Joined
·
5 Posts
Thanks, but this also will take eternity to deliver. Is there a way of installing something like this?
Ecoboom anxiety
21 - 40 of 72 Posts
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
Hey BD!
I have a question that I'm sure you can answer.
The PCV hose that runs between the valve cover and fresh air intake, does it have a check valve any where?
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
FWIW, I traded my Ecoboost Mustang for an Ecoboost Ranger almost two years ago. I had joined the 5GRanger forum before making the deal.
The term "Ecoboom" does not exist over there. In the two years on the forum I can only recall one catastrophic engine failure. The general consensus is the 2.3 Ecoboost engine is a very strong and reliable engine. Lots of folks are towing with their Rangers, many of which are close to the 7500 lb limit and they are doing it on 87 Octane gas without issue.
No one has reported a low side fuel pressure sensor failure or a failure of a purge solenoid.
Lots of discussion on catch cans I estimate less than 50% actually install one. No one is installing crankcase breathers.
The big complaint regarding the engine is fuel dilution some bad enough that the crank case level will increase almost quart between oil changes. This also appears to be limited to folks that only drive single digit distances.
Tuning the engine is very popular. Livernois, Unleashed and Ford Performance are the most popular. PD Tuning, Tune+, Stratified and any other outfit that works with the Cobb platform are non existent. The reason being Cobb doesn't support the Ranger version of the 2.3. I have been running an Unleashed 87 Octane Performance tune with a custom transmission calibration for over 10k miles (factory calibration trays to get the tranny into 10th at a very low speed). I also have a 3" cat back MBRP exhaust and a K&N drop in air filter.
In conclusion: A lot of the issues you read are due to internet hysteria, not a real wide spread issue.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
The term "Ecoboom" does not exist over there. In the two years on the forum I can only recall one catastrophic engine failure. The general consensus is the 2.3 Ecoboost engine is a very strong and reliable engine. Lots of folks are towing with their Rangers, many of which are close to the 7500 lb limit and they are doing it on 87 Octane gas without issue.
No one has reported a low side fuel pressure sensor failure or a failure of a purge solenoid.
Lots of discussion on catch cans I estimate less than 50% actually install one. No one is installing crankcase breathers.
The big complaint regarding the engine is fuel dilution some bad enough that the crank case level will increase almost quart between oil changes. This also appears to be limited to folks that only drive single digit distances.
Tuning the engine is very popular. Livernois, Unleashed and Ford Performance are the most popular. PD Tuning, Tune+, Stratified and any other outfit that works with the Cobb platform are non existent. The reason being Cobb doesn't support the Ranger version of the 2.3. I have been running an Unleashed 87 Octane Performance tune with a custom transmission calibration for over 10k miles (factory calibration trays to get the tranny into 10th at a very low speed). I also have a 3" cat back MBRP exhaust and a K&N drop in air filter.
In conclusion: A lot of the issues you read are due to internet hysteria, not a real wide spread issue.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Joined
·
634 Posts
"No one is installing crankcase breathers."
"The big complaint regarding the engine is fuel dilution some bad enough that the crank case level will increase almost quart between oil changes. This also appears to be limited to folks that only drive single digit distances. "
From my own experience, the amount of blow-by captured in my catch can reduced significantly after the valve cover breather. Anyone experiencing high volume blow-by should get a CFM style breather IMO. This should reduce the amount of blow-by and fuel dilution.
This was around 2k miles worth of sludge after getting the ECU flashed and prior to installing the valve cover breather. Now I get less than half that amount between oil changes.
![Automotive tire Fluid Plant Gas Font]()
"The big complaint regarding the engine is fuel dilution some bad enough that the crank case level will increase almost quart between oil changes. This also appears to be limited to folks that only drive single digit distances. "
From my own experience, the amount of blow-by captured in my catch can reduced significantly after the valve cover breather. Anyone experiencing high volume blow-by should get a CFM style breather IMO. This should reduce the amount of blow-by and fuel dilution.
This was around 2k miles worth of sludge after getting the ECU flashed and prior to installing the valve cover breather. Now I get less than half that amount between oil changes.
Joined
·
634 Posts
Probably not since the CFM has a check ball valve that only vents and does not allow air to enter.
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
As far as I know there is no check valve in the clean side PCV line since it never should see any amount of positive pressure in normal use it would not be required. There is baffling in the valve cover to limit backflow during boost/blowby crankcase pressure conditions.
BD
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
That has no one way check valve in it to prevent air being drawn in from atmosphere when at idle with a vacuum in crankcase.
