Jump to content

2.3L EcoBoost Released by Indmar


MopedMedicks
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Seems to me turbos can produce some nice standardized efficiency numbers like mpg but if your proverbial foot is into them to access that power...the advantage fades significantly and they use a lot of fuel.

Interesting to pair the turbo specifically with a jet...should get RPM and be in turbo range right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcoBoost sounds great for a recreation boat, but would probably suffer in a ski boat. Zero off is constantly changing the rpm of the engine and that might be hard to do with a turbo engine that has turbo lag. Seems like it would be much harder to make quick adjustments for a skiers pull behind a boat when having to wait for a turbo to spool up. I would love to see ford's new 7.3 liter V8 put in a ski boat!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@jakecuz23 The turbo will be reasonably spooled up as the baseline power need is pretty big. Add fuel under boost and the power should come on quickly. Big displacement engines have lots of big heavy parts that need to accelerate to add power so maybe it's a wash on which will respond faster.

 

Is this an E-controls computer running the engine? ZO compatible?

 

Darn, I just ZO converted my 79 American Skier with a heavy V8...

 

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
@WoodySkier seems VERY VERY unlikely that PCM or Ilmor would move to Ford.

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see the new 2020 Ford 7.3L gasoline pushrod V8 (code name “Godzilla”) being a more suitable candidate or next in line for marinization. Totally different architecture than these dowsized turbos, but fit for the HD market as the article explained, capitalizing on big torque at low RPM. Isn’t that what we want?

 

Illmore already did it with the MV8 7.4L (524 ft-lbs, 522 hp). I’ve heard tournament wakeboat drivers state that the 7.4L NA used significantly less fuel than the Rouscharged Raptors or XS550.

 

Heavy duty truck market needs = modern Ski / wake boat needs?

 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a26306469/ford-super-duty-73-v8-engine-details-specs/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Ilmore has actually jumped around from GM to different blocks some then back to GM (before powering Mastercraft.) More likely tho that GM will start copying the Ford if it proves successful, and Ilmore playing with some turbo etc..... Ilmore seems as much on the edge of tech as anyone, so I"m sure they'll be doing something competitive, as long as its going to work the way they want it to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@DW I found Ford info saying the 2.7L Ecoboost was 440 lbs. dry weight. If they were ever to marinize the 3.5L EcoBoost, it is only 9 lbs. more.

@MopedMedicks How much does that 7.3L weigh? I would guess a fair bit more? Plus, it might cause a pretty big engine box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Is anyone here an engineer specializing in engine design, not a mechanic but someone who actually designs the parts or knows the thermal calculations? I'm not but there seems to be a lot of conjecture being floated around as fact regarding engine design.

 

One thing I can't figure out is why cooling would ever be a problem in a boat. Cars have to reject heat to possible high temp air with an AC heat exchanger right there. In contrast, a boat has a constant supply of ambient water. I know it's water instead of coolant but the supply endless. Seems crazy for engine temps to ever be a problem on the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Turbo lag. LMAO. Pure conjecture. You don't really understand how this works. In all actuality, a boat is the perfect platform for a turbo motor. Turbos build boost based on load. The prop of a boat puts load on the motor instantly. I'd take a turbocharged smaller engine in a boat all day and everyday over a big inch engine .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BoneHead If a boat is accelerating or traveling a constant speed and under load, there would be no lag. If a skier gets slack in the line and lets up on the load, the engine will bleed boost, and will have to spool up again. This is a very small amount and probably would not be noticeable, but it does exist and is more of a delay than a naturally aspirated or supercharged engine.

 

I think the PWC market is a great example, there are no turbo PWC's. They all use a supercharger to get instant power and better throttle response. If you look at the snowmobile market, Yamaha uses turbo engines in their snowmobiles and they still have minor lag even with triple throttle bodies and fancy computers to keep boost.

 

If weight savings is what you are after, a smaller supercharged engine could be the be a better option. The 3.5 ecobooost is also an overhead-cam engine, this makes generally them wider. The additional width of the engine block combined with the addition of two turbos and piping would make designing a boat to have an open layout more difficult.

