[MWSletten]

...I do know the safety limit on these is around 420ish whp and I’m only trying to make around 400 whp...

What is this claim based on? There is only a single auto manufacturer worldwide selling a production car with a 400 hp 4cyl--this engineering feat is not easy or inexpensive. How do you define "safety limit" and how do you know it's 420 whp for the 2.3L EcoBoost? Do you have engineering data on this, or is it based on marketing materials from people selling power upgrades?

 

[MWSletten]

I have to ask. Are you trying out for the new Perry Mason movie or are you a GT owner with their panties in a bunch?

Nope, just an EcoBoost who's looking for realistic data.

These are common power numbers backed up by dyno results by multiple tuners across the country.

This does not answer my question: How do you define "safe?" I use my car for a daily driver and I can't afford for it to be in pieces for however long it might take to replace an engine, so I approach the bolt-on game with perhaps a bit more caution than some. If your definition of safe is "make it through a dyno run" then yes, you can obviously make 400+ HP. Defining terms is a critical first step to understand where other people are coming from. If your definition of safe is different from mine then we are starting off with a misunderstanding.

Seriously, maybe do some research before you come off like you are cross examining someone or just outright calling them a liar.

First, I asked a question, I didn't make a claim. Second, I HAVE done some research--a LOT of research in fact. I haven't found any engineering data to back up widespread claims the 2.3L EcoBoost can reliably produce 400+ HP--which is why I asked the question. Do you have it? It makes no sense to me that Ford would go to the incredible expense of designing and building a 4cyl engine capable of reliably producing 400+ HP only to derate it and sell it as a base engine. As I mentioned only a single other auto manufacturer in the world has managed to build a production 4 cyl making more than 400 HP. This is an astounding engineering feat. Seems to me Ford would rightly be very proud of it, and make sure everyone knew about. That means if the data exists to show the 2.3L EcoBoost really is as robust as some claim then it should be readily available. Given the number of "tuned" engines that have failed catastrophically, the data seems to point in the other direction.

There really isn't any call for it.

I forget, whose panties are in a bunch, yours or mine? Seriously, I'm as interested in SAFELY improving performance as the next person here. If you (or anyone else) has data--not marketing claims from tune vendors--I would really love to see it.

Have a great afternoon and a better weekend.

And you as well.

 

[MWSletten]

The same reason Ford doesn't put the 3.5eco in the mustang. We already see the power it easily makes in the Raptor and Ford GT. A 400whp 4cyl would tighten up the market gap between the base and GT...

I've heard this argument before, but I don't find it compelling. What makes more sense: Ford goes to the expense of designing and building a 4 cyl capable of 400+ hp then derates it--ostensibly to avoid competing with the GT--or Ford keeps expenses down with an engine DESIGNED to produce the HP it currently produces?

As for claimed safety limits it does come from observational data. The 2.3l has been used for many many years now from Mazda then to the RS then to Mustang. The many different motorsports companies have had plenty of blown blocks over the years pushing the 2.3l to the limit to be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on what in general the block can handle.

Great, where's the data?

 

[MWSletten]

...BUT I do not have a triple certified, double rubber stamped engineering certification to back it up with so it won't stand up under cross examination .

I'm going to have to change my user name to Perry Mason. 😁

So to jump past a bunch of cross examination, and make more unverifiable, uncertified, non-engineer approved statements...

SIGH I guess I'll continue looking for data...

The guy tunes cars for race teams to consumers and knows the platform and he thinks that 350 WHP is the upper limit. So, for whatever it's worth, that's what I've learned so far from people in the industry.

He's also selling something that he has no obligation to warrant. He can say whatever he likes about what he thinks he can do, and if your engine blows up he has no responsibility to repair it. Also, what does he mean by "upper limit?" Does that mean it'll last 10 laps on the track? 10K miles? 50K?

Hope everyone has a great day! I have to get out of here so I can get in a quick drive before college football starts!

Same same, except I'm going to the baseball game--GO CARDS! C-ya.

 

[MWSletten]

If you want the hard numbers so bad, why don't you go to the ProTuners themselves? They are the ones with all the data, not the people getting the tune.

I have; they don't have the numbers either. Or if they do they're not willing to share them.

 

[MWSletten]

Doubtful.

Instead of insinuating I'm a liar why not go get the data yourself and prove me one?

 

[MWSletten]

What would be crazy is for ford to design an engine that can only handle the factory rated power. Every manufacturer not just auto manufacturers give a large overhead then lowers rated expectancy so its less likely to fail thus less warranty repairs.

I believe this may have been true years back, but I don't think that applies today. Back when materials science, tolerances, design and manufacturing weren't as precise "over engineering" was de rigueur. In today's CAD/CAM-driven design and engineering world, parts and assemblies can be designed and manufactured to very precise tolerances, and durability predictions on materials are far more accurate. A part can be designed, modeled, and manufactured to handle a given amount of stress to a very precise degree. Making it any more robust than necessary may require more or more expensive materials increasing costs. What purpose does is serve Ford to pay the costs to make engines that are capable of producing some 50% more than rated power?

Ford will not release info on the 4cyl limits to not compete with GT. They release GT because Roush and Saleen push to that rated limit and maintains warranty otherwise they wouldn't warranty Roush and Saleen would cut ties. (Let alone Shelby pushing their power on .2 littre more.)

Ford does not warranty Roush or Saleen parts or builds, Roush and Saleen warranty their work.

