ecoboost?

[DFracing]

Mustang not Stanford

 

[Hahnsb2]

You can accomplish the same thing with a turbo V8 with less wiring hassle.

 

[triumphrider-1]

Indeed, but the 3.5L weighs a bit less than a V8.

 

[stmitch]

You could accomplish the same thing from a turbo 4 too. And be lighter than the ecoboost.

 

[triumphrider-1]

Yeah, probably. But I do like the torque curve of the eco.

 

[captaingeek]

well there's the 4cyl ecoboost that is very very common. the 6cyl from the f150's or the explorer sport would be pretty bad ass too!

 

[kryptonitecb]

Yeah, probably. But I do like the torque curve of the eco.

Anything can be accomplished with $$

Sent from the road while ignoring traffic

 

[Hahnsb2]

You could accomplish the same thing from a turbo 4 too. And be lighter than the ecoboost.

I was referring to the torque curve. I'm not sure you can do it with a 4 cyl.

 

[adsm08]

You could accomplish the same thing from a turbo 4 too. And be lighter than the ecoboost.

Oh yeah, because the standard issue SVO 2.3L engine can even pretend to hold one of those fake electric/paper candles to a parallel twin turbo V6.

Yeah, probably. But I do like the torque curve of the eco.

Me too.

 

[stmitch]

A 2.3 or 2.5 turbo can easily do over 300hp, is much lighter than a v8 or the ecoboost, would likely get better fuel economy than either option, and requires much less work or money to install. It's been done in several rangers, so you wouldn't have to be the guinea pig either.
I'm not saying the ecoboost v6 wouldnt' be a cool swap, just that you can get 90% of the power/ torque, in a less expensive, more proven platform that fits easily into a Ranger. Just depends on what the builder's priorities are.

 

[Sultan]

stmitch

Do you have a link or info in this swap?

A 2.3 or 2.5 turbo can easily do over 300hp,

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

A 2.3 or 2.5 turbo can easily do over 300hp, is much lighter than a v8 or the ecoboost, would likely get better fuel economy than either option, and requires much less work or money to install. It's been done in several rangers, so you wouldn't have to be the guinea pig either.
I'm not saying the ecoboost v6 wouldnt' be a cool swap, just that you can get 90% of the power/ torque, in a less expensive, more proven platform that fits easily into a Ranger. Just depends on what the builder's priorities are.

It won't have the power curve or the durability of the factory V6 setup though.

They get over 20mpg in a 5500lb fullsize, I think 30mpg would be pretty doable in a Ranger.

 

[stmitch]

stmitch

Do you have a link or info in this swap?

A 2.3 or 2.5 turbo can easily do over 300hp,

Look around here: http://www.turborangerforums.com/
Search youtube for jesshwarren and his truck
Watch this 2.3T dyno at 479lb-ft and 585hp with a stock bottom end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=Fv1-omYCb9c

It won't have the power curve or the durability of the factory V6 setup though.

They get over 20mpg in a 5500lb fullsize, I think 30mpg would be pretty doable in a Ranger.

Possibly. But the ecoboost would be much more work, would cost more money, and would require you to be a guinea pig. For my money, I'd go with the cheaper, easier, more proven option.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Possibly. But the ecoboost would be much more work, would cost more money, and would require you to be a guinea pig. For my money, I'd go with the cheaper, easier, more proven option.

Every swap is a guinea pig experiance, you are mixing and matching things that are not meant to be together.

For my money I went with the cheap, easy and proven option.

The 2.3/2.5 weigh nearly same as a dressed all cast iron 302... hardly impressive for its displacement. The all aluminum V6 Eco would be significantly lighter.

For expense it depends on how much of your 10-30+ year old turbo engine you trust to pump out that 400+ hp and how long you expect to do it at 7k+ rpm per your link and accept you will never match the powerband of the Eco with an antiquated four cylinder sporting a fixed turbo. I am not thinking a little 2wd sport truck but an alternative to the 4.0 for a 4x4.

The EB has been common enough in the '150s that Ford has been struggling to make them fast enough... it won't take long for wrecked trucks to begin to flood the market.

 

[stmitch]

I've already stated that I think the Ecoboost would be a really cool swap, but the OP asked if "things will bolt up?" Everything at this point about fitment, fuel economy in a ranger, how much cutting, wiring, or fabbing is required to fit in a ranger is all speculation. The cost of the drivetrain that you find at some point in the future is speculation as well. The fact is, we don't know.

What we do know, is a 5.0 swap, or 2.3T swap is about as close to bolt in as engine swaps get in a Ranger. There is plenty of info about each swap on this forum and many others. Each swap is capable of generating numbers similar to, or in some cases better than the ecoboost. And when the OP encounters a problem with his swap, he will actually have places like TRS where he can come for help, instead of people just guessing.

Again, I'd like to see the EB swap attempted, but I think we can all agree that being the guinea pig for a completely unproven swap would require skills, knowledge, and preferably experience. When the OP asks if "things will bolt up", it makes me think that throwing them into something as complex as an Ecoboost swap on their own is probably not wise. You have to crawl before you can walk.

Just for my own curiosity, anybody know how much an Ecoboost v6 weighs? What about that giant RWD trans?