 

The new Ford 7.3 is a Iron block engine and might not be the lightest option. Something like a LT1 or a coyote V8(also a dual overhead cam) would be more ideal for a ski boat than a 3.5 ecoboost. I think turbos have there place, but they are not needed in a ski boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Ford lists the 2.3L Ecoboost Mustang engine at about 340 pounds. They have versions of the 2.3L Ecoboost at 350 HP and 385 HP. And, strong torque. Amazing.

I do not notice any turbo lag in my F150 Ecoboost.

I think the possibility of significantly lower weight and a jump in fuel economy is very exciting. Let's hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Zman - thx for the data, the LS3 dry weight is listed at 429 lbs.

@vtmecheng - you are correct on the size of the 'radiator' certainly ample, the issue is the radiant heat generated at/or from the turbo, much higher than components on an NA engine so it simply boils down to adding some water cooling to the turbo similar to the water cooling on the exhaust manifolds.

My personal favorite 'high grunt / nice weight' option, an LS-7. Swap in a marine cam and it would be awesome although not cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Everyone who has built turbocharged marine engines and had dataloggers attached to them, please raise your hands. @jakecuz23 I spent a good part of 90s and 2000s building turbocharged engines and testing with mfrs such as Ford. As has at least one other member on here. From testing I've been involved in on small and mid displacement turbo engines, there is no boost bleed or re-spooling on todays engine, turbo , and efi packages. The example of the PWC market is completely and utterly different. The waterjet driveline of a PWC loads the engine completely differently than a prop propelled boat. With the prop driven marine turbo engines, there is ALWAYS load on the engine while while the prop shaft is engaged and up to speed. Even if you pull back the throttle there is load. Because there is always load, there is always positive pressure produced by the turbo. Because there is always load and always positive pressure, there is never lag. Even from a dead stop, properly designed turbo marine engines will go into positive manifold pressure almost immediately upon rolling into the throttle. The variation in throttle by ZO won't take the load off. It will reduce it somewhat yes, but that won't take the exhaust energy away. Not exhaust pressure, because that's not what drives a turbo. Exhaust energy and the heat delta between one side of the turbine blade and the other side is what moves the turbine wheel and therefore the compressor. The only way to totally remove the load and therefore the energy is to put the transmission in neutral. As long as your turbo is chosen so that it doesn't go left of the surge line, then lag is nonexistent during operation in the forward gear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@vtmecheng, I don't mean to imply that a car's (boat's) cooling system can't handle a turbo, but over 20 some years of fixing cars I've probably replaced several dozen turbos over a range of makes and models. Very likely every single failure relates to the oiling system, the turbo live's at very high temps, the oil gets cooked a little every time the motor is shut off. (Everyone knows to let the motor idle for several minutes before shutting off right?) Over time the plumbing gets restricted from the oil sludging up and eventually the turbo bearings and or seals let go. Cue the wallet grenade. Heck in a boat a fresh water cooled turbo housing might be just the ticket but for me personally I will gladly hold on to my v8.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'd still love to revisit the 4 litre, aluminum, marinized Lexus engines that were in the short-lived Toyota Epics. But a 3.5L ecoboost might be interesting.

 

Unfortunately, it seems it only takes a couple of traditionalists saying "the hole shot wasn't quite as strong" (as if that matters) and everyone goes back to drooling over 6 litre gas guzzlers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Put me in, coach! If I ever have to repower my SN196, an engine like this is my FIRST CHOICE.

 

I have decades of experience in turbocharging modern automotive gas engines and doing calibration work on torque control and emissions. Anyone whining about lag, torque delay, or cooling has little or no first hand experience with this application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
For the half dozen diesel trucks I have owned and a high HP twin turbo car I still find it hard to believe a small displacement turbo motor in a boat will have enough acceleration under load to get skiers up to speed soon enough. Relating car performance with a 6/8/9/10 speed tranny vs a single speed in a boat is an issue also, hard to compare. Perhaps the answer to everyone's concerns (hole-shot, RPM, Fuel efficiency) is to move away from our single speed tranny's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ford Ecos are not an automotive engine with a Turbo. They are engines from the ground up built to have turbos. Some very unique oiling for both cooling and longevity. They are twin turbos and have no noticeable lag. Power comes on from the moment you drop the hammer. I have a 2.0L and A 3.5L and drive A 3.7 all of them have been amazing. My ski partner just sold a F-150 3.5 with 180,000 miles only issue was a bad injector. That was a work truck that pulled some heavy trailers. I have often said it's a engine that should be looked at for our tugs. In the past the 3.5L in the F-150 did outrun the 5.0 not much but did. The new 7.3L I am quit sure is a cast iron block but a very narrow package.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Gas economy may not be our first priority, but Ford uses the 2.3L EcoBoost in the Mustang, and claims all Mustang engine options exceed 30 mpg.

