EcoBoost in a Ranger? How long before its done?

[dasfinc]

I'm sorry, but I just HAD to step into this thread....

As far as the origonal post goes, the Ecoboost V-6 is a very WIDE motor, especially with the OEM mounting of the turbos (Which would be about half way through the frame rails of the ranger). The 4.6 is wider than the 5.0 and has been done in the ranger but is very VERY tight.

But now to this Tonka fella....

You can get a supercharger for a 2.3L 4 banger that'll make it run with the stock 5.0's so why the hell would you go with a 5.0 that's gonna guzzle gas even when you're not on the hammer? Why put the extra weight of a V8 up front (in a vehicle that's already too front-heavy) when a screaming 4 cylinder will produce the same amount of power and they're a dime-a-dozen at the junk yard?

Show me a supercharger on a 2.3 4 cylinder that can run with my V-8 ranger last season when it was Naturally Aspirated? Please? There are a few nasty 2.3 turbo's running around, but they are big boost trucks, and started with the SVO motor which is NOT a dime a dozen.

a 2.3 motor with a blower, or a turbo will inhale JUST as much fuel as a V-8 powered truck if you are beating on it, and a V-8 will be FAR more 'relaxed' on the highway and can get comparable MPG. More to the point, my truck (V-8, and SUPERCHARGED, which I'll get into in a second here) Gets 19mpg on the highway doing 75 with a 4.10 gear!!!!! I'll probably nab mid 20's with my 3.55's that are going in this month.

And as you already said, a worked 2.3 would need to be SCREAMING to make similar power as a VERY relaxed/cheap/easy to build/huge aftermarket V-8...

Somebody pointed out to me once, the old 2.3 weighs about the same as the old pushrod 5.0.

They are both fun engines, but the 5.0 has more torque... and can be supercharged too.

85 Ranger hit on the point about there is little/no weight difference, and the 5.0's are just as common (If not MORE common) than the 2.3's, and it will cost far more to get a 2.3 to comparable power levels of a stock 5.0 than it would cost to just drop in a 5.0. And yes, 85_ranger... the 5.0 can be supercharged too, far easier IMO

What would a supercharged 5.0 do to a Ranger? I mean besides twist up the frame and smoke the tires?

A Supercharged V-8 does quite a bit to a ranger. Mine runs a 13.90 with a 1.99 60' on a 235 width garbage street tire. BONE stock 5.0, and only 5PSI on the blower. Haven't twisted my frame, Using ford OEM 4.0 OHC motor mounts, ford OEM slip-yolk from a 98 Crown Vic, OEM 4 cylinder driveshaft even....

My truck has a stepside (Fiberglass) bed, and yes, it takes finess to get traction, but if you had a blower on a 4 cylinder putting out similar torque/HP you'd have the same issues. For perspective, My buddies 2005 Comp G Grand Prix (Supercharged V-6, FWD) Can cut a 2.06 60' on stock tires, so my truck launches just as hard as a high torque FWD car, and additional perspective would be the 2006 SRT8 Challenger at the track the last time I was out cutting 2.1-2.3 60's all day long.... The driver plays the biggest role in launching a vehicle no matter the weight or configuration.

There are 2 trucks on these boards that come straight to mind that run 11's without any frame modifications, both are naturally aspirated.

Truck was shutting down 1000 RPM early due to my tune, only dynoed 235hp, but put out 300tq at only 3400RPM. The shop running the dyno said the truck should have comfortably put down 250-255WHP if it wasn't shutting down early.

 

[Tonka]

...But now to this Tonka fella....

Show me a supercharger on a 2.3 4 cylinder that can run with my V-8 ranger last season when it was Naturally Aspirated? Please? There are a few nasty 2.3 turbo's running around, but they are big boost trucks, and started with the SVO motor which is NOT a dime a dozen.

a 2.3 motor with a blower, or a turbo will inhale JUST as much fuel as a V-8 powered truck if you are beating on it, and a V-8 will be FAR more 'relaxed' on the highway and can get comparable MPG. More to the point, my truck (V-8, and SUPERCHARGED, which I'll get into in a second here) Gets 19mpg on the highway doing 75 with a 4.10 gear!!!!! I'll probably nab mid 20's with my 3.55's that are going in this month.

And as you already said, a worked 2.3 would need to be SCREAMING to make similar power as a VERY relaxed/cheap/easy to build/huge aftermarket V-8...

