New Mustang Ecoboost 4 cyl

[Luke22]

"What's the reasoning behind the nc oil pan? the 2.0 st oil pan is already angled in the right direction. any oil starvation issues could be taken care of will a good baffle I would think. the NS kit gets a new oil pan too but perhaps just for anticipated steering rack clearance?"

Great question hfmaxi, I dont know 100% that the focus ST pan wouldn't work. It very well could. I also found the Delete kit with baffles for the st! Link below.
http://www.mountuneusa.com/2-0L-EcoBoos ... -oc-aa.htm

From Project Ugly Horse (if you are doing this swap it has some really good info)
"The Miata pan had the obvious advantage of internal baffling, something that's necessary for track abuse. Baffles help keep the oil from frothing, reducing
the risk that the system will suck up an air bubble and end a lap to the tune of your $8000 engine mulching itself. I'm told that's important."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture ... e-part-xi/

I also think the aftermarket oil pans from Raceline would work too. They make an aftermarket wet sump and dry sump.

http://www.raceline.co.uk/products/part ... tegoryID=1
http://www.raceline.co.uk/products/part ... tegoryID=1


Can anyone confirm that the Focus ST pan will work with the NC miata transmission?

[hfmaxi]

Can anyone confirm that the Focus ST pan will work with the NC miata transmission?

by "plan" I meant I currently have a 2.0 TI-VCT bolted to an 5 spd NC trans and an ST oil pan sitting next to it on the floor. Haven't installed the ST pan yet but it certainly looks to have an identical bolt pattern to the standard NA sump. ST pan only looks like you could save ~15mm before the bell housing becomes the lowest part.

[geek49203]

From Project Ugly Horse (if you are doing this swap it has some really good info)
"The Miata pan had the obvious advantage of internal baffling, something that's necessary for track abuse. Baffles help keep the oil from frothing, reducing the risk that the system will suck up an air bubble and end a lap to the tune of your $8000 engine mulching itself. I'm told that's important."

I was following that build, sorry to see that it stalled out. Or at least no new installments for a long time.

[geek49203]

While we're discussing the Ford world.... any word on their 1L 3-cyl Ecoboost crate motor? Out of a Fiesta? Might not be "locost" but would be in the spirit of small and light weight?

From our Brit brothers at Locostbuilders.co.UK:

Ecoboost 2.0l is effectively a Turbo GDI duratec with duratec bellhousing pattern

Ecoboost 1.6L is a Turbo GDI version of the Sigma, with Sigma bellhousing pattern

Ecoboost 1.0L is a totally new architecture, Turbo GDI 3 cylinder but it has the same bellhousing pattern as fords of old

So the 1.0 Ecoboost will fit where a Pre-Xflow, x-Flow, Pinto, RWD CVH, Zetec currently resides ;o)

And yes a 1.0L ecoboost with a 1.6l ecoboost turbo is a very potent package
Likewise a 1.6L Ecoboost with the turbo from the 2.0L and an intake manifold with conventional injectors fitted is even better (You need PFI on this as the GDI injectors are at their limit around 210hp) but adding a conventional fuel rail and injectors alows you to fuel effectively above the limit of the std GDI injectors

[psi4pwr91]

Talk about bringing a post back from the dead, but I was wondering what happened to this since the wide-scale availability of the 2.3 EcoBoost Mustang. I'm looking at drop-ins on Car-Part for under $3K. Ford has a standalone ECU kit for ~$1,500 that's designed for applications like this.

I'm more interested to know what people have done with a 442E and the IRS at this point than how they were piecing ST motors and Miata transmissions together...

[rumbles]

The 2.3 EcoBoost is a cool little motor that packs a lot of power into a small package. But from a weight perspective, it only weighs about 60 lb less than an LS motor. The EcoBoost 2.3 will end up costing about the same as an LS motor.

Unless you're super weight conscious or you have a very small engine compartment, it's still hard to beat the LS.

[carguy123]

Show us where you got your weights from because every thing I see shows the LS to be MUCH heavier.

But then 60 more pounds constipated in one spot on this very light car is a significant amount not to count the heavier frame, suspension, brakes, much bigger/heavier tires & wheels, cooling system, etc. so it's much more than just the engine block weight.

[rumbles]

I was excited about the 2.3 Ecoboost and started looking at it back in Sept 2016 when Ford was starting to release info about it (see my post from back then). Ford was pretty Hush..Hush about releasing the specs on the 2.3. In fact, Ford never did release a weight number for the 2.3, that I know of. So I got my information from a forum way back from a guy who pulled and weighed a 2.3 (Sorry I don't remember which forum). It came in around 290-300lbs.

The weight of an aluminum block LS is 357lbs.

Both the 2.3 and LS are great engines that pack a lot of power into a small package.