So, I like the possibility of strong HP and torque, lower weight and probably very noticeable drop in fuel required.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Raptor with the 450hp version of the 3.5 Ecoboost. Without a doubt the 3.5 would do a good job in our boats with the ECM properly tuned. As far as fuel efficiency in the large Raptors go, it is extremely variable related to how hard you drive it. I get pretty good mileage with mine because I tend to be easy on the peddle. Mileage definitely goes down hill fast when you drive it hard or fast on the highway......of course this happens with all engines but with the Raptor, it is dramatic.

Think it would work well in a boat. But more fuel efficient? I have my doubts. With the engines you can have Eco or you can have Boost. But not both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
It doesn't matter if it's a 2.3L or a 6.2L engine making the hp. 400HP equates to a certain amount of fuel. For gasoline, that calculation is GPH = (specific fuel consumption x HP)/Fuel Specific Weight which equates to about 50% of target hp in gph. So a 400hp gas engine will consume 40Ghp of gasoline at full throttle. That is universal. Where economy is had is off throttle, transition, and off idle. And that is where the smaller engines will pick up economy over the bigger engines. That too is universal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Keep in mind that Ford also puts the 2.3T in the new Ranger pickup. It is plenty capable of pulling. I'm not advocating this engine for a 5000#+ballast surf barge, but it IS ideal for our slalom tugs.

 

The biggest hangup will probably be getting used to a new "home" on the tach. If you trade engine torque for RPM, you deliver the same POWER to the propeller to accelerate the boat. This engine has just as much power as the 5.7L V8 that most here are used to. Who cares if the tach needle points to 4000 instead of 3600 during a run if the engine is still quieter and has enough power to keep up with the demands of ZO? Until you ski one, you won't really be able to complain. And I suspect that if we did a true blind test, many here could be completely satisfied with the pull of this engine in a lightweight boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Lighter weight does directly translate into less drag. So fuel burn will be lower and more power will be available to pull the skier. For a trick skier, custom ballasting can replace the static engine weight to improve the wake.

 

In boats and skis, lighter is better!

 

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@BoneHead Sort of yes, sort of no. Versus the 2.3L the 6.2L has twice as many pistons (more friction) and about twice as many bearings (more friction) and other additional internal mechanical losses that will prevent it from ever being as efficient as the 2.3L.

While pulling a slalom skier these 300+ HP engines are not working all that hard. They do gulp fuel when hitting the throttle, especially on short set ups.

I can work my 3.5L F150 Ecoboost pretty hard and still get good mileage. But, not when I tow a camper. I drop about in half, and no better than an 8 cylinder would do.

So, at that point, under heavy load, I agree a big block engine will not be much different that a normally very efficient turbo 4 cylinder.

 

Typical slalom ski boat is usage is somewhere around 70 to 80% idle time. The smaller engines will shine here too.

 

I do wonder how much the ski boats designers will have to rethink hull design with about 350 to 400 pounds less engine weight?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

One downside to turbocharged gasoline engines is that the boost required a lower compression ratio. High compression ratio engines are more efficient. This used to more than offset the efficiency of using the waste exhaust energy. Old turbos were gas hogs. I don't know if modern computer controlled engines can adjust parameters enough to allow high compression and turbocharging to achieve improved fuel economy.

 

Note that diesel engines do fine (better) when turbocharged.

 

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@BoneHead - the illusion is the fuel economy angle on it, no doubt both add a significant boost in power.

 

One argument that could be made is a smaller turbo charged engine is more fuel efficient that a V8 while driving casually around town or in traffic, but if your driving it like it was meant to be your clearly not trying to save on gas :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

You guys must drive different turbocharged vehicles than I do. Mine are clearly more efficient unless pushed very hard.

My wife's turbo 2L sedan we drive on trips at 80 MPH, and always exceed 33 MPG.

And, it has great power.

Let me know a gas, naturally aspirated 8 cylinder that can do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...