85 Ranger hit on the point about there is little/no weight difference, and the 5.0's are just as common (If not MORE common) than the 2.3's, and it will cost far more to get a 2.3 to comparable power levels of a stock 5.0 than it would cost to just drop in a 5.0. And yes, 85_ranger... the 5.0 can be supercharged too, far easier IMO

A Supercharged V-8 does quite a bit to a ranger. Mine runs a 13.90 with a 1.99 60' on a 235 width garbage street tire. BONE stock 5.0, and only 5PSI on the blower. Haven't twisted my frame, Using ford OEM 4.0 OHC motor mounts, ford OEM slip-yolk from a 98 Crown Vic, OEM 4 cylinder driveshaft even....

My truck has a stepside (Fiberglass) bed, and yes, it takes finess to get traction, but if you had a blower on a 4 cylinder putting out similar torque/HP you'd have the same issues. For perspective, My buddies 2005 Comp G Grand Prix (Supercharged V-6, FWD) Can cut a 2.06 60' on stock tires, so my truck launches just as hard as a high torque FWD car, and additional perspective would be the 2006 SRT8 Challenger at the track the last time I was out cutting 2.1-2.3 60's all day long.... The driver plays the biggest role in launching a vehicle no matter the weight or configuration.
...

Well as for the screaming 2.3 keeping up with a STOCK 5.0, I CAN'T "show you" one because I don't have one. I wouldn't own a Ranger with a 2.3 unless I had the money for a blower for it. 4 cylinders simply don't belong in a vehicle that's referred to as a "truck", in my opinion, unless this "truck" has a musical siren and pictures of ice cream and popsicles all over it.

The supercharged 2.3 keeping up with a 5.0 is simply what I've HEARD from multiple people over the years, always referring to Mustangs. It might have been that I heard the screamin' 4 banger was in an LX that was originally built with a 4 cylinder, and it was being compared to a stock GT, which is a heavier car due to the GT package.

You'll blow up a 2.3 pretty quickly if you've got it supercharged & you beat on it all the time, I'm sure of that, but like I mentioned before, they're a dime a dozen at the junkyard. And you can re-use the same blower.

But if you want to tell me I'm WRONG, then go ahead and I'll concede the argument and let have this one, just because I have never personally witnessed it, and don't have the time to do the research and dig up some videos or whatever I have to do to provide the acceptable documentation to back up that statement.

If I HAD a supercharged 2.3L Ranger and you had the exact same model truck with same axle ratios and everything, with a stock 5.0 in it, I'd invite you to head down here. There's plenty of back-roads around here where we can have a chest-beating contest. I'm about 20 miles from the Rt 66 speedway where we could do it legally. I really would like to see such a competition because regardless of whether the stories I've heard are correct or not, I'd like to get to the bottom of this claim. I'm interested in it scientifically, though. Not for any kind of chest-beating contest where I could point my finger at someone and go "nah na na na nahh na!" if I happen to be correct on the matter.

And you mentioned you don't have any frame-twisting problems with yours. That's good to hear. It's good to know these things are tough enough to handle that kind of chassis torque without any modification. I've heard all the stories about souped up 5.0's ripping loose from the chassis and flipping completely upside down in Mustangs, but I guess that's the difference between a frame and a unibody.

 

[ZMan]

I decided about a year ago that I wanted to swap one into my '92 in a few years. Will it really happen? I have no clue, but its a nice thought.

 

[dasfinc]

If I HAD a supercharged 2.3L Ranger and you had the exact same model truck with same axle ratios and everything, with a stock 5.0 in it, I'd invite you to head down here. There's plenty of back-roads around here where we can have a chest-beating contest. I'm about 20 miles from the Rt 66 speedway where we could do it legally. I really would like to see such a competition because regardless of whether the stories I've heard are correct or not, I'd like to get to the bottom of this claim. I'm interested in it scientifically, though. Not for any kind of chest-beating contest where I could point my finger at someone and go "nah na na na nahh na!" if I happen to be correct on the matter.

There is nothing to get to the bottom of... The 2.3 turbo power plant (SVO) Is found and modified heavily in quite a few models, but bang for the buck, a 5.0 will always be superior IMO, and I'd be surprised to hear much otherwise.