• The aluminum LS has been around longer and is used in at least a dozen different GM vehicles. That means there are lots of them sitting around in salvage yards and they are cheap. There is a huge aftermarket of suppliers for the LS with ECUs, ECU harnesses, headers, motor mounts, etc. There is also a large expertise base out there to help you with LS troubleshooting and performance questions. Stock LS3 and later motors produce 430HP and up.
• The 2.3 Ecoboost has only been around for a year or so. The performance versions are only available in the Mustang and Focus RS, so there aren't as many around. There are some aftermarket suppliers, but they are limited. Ford didn't even release the standalone ECU/harness until late last year. Again the 2.3 is rather new so there aren't a lot of experts out there. In addition, getting the turbo to tuned properly does require expertise. A stock high performance 2.3 Ecoboost produces 300-350HP.

I'm not a Ford guy or a GM guy. I've built cars with both power plants. But I can tell you that GM does a better job of working with aftermarket suppliers and that means lots of options. That all means that the salvage LS is an easier and possibly a cheaper path for a Locost build.

[geek49203]

(snip) So I got my information from a forum way back from a guy who pulled and weighed a 2.3 (Sorry I don't remember which forum). It came in around 290-300lbs. The weight of an aluminum block LS is 357lbs.

So the weight of an aluminum block ENTIRE ENGINE LS is 357, or is that just the block? So the entire LS is only 75 pounds more than the entire 2.3? Enquiring minds wanna make sure.

(snip) I'm not a Ford guy or a GM guy. I've built cars with both power plants. But I can tell you that GM does a better job of working with aftermarket suppliers and that means lots of options. That all means that the salvage LS is an easier and possibly a cheaper path for a Locost build.

As it has been for years -- building Chevy stuff has usually been easier and cheaper than building the Ford stuff. Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, HP for HP it's tough to beat the LS stuff.

[oldejack]

So the weight of an aluminum block ENTIRE ENGINE LS is 357, or is that just the block? So the entire LS is only 75 pounds more than the entire 2.3? Enquiring minds wanna make sure.

Post sounds like a scale was used.

OK,

Here goes-

TOTAL, COMPLETE, FULLY DRESSED, FULLY OILED, crate ls1 from GM is 458#s

This is with manifolds, and a clutch.

Clutch tips the scales @ 49#s , and the cast iron manifolds are 13 each. Subtract this from the motor, and you get 383#s, with oil, intake, coilpacks, Water pump, pan, filter, TB, you name it, Sans manifolds and clutch. Not bad!

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-external-engine/50964-how-much-does-ls1-aluminum-long-block-weigh.html

[rumbles]

Yes, 357lbs is what I've been quoted for a LS that is ready to run. That includes, heads, intake, fuel injection, throttle body, front assy drive, etc. The weight figure does not include headers, AC compressor, PS pump, ECU or ECU harness.

Another heavy item to consider are the exhaust headers. The 2.3 Ecoboost has an internal exhaust manifold within the head that dumps into the turbo. So instead of having the LS's 2 massive headers, it's just 1 simple tube that exits the turbo. If you add another 30-40lbs to the LS for headers, that makes the 2.3 actually about 100lbs lighter! Hmmm, The 2.3 Ecoboost suddenly looks more attractive

The simple 1 tube exhaust is also a key advantage of the 2.3, if you have a narrow engine compartment. However, the 2.3 Ecoboost is actually a tall motor, so hood clearance may be an issue.

[seattletom]

So the weight of an aluminum block ENTIRE ENGINE LS is 357, or is that just the block? So the entire LS is only 75 pounds more than the entire 2.3? Enquiring minds wanna make sure.

Check out my post half-way down page 11 (or page 2 if you start from the most-recent-post end) on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4299&start=150

...As weighed, the LS3 has stock cast iron headers and no starter, alternator, P/S pump or A/C compressor. The pan is the short (Corvette) pan with an aftermarket windage tray. Everything else is “as-shipped factory crate motor” at this point. There are no fluids in the motor. The ECU and engine harness were not included in the weight. ... the LS3 comes in at about 383 lbs. dressed as shown. That’s pretty close to the 390 lbs. I was expecting. Not bad for 480hp.

Weighed on a scale.

[geek49203]

Don't forget that when you up the HP, you have to install heavier diff/rear axles. Heavier trans. Heavier tubes. Which means the weight added for an LS build isn't limited to the weight of the motor.

This is the way that it's always been.

Chapman went for low weight instead of high HP, and that was the theory behind the original Seven.

[rumbles]

I'd trust actual weight (383lbs) vs the advertised weight (357lbs). I figure the LS cast iron headers (weighed) pretty much cancel out the Alternator and starter (not weighed).

That adds another 26lbs to the LS. So that makes the 2.3 Ecoboost a total of about 125lbs lighter!

[carguy123]

Also add more weight for the bigger fuel tank and more fuel as well as the bigger tires & rims, heavier transmission, heavier diff & much bigger brakes.

It's much more than just the engine weights that have to be compared.