BD
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
IMO, the main difference between the ranger and mustang is the ranger does not make near the HP and TQ the mustang does so the motor never sees the boost and added loads resulting from the increased boost to produce the added HP and TQ.
BD
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
I didn't think there was a check valve either. So when we are at full throttle and the turbocharger is pulling air in from our fresh air system, it should also be able to pull contaminated air/pressure from our engine's crankcase. And at idle, it could still function as a crankcase air inlet, which is what I thought it was, at first glance!?? Thanks
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Yes, it could pull contaminated air in, but the baffling in valve cover is designed to separate the oil mist from the air before it gets to the inlet pipe. If excess blowby exists under boost then oil vapors and mist could make it to the inlet pipe connection.
Thats why the one way oil cap breather is an important aid in preventing the above from happening.
BD
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
The Ranger engine HP is rated on 87 octane verse the Ecoboost Mustang being rated on 93 octane. The same engine in the Bronco has the engine ratings for both 87 octane and 93 octane. On 93 octane it is rated for 315 HP and 275 HP on 87. Not sure why they didn't give the numbers on both octanes in the literature for the Ranger like they do with the Bronco.
There have been enough Dyno tests performed on the Ranger with both 87 and 93 octane that you are getting essentially the same HP with the Ranger on 93 octane as you do with the Ecoboost Mustang version of the 2.3.
The Ranger does not have a boost gauge but I have added one to mine. On 87 octane you get 18 psi of boost with a spike to 20 psi. On 93 octane you see 20 psi on a regular basis. When I was running the FP tune on 93 octane I regularly saw 22 psi. These were the same boost numbers I saw with my Unleashed tuned 15 Mustang and my FP tuned 17 Mustang.
The differences between the Ranger version of the 2.3 and the Mustang 2.3 are as follows;
1. The Ranger has a much much larger intercooler compared to the Mustang.
2. The Ranger 2.3 has a different front cover with a belt driven fan.
3. The Ranger does not have a boost actuated wastegate controller it has an electric motor that opens and closes the wastegate.
4. The oil filter adapter on the Ranger repositions the oil filter forward on the block to clear the front axle. This new adapter also incorporates an oil cooler that has engine coolant running through it.
5. At least compared to the 15 to 18 Mustangs the Ranger 2.3 has a beefier connecting rod.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
All good info and was not aware of some of the differences between the two platforms. My 2020 mustang also has the better rods in it since that change was made on 2-3-2020 for all 2.3 ecos.
My mustang with the Procal 3 FP tune hits 24 psi boost at WOT regularly so a little more than the ranger but there are so many variables that determine max boost levels also.
I did some dyno pulls with my car on the Hot Rod power tour last year and recorded 264RWHP and 380RWTQ from mine in 100 degree ambient temps with all the mods in my signature.
BD
Joined
·
996 Posts
I think you missed the biggest difference... the driver/owner! I would expect Mustang owners to be a little more aggressive in mods and trying to squeeze every last drop of performance out of their motors. That probably explains a lot of things...
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
I agree 100 % with mustang owners generally interested in the most bang for the buck as I am certainly one of them but I also want reliability as well. It is a compromise for sure in managing best performance and reliability in one package.
BD
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
Oh, I whole hardily agree that Mustang owners will tend to push the engines harder in search of more power but towing a 6000 lb trailer for hundreds of miles at a time is at least as hard on the engine as a few redline runs. The purpose of my original post is that the 2.3 Ecoboost engine does not have an inherent design defect.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Not necessarily design flaws but it does have its weak points with the open deck cylinder design compared to the 2.0L focus RS semi closed deck block design.
It's also not so much the load of pulling a trailer or redline runs that stress the block/head as much as it is the high torque loads at 2k to 3K rpms WOT torque spikes to 400+ FT/LBs that stress the blocks cylinders and head. I am sure most ranger owners are not launching their trucks. Plus, the ranger is 50 to 100 FT/LBs less torque output which is the real damage maker not HP.
My mustangs peak torque of 380FT/LBs is right at 2K at WOT and tapers to 325 by 5 K rpms. Thats in 7th gear which is 1:1 ratio, in the lower gears it even higher such as 423 FT/LBs in 6th gear at 2K WOT.
BD
Joined
·
3 Posts
My motor blew in January (replaced with a brand new motor direct from Ford, looks to be the updated one) and I am almost 100% certain it was bad gas by one of the previous owners that had done a number on it and was just lucky it took as long as it did to pop.