And you mentioned you don't have any frame-twisting problems with yours. That's good to hear. It's good to know these things are tough enough to handle that kind of chassis torque without any modification. I've heard all the stories about souped up 5.0's ripping loose from the chassis and flipping completely upside down in Mustangs, but I guess that's the difference between a frame and a unibody.

Never heard a single story of a 5.0 ripping loose from its Chassis in a ranger or a mustang.... The engine is mounted in a K-member within the mustangs, which is essentially a mini-frame... again, I'd love to see a single confirmed story of a 5.0 "ripping loose from the chassis and flipping completely upside down in Mustangs"

If anything would 'flip upside down inside a mustang' watch this,

302, stock body, high mileage motor auto Mustang on passtime on SPEED, big spray, Budget/Beater project:



I don't mean to be a jerk, but you really shouldn't talk about a 4 cylinder being a superior option if not only do you not even own one, but have no real world experiance with either...

I googled 8 second SVO mustang, and it the first link it finds "9 second SVO mustang", the car in the video above is a big cam, heads, big spray, stock bottom end (Maybe $2000 invested, a miracle its holding together, but the point being I'd like to see a 4 cylinder SVO motor get into the 8's with $2k into it....)

but back to the statement you made that started me off on all this (again, I don't mean to be nasty about it, just venting)

why the hell would you go with a 5.0 that's gonna guzzle gas even when you're not on the hammer? Why put the extra weight of a V8 up front (in a vehicle that's already too front-heavy) when a screaming 4 cylinder will produce the same amount of power and they're a dime-a-dozen at the junk yard?

I went with a 5.0 because it has more power out of the box, is far cheaper to begin with, has a far larger aftermarket, far more support, is a dime a dozen at junkyards, is the same weight, sounds glorious, and can get comparable gas mileage

 

[Tonka]

There is nothing to get to the bottom of... The 2.3 turbo power plant (SVO) Is found and modified heavily in quite a few models, but bang for the buck, a 5.0 will always be superior IMO, and I'd be surprised to hear much otherwise.

"bang for the buck". Yeah, you definitely got me there. The 2.3 would have to be heavily modified to compete with the stock 5.0.

Never heard a single story of a 5.0 ripping loose from its Chassis in a ranger or a mustang.... The engine is mounted in a K-member within the mustangs, which is essentially a mini-frame... again, I'd love to see a single confirmed story of a 5.0 "ripping loose from the chassis and flipping completely upside down in Mustangs"

Back on '01 I had the unfortunate task of removing a modified 302 & it's manual trans from a rust-bucket 1993?? Mustang LX that had ripped loose from the mounts and was sitting under the hood with the remains of it's carb facing the passenger side after it ripped itself from the mounts. The rear trans crossmember was totally trashed.

If an engine ripping loose like that is virtually unheard of, then it's most likely the guy who installed it was a jacka55 who didn't do it right or something. I had already had reason to question the guy's logic when he recommended I use a 750 double-pumper on that engine. Seems like way too much carb to me.

I ended up putting that engine in a 1976 F-100. The engine almost immediately destroyed my C6 trans and my dad ended up GIVING the truck away after I asked him to sell it for me while I was on the road.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but you really shouldn't talk about a 4 cylinder being a superior option if not only do you not even own one, but have no real world experience with either...

I said I had no personal experience with the matter but have heard it from multiple people who don't know each other, over the past 10 years or so. And I'm not saying a 2.3 is a better option, either. It would just be my personal preference, based on the information I've heard over the years, if I wanted a fast truck that I wasn't going to tow anything with. (I doubt the 2.3 would last long towing a camper on the interstate like you could do with the V8. It would probably have cooling issues.)

 

[gribly]

I happen to own one of these "dime a dozen" 5.0 spankin' 2.3's, and it sure does make more torque than you'd need in a 2wd Ranger. When I had it insured and was driving it, I'd line that sucker up against just about anything I came across around here, it's no slouch. BUT, bone stock it won't take down a stock 5.0 mustang without a good driver, yet you can get a shitty driver to smoke a mildly worked over 5.0 for almost nothing with a 2.3T, using junkyard parts. It's also not supercharged, it's turbocharged. Depending on year, they are terribly slow, but a few cars from a few years were pretty quick - especially with a boost controller. The '87-'89 XR4Ti's and any SVO Mustang after '87 had decent turbos. It's an age old argument, and it's been proven the 5.0 is a better motor. Duh, it's a v8. You CAN order a 1000hp turnkey 2.5 stroker from Esslinger if you mortage your house twice, but it's not recommended to actually drive it anywhere but on a racetrack. To give you an idea on their prices, one of their oilpans runs about $2300.

