192 Horsepower 2.9L

[Uncle Gump]

All good rusty... just poking fun at you man.

Back on topic... I believe @PetroleumJunkie412 posted that picture awhile back. There is probably some un-tapped potential left in that Cosworth. I would really like to see him get his hands on one and have at it.

 

[Dirtman]

Call me when theres a 760hp version of the Godzilla...

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Now now fellas, don't have to get all upset just because Jim has seen the light.



The Brian Hart designed 2.9 Cosworth is still contender for best V6 ever built, and is reigning champ for under 3 liters of displacement. They were initially designed to be a formula engine, and were adopted by Cosworth and Ford as a contender for WRC Group A and B engines, losing out to the slightly lighter 2.3 Cosworth.

Naturally aspirated with a few modifications puts them at 300hp at the rear wheels.

Twin turbo kit and adequate boost control and intercooling leaves it at around 400-500 at the rear wheels.

Top Boss Performance in the UK are currently finishing testing on their 800rwhp 2.9 Cosworth crate engine.

STORM - Top Boss Performance

Keep in mind, this is the same Ranger block, just different heads.

The reason they have a bad rap here is the stoopid exhaust manifolds, crappy American heads, and crappy American intakes.

I follow these guys. They're currently running 535hp at the rear wheels. Yes, on a 12 valve 2.9. Not a cosworth. Regular old ranger engine, with the same intake, exhaust, and ecm combo I'm running.

I'm not going to get into the 4.0 vs. 2.9 debate; I do think it's a shame, though, to see these engines to frequently passed over as performance candidates.

 

[Dirtman]

3.5 v6 ecoboost mops the floor with that thing...

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

3.5 v6 ecoboost mops the floor with that thing...

Lol, i wont engage in "vs" on this one, sorry if disappoint.

 

[Dirtman]

Lol, i wont engage in "vs" on this one, sorry if disappoint.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

800 hp at the wheels?

On a stock block?

Its gotta be reinforced aint it? I love the 2.9 but even it has limits.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

800 hp at the wheels?

On a stock block?

Its gotta be reinforced aint it? I love the 2.9 but even it has limits.

It's what they claim... No idea. Still trying to decide if I'm carrying on with the 12 valve, or importing a 24v

 

[rusty ol ranger]

It's what they claim... No idea. Still trying to decide if I'm carrying on with the 12 valve, or importing a 24v

Sell me the 12v lol

 

[don4331]

Not slamming the 2.9, just setting record straight:

Yea but to be fair to this "thing" it makes the power about 1,000 rpm lower than the 4.0, quite a bit more torque, and is about 100 pounds lighter.

Jim's quote from Wiki has issues:

Torque in ft.lb. * rpm/5252 = horsepower 275 ft.lbs torque@4,500rpm = 235 hp; why would they quote a value, 207hp, 30hp lower than max. Also 1 ft.lb. = 1.3558 N*m.

Given we know the 2.9 Cosworth BOB was an improvement on the BOA - 2 simplex cam drives vs the 2.2m single chain, but rest was same (same heads, same CR, etc). And we know the BOB had 207 ft. lb.@ 4,200/207 hp@6,000. So, if we deduce a couple ft,lb, for the BOA - 203 ft.lb. = 275 N*m.

So, the 2.9 Cosworth is making its power 1k rpm higher - both torque and power - than the 4.0 SoHC, and 2k rpm higher than the 4.0 OHV.

And I have issues with 2.9 Cosworth being 100 lbs light than 4.0. 4.0 only weighs ~380lbs, the 2.9 OHV weighs ~320lb. While the switch from Fe to Al for the heads will have saved a couple lbs, the 4V heads have a lot more material, 4 cams and a fancy cam drive on the std 2.9 short block isn't going to save a lot. It might act weigh more - the infamous 427 SOHC weighed more than than the 427 side oiler it was based on. The 3.0 SHO was heavier than its 3.slow sister, too.

Note: The 3.0 Mondeo (Duratech) makes same power (stock) as aforementioned engines (207 ft.lbs.@4,800/205 hp@5,900) while being civilized about it. and with its Al block, is 100 lbs lighter than the 4.0.

 

[8thTon]

Note: The 3.0 Mondeo (Duratech) makes same power (stock) as aforementioned engines (207 ft.lbs.@4,800/205 hp@5,900) while being civilized about it. and with its Al block, is 100 lbs lighter than the 4.0.

Yeah, the Duratec V6's were superb engines, the 2.5L I drove for a couple of years was wonderful.

I like all these neat older engines, from complex to simple, but to me they've all been obsoleted by the newer engine technologies. Small 4cyl turbo engines can produce similar peak power and much higher low end power, while getting much better mileage. My daily driver went from a 2.5L Duratec V6 with 170hp @6,250rpm and 165lb⋅ft of torque @4250rpm, to a 1.4L 4cyl turbo with 160bhp @ 5,500rpm and 170lb.-ft. @ 2,500-4,000rpm. Granted it's in a lighter car, but that broad band of peak torque at the bottom end just makes the engine so much easier to live with, plus I get about 50% better mileage.

In between those two engines I spent a year driving the 3.0 Ranger automatic, which in my 2004 Edge is similar in power and weight to the Cougar I had been driving (154hp @ 5200rpm and 180lb.-ft @ 3900rpm) - but the mileage is abysmal. Some of that is due the aerodynamics and some to the 4.10 rear, but much is simply the fixed 2-valve engine design.

 

[don4331]

That broad band of peak torque at the bottom end just makes the engine so much easier to live with, plus I get about 50% better mileage.
Some of that is due the aerodynamics and some to the 4.10 rear, but much is simply the fixed 2-valve engine design.

Let's give credit where credit is due: the increase in fuel economy is due to direct injection, which is why the Godzilla engine for the Super Duty's is a fixed 2 valve design. Then combine it with 10 speed auto and it will be easy to live with.

 

[8thTon]

Let's give credit where credit is due: the increase in fuel economy is due to direct injection, which is why the Godzilla engine for the Super Duty's is a fixed 2 valve design. Then combine it with 10 speed auto and it will be easy to live with.

Direct injection is certainly one of the pieces, and it works especially well with a turbo as it helps to cool the charge via evaporation. Variable valve timing and small turbos are other parts.

The engine I'm driving now does not have direct injection, but it has essentially a computer-controlled infinitely variable intake camshaft. Newer versions have both. The small turbos really fatten up the power band. Lots of cool stuff being done that basically increase the rpm range at which the engine can efficiently produce power.