Ford Focus RS Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,440 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Since the other thread was (rightfully) closed, I'll attempt to start a new one.

Let's try to keep this on the topic of the 2.3EB - what we know, what we're hoping for, etc.

Some of the things to come out of the other thread were:

MAPerformance's R&D on the EB Mustang (thread on 6g - MAPerformance 10 second | 700whp Ecoboost Mustang Build Thread - 2015+ S550 Mustang Forum (GT, GT350, GT500, I4, V6) - Mustang6G.com)
They pushed the stock block to 501whp/464wtq (I believe were the last reported #'s). They're now focusing on building their new block and head work. I'm interested to see how the built/ported heads help once everything is buttoned up.

Also, FFtec's BT thread - http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24929

There is also talk in EB stang land of the Ford Performance 2.3 cams. I haven't researched enough yet to see results on stock heads, but I'm wondering if these will be standard on the RS.

Anyways, let's keep this rolling and on topic...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
I'm hoping that the RS 2.3 will support 500whp/correlating torque without needing to be opened up, that is what I'm hoping for. One of the reasons I did not purchase a WRX is because the motor is considered a time bomb at anything above 399whp/correlating torque.

Positive things that support this being possible is that according to Ford the cylinder sleeves are stronger and the head is made of a more heat resistant material for the anticipated increase in cylinder temperatures. The head gasket is also designed with an increase in thermal load in mind, it is probably the same reason they changed the sleeves. The rest of the changes listed are external to the motor. I would imagine the motor has pretty strong internals already if the Mustang 2.3 supports over 400wtq at less than 3k rpms. That's a lot of torque for those 4 rods to support at slower engine speeds, and the Mustang 2.3 has been shown to support 501/464 untouched, albeit for a relatively short period of a few months. If the RS 2.3 is built for higher cylinder pressures (PMEP/BMEP) and temperatures, it is hopefully safe to assume it will support more power and torque unopened.

I would like to see more aggressive cams be produced, those are pretty mild in lift and duration, the price is certainly right though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
This is a bit off topic, but nothing happened. The company decided to build the motor acknowledging that it was very close to its limit. If you search the 6g mustang 2.3 forum, you can read about it, the company name was MAP. Hopefully they will have informational updates about how the rods and pistons looked after pulling it apart, but I haven't read about that yet. That would tell the true story of longevity expectations. If the internals looked solid (assuming the tune was solid) then the motor may very well have held for years that way.

What went wrong with the engine with 500hp?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
That's what I thought. I'm thinking a little built 2.3 will be safely able to handle it.

Again, I feel that the drivetrain will be the big oroblem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Those are inexpensive cams. Too bad no dyno charts on them tho
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,440 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
[...] the Mustang 2.3 has been shown to support 501/464 untouched, albeit for a relatively short period of a few months.
What went wrong with the engine with 500hp?
MAP was testing their auxiliary fuel system at the time that the motor popped. Note, this was when they were trying to achieve even more power.

So sadly it wasn't that actual engine that hit it's weak point unfortunately. We were messing around with external throttle body injectors controlled by a separate fuel box which failed to shut off the fuel during a dyno run and actually caused it to hydro lock itself, causing a rod to escape. Oh well, these things happen in testing.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,440 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'm thinking that an EFR 7163 or 7670 will be a great setup on stock block & pump fuel for a daily driver. Should hopefully be able to put out low 400's whp/wtq with good spool characteristics.

Then that brings up the questions of how long will the clutch, trans, diffs, axles, etc. hold at that level...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
Thanks, I did not know that it threw a rod in a quest for more power, even though torque wasn't the root cause. It's a shame the rotating assemblies true strength was not found.

Maybe they at least found the power limit to the stock injection system? I'll have to look for that post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
The 7163 is the turbo I am eyeing as well, although with the ability to flow 62 pounds of air I would speculate it should be able to support close to 500whp/wtq? At least with the proper supporting mods?

I also totally agree with you, this would make a perfect daily on stock block and fuel.


I'm thinking that an EFR 7163 or 7670 will be a great setup on stock block & pump fuel for a daily driver. Should hopefully be able to put out low 400's whp/wtq with good spool characteristics.

Then that brings up the questions of how long will the clutch, trans, diffs, axles, etc. hold at that level...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,440 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Thanks, I did not know that it threw a rod in a quest for more power, even though torque wasn't the root cause. It's a shame the rotating assemblies true strength was not found.

Maybe they at least found the power limit to the stock injection system? I'll have to look for that post.
It was on the FT86 forums. I agree though that it sucks that they say it failed due to a fueling anomaly.

I didn't really like they way they were going about their testing. [From what they said on the forums] they haven't really gotten any closer to figuring out what the stock blocks can sustain.

I'd like to see if it's feasible to have a reliable ~450whp/wtq car on stock fueling and block. The last car I modded heavily was a B5 S4 and my friend is still running it at those power levels on E85. It's stock internals, but I just had to add a larger fuel pump and injectors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
It is strange, but I'm not going to question them ... it's whatever. I sent you a PM asking which forum, so you can disregard and I will search the Ft86 forums (a strange place to have Mustang info right?)

I have a Dynojet in my home garage. Hopefully I'll have some info for the forum when I get my RS and can provide something more directed at the end user, then a shop. I can also do before and after for different products, although I may go from completely stock to a 7163 with appropriate supporting components, without a step by step change, we'll see.



It was on the FT86 forums. I agree though that it sucks that they say it failed due to a fueling anomaly.

I didn't really like they way they were going about their testing. [From what they said on the forums] they haven't really gotten any closer to figuring out what the stock blocks can sustain.

I'd like to see if it's feasible to have a reliable ~450whp/wtq car on stock fueling and block. The last car I modded heavily was a B5 S4 and my friend is still running it at those power levels on E85. It's stock internals, but I just had to add a larger fuel pump and injectors.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top