• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

Engineers: Old vs new engine tech

bobbywalter

TRS Technical Staff
V8 Engine Swap
TRS Technical Advisor
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
22,145
Reaction score
2,664
Points
113
Location
woodhaven mi
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
FORD mostly
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
BIGGER
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
sawzall?
Tire Size
33-44
My credo
it is easier to fix and understand than "her"
Can we add fancier words like Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)?

@Chapap: Not sure if you got your question answered, so the below is slightly generalized but you get the trend:

The 1.5L engine in your Honda makes 192hp@5,500/190 ftlb@5,000 with 10.3:1 compression/20.2 psi boost! To do so, it needs direct fuel injection and turbocharger.
Direct fuel injection allows for the high compression/significant boost - There is no gas in the cylinder until the injectors cycle, so no chance of premature combustion (detonation).​
If you pull off the turbocharger, the naturally aspirated version of 1.5 Honda makes 130hp@6,600/114ft-lb@4,600. So, you can see the massive difference (62hp/76ftlb or 47%/67% respectively) that adding boost contributes. But you still need direct injection to allow the 11.5:1 compression and 4 valves/cylinder to allow the 6,600 rpm power peak.

The next step back is the Duratec 1.6 which makes 99hp@6,000/107ft-lb@4,000. Still 4 valves/cylinder, but you can see the loss in power because port fuel injection isn't as precise as direct, as a result the Duratec only had 11.0:1 compression. The Honda also revs 10% higher = 10% more power. To take advantage of the higher revs, the Honda engine would need lower gears 4.56:1, not 4.10:1 and then it needs a double overdrive 6th gear to slow it down at highway speeds.

But 107ft-lb torque isn't enough for Ranger, so Ford installed the 2.3 Duratec. Which being 42% bigger makes 44% more torque (154ft-lbs) - enough for Ranger.

Going all the way back to Lima, by only having 2 valves/cylinder, reduces volumetric efficiency, reducing both peak torque and power numbers. But there is another significant difference - the Honda and Duratecs are aluminum engines - they cost more, but aluminum transfers heat better. So, you can run higher compression numbers. And the higher compression, the more torque (there are diminishing returns, and material limits).

HotRod did a test a number of years back now, where they took 2 Chevrolet engines of equal displacement: one with largest bore and short stroke, one with smallest bore and long stroke. Heads and cam were the same, mid pack ones for more engines. And the resulting torque numbers were within instrument error on the dynamometer they were using. And power is just torque * rpm/5252.

So, we could make an aluminium 4 valve/cyl. head with direction injection for the Lima, add variable cam timing and a turbo. We'd get about 270hp@5,500/310fl-lb@3,000. (Ecoboost Ranger numbers). There is still the disadvantage of the cast iron block (weight) compared to Duratec/Ecoboost/Honda.

With the fancy head/turbo and associated programming your Lima engined Ranger with a 7 speed manual pinched from @85_Ranger4x4 's Bronco would get fuel economy numbers similar to @sgtsandman's new Ranger - better than your old, but not Accord numbers. The issue is you now have a 270hp engine in place of a 100hp one. And you really need to swap the Lima for a smaller engine to get better economy.

And as noted, you need to changed from rear wheel drive to front wheel drive to increase efficiency/lose weight. Then you need to clean up the aerodynamics of the brick you are pushing down the road.


Direct injection. That is the answer
 


Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: BD8D9A3814E19D Expires July 5th, 2022

rusty ol ranger

2.9L Mafia-Don
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
8,832
Reaction score
3,532
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
if only it was as simple as changing a manifold to add a turbo to my 2.3 Id do it, Im not sure what would fail first, esp since the bottom end of mine is over 150K miles.
I didnt realize the 2.3T was that stout.
 

don4331

Well-Known Member
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
621
Points
113
Location
Calgary, AB
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.3
Transmission
Automatic
Just for fun i looked up thunderbird supercoupe 2.3L lima turbo numbers...

190hp and 240ftlbs.

That beats your honda :)
My buddies 85½ Mustang SVO had 205hp/248ft-lbs; bottom end is fairly stout, especially if you girdle the main caps.

Lima beats the Honda only because they have 50% more displacement. :( Well, beats it because the power is in more useful range.
 

scotts90ranger

Well-Known Member
RBV's on Boost
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
1,518
Points
113
Location
Dayton Oregon
Vehicle Year
1990, 1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3 Turbo
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
6
Tire Size
35"
The turbo 2.3L's were the exact same as a regular 2.3L except for the 8:1 forged pistons, the stock bottom end is supposedly good for over 300hp before it becomes unreliable... the only difference in the block is the oil drainback port on the passenger side above the oil pan rail...

Yes, they pull hard, mine is a mixmatch of parts, 4 plug head, DIS ignition, Ranger accessories and the rest thunderchicken other than the stock Ranger harness repinned as necessary for the turbo computer... one of these days I wanna go dual plug head... I think I still have enough parts to build another engine...
 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
8,331
Reaction score
6,029
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift
Tire Size
31X10.5R15
One thing to keep in mind with the smaller turbo charged engines being used to replace the larger naturally aspirated engines. Engine braking isn't as good. If that is important to you. It's a smaller engine with less pistons and therefore displacement. The engine braking on my 2019 as compared to my 2011 is anemic. It's still there but using the engine to slow down when approaching something you want to slow down for but not brake, like approaching a slower moving semi, or holding speed on a down hill without downshifting the 2.3 Ecoboost is disappointing. It does better is you have the cruise control set to a speed but it's using downshifting of the transmission to do it. So, like I said, something to keep in mind if engine braking is important to you.
 

scotts90ranger

Well-Known Member
RBV's on Boost
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
1,518
Points
113
Location
Dayton Oregon
Vehicle Year
1990, 1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3 Turbo
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
6
Tire Size
35"
Yeah, good point, and lifespan... more cylinder pressure (more power/torque) pushes the piston rings out harder against the cylinder walls causing more wear to the cylinder walls or rings meaning the time to overhaul vs a modest power output larger engine is going to be shorter... there's a threshold in there where it isn't much different but after you get past about 14psi boost things are worse...

