, the eCVT, motors, and batteries have seen a lot of change along the way.

 

Officially, the Explorer and F-150 hybrids aren't Atkinson-cycle engines, but you may be onto something there.  Those platforms don't use an eCVT but rather a 10-speed mated to the MHT setup.

 

The impression that gives me is that Escape (as well as C-Max and Fusion before) is geared more toward efficiency (and perhaps durability?) whereas the others are better tuned for performance.  Not that 200HP in an Escape is terribly weak.  That's a Prius that still only has 121 HP.  :)

 

 

Escape serves as a great example of efficiency versus performance.  The 2.5L Atkinson hybrid Escape with 200 total HP beats the 1.5L 3-cylinder EcoBoost Escape with 181 HP in city MPG by over 50% (44 vs 28); probably due in large part  to the 96 kW electric motor.  By comparison, the F-150 PowerBoost transmission’s electric motor is listed as providing only 33 kW, which is a small fraction of total power and partly explains why the hybrid F-150 does not gain as much in city MPG.

 

Since Mustang is close to or better than Escape or Maverick in weight and aerodynamics, an efficient hybrid could roughly double fuel economy from present 21 MPG City (for 2.3L EB) to over 40 MPG city.  It would likely require a more powerful electric motor for 10-speed transmission, but that should be possible if not accomplished already (saw reference to a 75 kW integrated motor somewhere but don’t recall details).  The question is whether there would be too little demand for an efficiency-biased 40+ MPG Mustang with +/- 200 HP, or whether Ford doesn’t want it indirectly competing with Mach-E?

 

Undoubtedly performance expectations have changed over decades, but it’s worth mentioning that many original Mustangs had 200 cubic inch engines rated 120 HP (gross) which made them well under 100 HP by present standards.  Even in 1967 when 390 cubic inch was introduced, the most popular engine choice remained the 289.  By modern ratings, 289 were well under 200 HP.  Also worth noting that even the base sixes with less than 100 HP could cruise all day at 80 MPH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...