Google is your friend i have read multiple discussions from multiple performance shops on the subject if i found them you can.

I've said already that I've looked far and wide for data on this subject, but it appears my word on this is unacceptable. I've also said I'm as interested as the next owner here in getting more power out of my Mustang if it can be done without significantly compromising durability. Everyone here seems to think I'm just trying to piss in their Cheerios, but I'm not. I'm playing Devil's Advocate in the hopes that someone actually has data to back up their claims. I would be the FIRST to jump in with both feet if I had evidence this engine can safely make the big power you think it can. As it is, the only data on aftermarket software comes from Ford itself. According to Dave Pericak, the Ford Performance tune was tested in the real world alongside the stock software, including tear-down inspections after the equivalent of 60K miles. The inspections--again, according to Pericak--revealed no significant increase in wear above the stock engines. THAT'S the kind of data that can make a believer out of me.

Speaking of Dave Pericak (in case you didn't know, he's the S550 Chief Engineer), here's what he had to say about aftermarket upgrades:

Q: Staying in the Ecoboost zone, the four-cylinder has a twin-scroll turbine and we wanted to know what's your policy towards tuning. The aftermarket world has always had a special place for the Mustang and they are going to play with the Ecoboost. Do you encourage this, try to limit it, or are you neutral?

We embrace all of the customization that goes on and we embrace our aftermarket attempts. I pride myself and my team on putting out the best engine with the best calibration we can possibly do. I don't want to leave anything on the table. A lot of times producers come up with an engine and they will leave something unexploited. Then the tuners can come in and they can gain that. But I want to give everything that I can to the customers. So do I discourage the aftermarket scene? I don't discourage it, but I also can't stand here and say that we would stand behind it. We stand behind these cars when they come out of the factory, we're pushing them to the limits and they're still durable. Anything that gets done post when we give it to you, it's probably not that durable and you're taking that risk upon yourself. But I know people like to do it and as long as they understand the risk they have to take...

 

[MWSletten]

He just wants to play Perry Mason, and that's ok, because he's good enough, and smart enough...
So when any reasonable person with any sort of judgement whatsoever...

When a debate gets personal that's when you know you're hitting a nerve. Disagreement doesn't have to be judgmental. Asking for data is not a judgement.

Like others have pointed out, you can speak with the tuners, there is enough of them that it's not difficult to sort out the clowns from the professionals and they will tell you. They have real world data and they work with people like Cobb and others that have the engineering data on the theoretical limits and the tuners in the field prove or disprove the validity of that data and come to more refined conclusions every day.

VS

Cobb and the rest are not going to publish all the data that they spent 100's of thousands to millions of dollars of their own money on via test mules, programming time and analysis equipment, test equipment and dynos, shops, equipment, mechanics, fabricators and on and on so others can have it for free. Anyone with any sense knows that.

I ask for data and get told to go ask. Then you tell me they're not going to share and "anyone with sense knows that." So why are you telling me to go ask for it?

My tuner states that...and I can accept that as being true because...

So, no data. Got it.

This debate began with my asking for a definition of "safe limit." It sounds like you've put your faith in your tuner's experience to define that for you and you're willing to accept the risk inherent in that choice. I prefer to have some data. Different strokes.

 

[MWSletten]

I've googled and found sorry dunno why you can't, seems others have found the data as well.

You are essentially calling me a liar with no chance at rebuttal. I can't prove a negative (i.e. that I have searched and been unable to find data regarding durability overhead for the 2.3L EcoBoost), but you CAN prove a positive--that it's there. Please share your links and prove me a liar.

Again. I never said it can be done safely. I said in relative safety. It is all relative to the individual. I do not push my block to 400whp because i do not feel i can keep that power level for 200k miles with hard driving. Safely is relative to what you want from the car and how long you want it to last..

Agreed. This has been my question all along. OP made a claim regarding HP and "safe limits," and I asked for clarification. I don't get why this question is controversial or adversarial.

Overhead for warranty. The further from maximal load something is used at the less likely it is to break because of the random incident, impurities or mistake. Building load ratings are even designed this way.

In the time I've spent researching and looking for data on these engines I've noted the overwhelming majority of blown EcoBoost engines were operating with modified software of some sort or another. But there HAVE been catastrophic failures of fully stock engines as well. It seems to me if Ford built this engine to handle 400+ WHP then NOTHING that happened with a stock engine making only 260 (or so) WHP would result in catastrophe. Yet this engine seems to suffer similar failure rates to other non-performance oriented engines on the market.[/quote]

It helps an engine to be Modular which Ford loves to do with it's engines because it saves money in the long run.

I get this, but there isn't another production application for this engine producing 400+ WHP--nothing even close to this.

Just because you have extra power doesn't mean you have to utilize it and if its not being utilized its not causing the potential extra damage threatening the reliability of the vehicle.

I'm not sure I fully agree with this. A "tune" produces more power by relaxing or eliminating the safeguards built in to the OEM software meant to prevent the engine from operating in regimes the manufacturer has determined to be dangerous. Those relaxed or eliminate safeguards exists at all RPM/power demand combinations. I agree it's less likely you will encounter a "tuner error" at lower power demands, but it can happen. LSPI confounded OEMs for a number of years, and they have gone to great lengths--largely successful--to mitigate the threat. I've read of several tuned engines that exploded under moderate throttle application at lower RPMs, and I've often wondered if those were LSPI events. Alas, with no data it's impossible to know.