The bottom end on my turbo 2.3L is pretty horrendous in some situations, it doesn't tractor very well, some wheeling situations I wish I had done a 4.0L swap instead of a turbo 2.3L swap, others I like having what I have... If the BW 1354 was able to be twin sticked I would have less complaints... sometimes I want two wheel drive low range, others I need all 4... in the sand screwing around for a weekend cycling a hub is annoying... and 4x4 is boring sometimes, all I want is 2nd gear low range...
 

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
29,360
Reaction score
12,054
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.0
Transmission
Manual
One thing to keep in mind with the smaller turbo charged engines being used to replace the larger naturally aspirated engines. Engine braking isn't as good. If that is important to you. It's a smaller engine with less pistons and therefore displacement. The engine braking on my 2019 as compared to my 2011 is anemic. It's still there but using the engine to slow down when approaching something you want to slow down for but not brake, like approaching a slower moving semi, or holding speed on a down hill without downshifting the 2.3 Ecoboost is disappointing. It does better is you have the cruise control set to a speed but it's using downshifting of the transmission to do it. So, like I said, something to keep in mind if engine braking is important to you.
I think that is more variable valve than displacement.

My old laser seemed normal, engine braking in my brother's coyote mustang feels like the spark plugs are out of it... Nothing there.
 

bobbywalter

TRS Technical Staff
V8 Engine Swap
TRS Technical Advisor
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
22,145
Reaction score
2,664
Points
113
Location
woodhaven mi
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
FORD mostly
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
BIGGER
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
sawzall?
Tire Size
33-44
My credo
it is easier to fix and understand than "her"
The engine braking issue is tune. The throttle by wire can be open with no fueling and the phase overlap ....

Direct injection...with the give and take with the tune ..... Leads potentially to maximum life and maximum power.


Caveats I seen .. which they can't do...

Catch can....and port injectors to keep valves washed and lubed in certain circumstances ....this will allow hundreds of thousands of miles easily



All for naught.....

 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
8,331
Reaction score
6,029
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift
Tire Size
31X10.5R15
With the 2.3, a catch can is in the cards. Unless Ford redesignes the engine for port injectors, not so much. I think all the latest versions of the Ford DI engines have gotten port injection now.

You and 85_Ranger could be right on the valves and the tune.
 

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
29,360
Reaction score
12,054
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.0
Transmission
Manual
With the 2.3, a catch can is in the cards. Unless Ford redesignes the engine for port injectors, not so much. I think all the latest versions of the Ford DI engines have gotten port injection now.

You and 85_Ranger could be right on the valves and the tune.
No port injection for the 4 bangers as of yet.
 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
8,331
Reaction score
6,029
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift
Tire Size
31X10.5R15

bobbywalter

TRS Technical Staff
V8 Engine Swap
TRS Technical Advisor
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
22,145
Reaction score
2,664
Points
113
Location
woodhaven mi
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
FORD mostly
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
BIGGER
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
sawzall?
Tire Size
33-44
My credo
it is easier to fix and understand than "her"
Microsquirt your own system in.


MS overlay is how the 650 whp Taurus cars were getting done early on when bigger di injectors and hpfp we're not around yet

Now there are much larger hpfp so you can hack in alcohol tunes too.
 

Chapap

Well-Known Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
615
Reaction score
302
Points
63
Location
Florida
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Drop
1.5” till I get these springs replaced
Tire Size
225-70-R14
One thing to keep in mind with the smaller turbo charged engines being used to replace the larger naturally aspirated engines. Engine braking isn't as good.
The Accord had zero engine braking. It was amazing how little resistance there was at 4k rpm. It also took a solid 2 seconds for the engine to spool down when I turned it off.
 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
8,331
Reaction score
6,029
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift
Tire Size
31X10.5R15
The Accord had zero engine braking. It was amazing how little resistance there was at 4k rpm. It also took a solid 2 seconds for the engine to spool down when I turned it off.
I had decent engine braking with the CR-Vs but they didn't have VTEC. They were old school dual overhead cams. So, between that and the manual transmission may be the reason why. The CR-Vs are a bit lighter than either Ranger as well. So, there is that...
 

Chapap

Well-Known Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
615
Reaction score
302
Points
63
Location
Florida
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Drop
1.5” till I get these springs replaced
Tire Size
225-70-R14
I had decent engine braking with the CR-Vs but they didn't have VTEC. They were old school dual overhead cams. So, between that and the manual transmission may be the reason why. The CR-Vs are a bit lighter than either Ranger as well. So, there is that...
Oh ya. My accord was manual. I guess that’s pretty pertinent. Our CX5 has quite a bit of engine braking. I’m thinking they can easily program it either way. I had an 85 or so Buick LeSabre that had ZERO engine braking. That was quite a car to drive.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Top