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
Not sure where you get the 50 to 100 ft-lbs less from, the Ranger 2.3 is rated 270HP/315ft-lbs on 87 Octane and 315HP/325ft-lbs on 93 Octane. It is especially the same as the older Mustangs and 25 ft-lbs less on the newer ones. When tuned you get equivalent number increases.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
The 50/100 less is based on rear wheel numbers after the losses thru the drivetrain and is just a guesstimate since the ranger has far different tire combinations than a mustang all of which determine RWHP and TQ numbers.
I got the 270HP/310FT/TQ from fords site for crankshaft specs, it does not state different rating for fuel octane used. There is approx 18% losses from drivetrain friction so WHP and TQ will be less and if the ranger is 4 wheel drive then you can have even more friction losses.
The only true way to know what is being put to the ground at rear wheels is on a dyno and still there are many variables to consider along with individual dynos all will show some differences.
I was just stating that the most load/stresses the eco motor sees is at WOT launches when peak torque number are seen by the powertrain and towing 6k pounds does not have the same stresses as WOT launches unless you are going to WOT from a stop while pulling a trailer.
Certainly, the ranger can be tuned for the same power numbers as the mustang, but I don't believe most ranger owners drive their trucks like a mustang owner does in terms of WOT launches.
I don't know right off but does the ranger have the track apps option that gives you several different modes to choose from like sport+, track mode and drag race mode that disables all electronic nannies. My mustang in drag race mode spins the rear tires thru the first three gears on a WOT launch, does the ranger do that also?
2023 Ford Ranger XL Truck | Model Details & Specs
BD
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
There is no reason to think that there is any significant difference in drive train losses between the Ecoboost Mustang and Ranger. Same transmissions and design rear end. The Ranger comes with 3.73 gears which makes up for the tire diameter difference. If anything the loses would be higher in the Mustang because of the CBs in the independent rear suspension.
There was a lot of discussion when the Ranger came out whether the factory power rating was with 87 octane or 93. 5-Star tuning was the first to Dyno test a Ranger back to back with 87 and 93. Their results confirmed that the 270HP was on 87 and was over 300HP on 93. Their WHP numbers were equivalent to the Dyno testing they had done on Ecoboost Mustangs. The numbers were confirmed by Ford when they published the numbers on 87 and 93 when the Bronco was released.
A stock Ranger running on 93 octane will run 1/4 mile times in the 13s and the Ranger weighs 800+ pounds more. Guys with a tune and exhaust are getting into the 12s in the 1/4. All the data out there supports the Ranger 2.3 makes the same power as the Mustang 2.3.
Whether a short duration WOT blast is more stressful than long duration heavy load towing I really don't know. But Ford did see fit to put a much much larger intercooler, and engine driven fan and an engine oil cooler on the Ranger that the Mustang does not have to give it the ability to tow 7500 lb loads.
The Ranger does have a Sport Mode and Tow Mode that changes the way the tranny shifts and throttle response. In place of Trac Apps it has Terrain Control that optimizes traction control & stability control for different kinds of terrain. It also has an electronic locking rear differential, crawl mode that allows you to select a crawl speed and hill control that will maintain a safe speed going down hill. In the productivity screen in the dash it will display inclination of the truck so you don't get into unsafe angles.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
There was a lot of discussion when the Ranger came out whether the factory power rating was with 87 octane or 93. 5-Star tuning was the first to Dyno test a Ranger back to back with 87 and 93. Their results confirmed that the 270HP was on 87 and was over 300HP on 93. Their WHP numbers were equivalent to the Dyno testing they had done on Ecoboost Mustangs. The numbers were confirmed by Ford when they published the numbers on 87 and 93 when the Bronco was released.
A stock Ranger running on 93 octane will run 1/4 mile times in the 13s and the Ranger weighs 800+ pounds more. Guys with a tune and exhaust are getting into the 12s in the 1/4. All the data out there supports the Ranger 2.3 makes the same power as the Mustang 2.3.
Whether a short duration WOT blast is more stressful than long duration heavy load towing I really don't know. But Ford did see fit to put a much much larger intercooler, and engine driven fan and an engine oil cooler on the Ranger that the Mustang does not have to give it the ability to tow 7500 lb loads.
The Ranger does have a Sport Mode and Tow Mode that changes the way the tranny shifts and throttle response. In place of Trac Apps it has Terrain Control that optimizes traction control & stability control for different kinds of terrain. It also has an electronic locking rear differential, crawl mode that allows you to select a crawl speed and hill control that will maintain a safe speed going down hill. In the productivity screen in the dash it will display inclination of the truck so you don't get into unsafe angles.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
21 - 40 of 72 Posts