 

[gribly]

Quick side note - the average 2.3T Mustang sold for about $5k more than the equivalent 5.0 Mustang back in the '80's. The 2.3T was an expensive damn option.

 

[dasfinc]

Back on '01 I had the unfortunate task of removing a modified 302 & it's manual trans from a rust-bucket 1993?? Mustang LX that had ripped loose from the mounts and was sitting under the hood with the remains of it's carb facing the passenger side after it ripped itself from the mounts. The rear trans crossmember was totally trashed.

If an engine ripping loose like that is virtually unheard of, then it's most likely the guy who installed it was a jacka55 who didn't do it right or something.

Sounds like you already answered your question as to why this happened "Rust Bucket 1993", Something probably rusted through, or not bolted correctly.

It would just be my personal preference, based on the information I've heard over the years, if I wanted a fast truck that I wasn't going to tow anything with. (I doubt the 2.3 would last long towing a camper on the interstate like you could do with the V8. It would probably have cooling issues.)

I will not tow anything with my ranger, You need a half-tonne to tow any decent sized item safely. My truck is a crack over 3000lbs, I would not feel comfortable towing anything bigger than a honda civic on a car dolley with it. Brakes/Weight/Size have a bigger impact on towing than engine size. A 2wd V8 explorer is rated to tow like 6700lbs, no waaaay I'd try towing twice my trucks weight.

My Blown V-8 can/will do anything a blown 2.3 can do, and it would do it better, and for cheaper... I really feel like the only reason why you'd choose the 2.3 over the V-8 is MPG and 'from what you've heard over 10 years' since you've already stated you agree that the 5.0 would be a cheaper route. like 80% of the general 'car crowd' REALLY don't care about MPG when they are going all-out for power/performance.

BUT, bone stock it won't take down a stock 5.0 mustang without a good driver.

The issue I had last season (And still have) is stock headers and cam for a 1998 explorer are terrible for performance. I'm quite confident I'd tear-up nearly any mustang on the street by fall once I finish installing what my living room is filled with:

*Here is half of what I've purchased*

 

[gribly]

It'll be a quick ranger, nobody is arguing that.

Another side note - there was a member here a long time ago - back on the OLD board format, when I actually had a Ranger - who was running basement 12's on a OHV 4.0 with a stock shortblock. He was running ported heads, with a nice cam and valve setup, and a LOT of happy gas. Had like 160k miles on it, too. It also has slicks, moser axleshafts, ya know, the kind of stuff you'd expect on a 12 second Ranger. Far as I know the motor never blew up as long as he had the truck.

 

[Tonka]

Sounds like you already answered your question as to why this happened "Rust Bucket 1993", Something probably rusted through, or not bolted correctly.

Probably. I don't recall examining the donor car too closely. I was just yanking the motor. I didn't even end up using the trans, but I had to pull it out with the motor because the position it was sitting in, i couldn't get to all of the bellhousing bolts cuz part of the bellhousing had hit the firewall/tunnel and I couldn't get a socket on it.

I will not tow anything with my ranger, You need a half-tonne to tow any decent sized item safely. My truck is a crack over 3000lbs, I would not feel comfortable towing anything bigger than a honda civic on a car dolley with it. Brakes/Weight/Size have a bigger impact on towing than engine size. A 2wd V8 explorer is rated to tow like 6700lbs, no waaaay I'd try towing twice my trucks weight.

I towed a 3200 lb travel trailer home from Lincoln, NE with my ranger, and it's 3.08 rear end. It was a long, scary trip. I was using my bumper hitch, which was high, and it was throwing off the center of gravity of the camper and it would wiggle back and forth above 60 mph, even with an anti-sway telescopic brake thing attached beside the coupler. It's a single axle camper, and had cheap car tires on it with flimsy sidewalls. Plus it was a hot day and my water temp gauge doesn't work.

I got the camper home and installed a frame-mount 2" receiver hitch on the ranger, and replaced the camper's tires with actual trailer tires that run at higher pressure and have beefier sidewalls. And now it tows nicely at any speed up to 80 mph (fastest I had it) without any trailer sway. And that's without the anti-sway device.

But I did have an incident a few weeks later in a residential zone in which one of them stupid little #### zoo dogs ran out in front of me and when I locked up the brakes, I quickly realized I don't have the braking capacity I should have. (I'm a truck driver with hazmat, tanker, doubles and triples endorsements. I oughta know better!)

(I ended up running over the dog, but I straddled it between the tires and when I came to a dead stop, the dog simply ran out from under the camper, unharmed.)

I plan to install an electric brake controller in the ranger before I pull the camper again. My F-150's trans can't handle towing, but it's got a brake controller. I'd use it on the ranger, but I don't like it.

It's either on or off. You can adjust the amount of brake voltage with knob, or use the test button and have 2 different settings, but on the pedal, the trailer brakes are either all or nothing. It's designed that way and I don't like it. I want a controller that's "progressive" or whatever the word for it is. Basically I want one that controls the trailer brakes the same way the truck brakes are controlled, meaning the harder I push the pedal, the harder the brakes come on.

I'm having a hard time finding u-bolts for my axle/leaf spring mounts. I don't know if I should re-use my old ones. The threads are really tight and I'm afraid the friction just between the threads of the nuts and the threads on the bolt will throw off my torque when I tighten them down. If a U-bolt snaps while towing my camper, ... I don't even want to think about it.

 

[alexpmcmurphy]

little fuel to the fire

read 3rd gear, soon there will be ecoboost rangers

http://jalopnik.com/5825486/bmw-plugs-in-automakers-shake-with-obama-and-the-explorer-gets-boosted

 

[dasfinc]

read 3rd gear, soon there will be ecoboost rangers

http://jalopnik.com/5825486/bmw-plugs-in-automakers-shake-with-obama-and-the-explorer-gets-boosted

What article are you reading? the EXPLORER now has an eco boost motor, the ranger is dead for north america this year. December is the last month of Production.

If the assumption is "Well the explorer has it, now the ranger will" That logic ended back in 2002 when the explorer changed to a different platform, and then again when the explorer changed to a uni-body FWD cross-over this year.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3rd Gear: And while we're talking about it: After some delay, Ford has unveiled the latest version of its EcoBoost engine for the Ford Explorer, a 2-liter four-cylinder turbocharged mill that will pump 240 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque while sipping gas at 20 mpg city and 28 mpg highway. The efficiency figures make the EcoBoost Explorer the least gas-thirsty vehicle in its class — outside of the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, but even then the Toyota only bests the Explorer in city driving. Through June, Ford has sold 65,823 Explorers, more than the entire sales of the old model in 2010. Robocop's mom is a happening gal.

 

[walt460]

Well, back to putting a F150 Ecoboost 3.5L into a Ranger......

The engine is 28-1/2" wide across the turbos, the widest point. No problem for a Ranger.
The heads are 22" wide, no problem for the brake booster, not sure about A/C box.

Basically, if a 4V 4.6L fits, and it must as I have seen several posted, then the 3.5L Ecoboost will fit as it is not as wide or as tall or as long.

I have done some research, and the cost to make such a swap is just under $10K. The engine/trans and related parts (a lot of parts are need) from a low-mile F150 will cost you $6800 and you will spend close to another $3000 for an custom air-to-air intercooler, a larger radiator, a trans cooler, an engine oil cooler, a custom H-pipe, custom engine and trans mounts, a driveshaft, a power steering pump mounting kit, and some intake pipes and couplers, and a PCM reflash with a custom vehicle interface harness to connect up the F150's PCM to your truck. (The engine and trans harness from the F150 can be reused)

Not cheap, but it would be fast and get some great Highway Fuel economy with the 6R80 six speed auto trans. (The F150 Ecoboost only comes with this trans, no manuals in F150s anymore.)

 

[racsan]

the biggest issue i see with this motor is the turbos themselves, its great on paper, until the day you "lose" a turbo, weve got a oliver diesel at the farm with a turbo, and every few years it will lunch one, its a gutless dog with a non-working turbo, and a rebuilt unit is $1,000. this tractor is so old that only rebuilt units are available. its a awfull lot of stuff to fit under a ranger hood as well.....

 

[hoosier1104]

Placement of the motor mounts, width of the motor, steering linkage, transmission x member, transmission, drive shaft length, wiring harness for the EB, ECU for the EB and wiring diagrams is all you need.

If it was simple, everyone would be doing it.