2.3 Ecoboost Mustang Parts. Can we use them?

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by Tomas where do you get that price from msm for $60 gen2 pistons? that fucking RS short block is a steal.

See attached. (note the rings are $115)

Yes, it is a steal. The Mazda assembled short block is $1800 (my price, MSM), so it's about the same price and a way better engine.

[nindoja]

I think that's $60/piston, not $60/4 pistons.

[MD1032]

It says "piston set" very clearly.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[SaveMelMac]

Originally Posted by MD1032 It says "piston set" very clearly. Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

It's one piston

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by SaveMelMac It's one piston

No, it clearly says "piston set". Where's your proof?

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[SaveMelMac]

Originally Posted by MD1032 No, it clearly says "piston set". Where's your proof? Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Set is refering to the wrist pin and piston. Hence "set"

[torquemaniac]

Thats the price for one piston/pin set...I knows cause I bought 4 a couple months ago

See the Jim Ellis listing here (it state that 4 are required) : PISTON SET. PISTON, CRANKSHAFT & FLYWHEEL (2300CC) made by Mazda. #L3Y411SA0

[MD1032]

Thanks for the clarification. It's still worth noting that a set of 4 mzr pistons is less costly than a single EcoBoost piston


Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[mituc]

Since the guys at SP63 started to play with 2.3EcoBOost engines a while ago, I asked them on failbook about using these parts in 2.3DISI-T engines. They gave a very short an concise answer: "None!".
Well... in this case we may very well import the whole engine into this platform.

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by mituc Since the guys at SP63 started to play with 2.3EcoBOost engines a while ago, I asked them on failbook about using these parts in 2.3DISI-T engines. They gave a very short an concise answer: "None!". Well... in this case we may very well import the whole engine into this platform.

I do not understand what you are saying. Perhaps there is a translation error somewhere. Are you saying SP63 believes none of the ecoboost parts are compatible? I don't believe importing the entire short block as a unit would work because the turbo bracket and oil feed and drain lines are likely different. Modifying it to work with our parts would probably not be worth it.

[Jeff23spl]

basically the rod being 52mills shorter with Mazda piston would reduce compression by 1 point 9.5 to 8.5 or 10.5 to 9.3...not sure if it would be safe to shave that much on the block height for the sleeve and timing chain and will it worth the savings ? Do a shorter rod can reduce engine harmonics if the stroke remain the same ?

i'm more concern about the crank itself to know if it can fit or not on each ends with our accessories? OR using the whole short bloc

[Mazdazilla6]

I wouldn't use the block (my opinion). For some reason Ford decided to change it to an open deck design. Makes no sense to me because the 2.0 still uses a closed deck. The mustang guys have lots of issues with losing head gaskets around 450-500whp. My guess is the cylinders are moving around on them. Livernois makes a deck insert but that's not cheap.

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 I wouldn't use the block (my opinion). For some reason Ford decided to change it to an open deck design. Makes no sense to me because the 2.0 still uses a closed deck. The mustang guys have lots of issues with losing head gaskets around 450-500whp. My guess is the cylinders are moving around on them. Livernois makes a deck insert but that's not cheap.

I agree. The open deck was probably adopted for cooling advantages at the lower power levels, but I wouldn't trust it at the power levels we typically operate at with forged internals.

Originally Posted by Jeff23spl basically the rod being 52mills shorter with Mazda piston would reduce compression by 1 point 9.5 to 8.5 or 10.5 to 9.3...not sure if it would be safe to shave that much on the block height for the sleeve and timing chain and will it worth the savings ? Do a shorter rod can reduce engine harmonics if the stroke remain the same ? i'm more concern about the crank itself to know if it can fit or not on each ends with our accessories? OR using the whole short bloc

Why would you use the MZR pistons with the EB rods? The point is to swap out the entire piston-rod combo for an Ecoboost equivalent unit, which would keep the overall length of the assembly the same but hopefully down the road lower the cost of parts for us. Otherwise it would just make more sense to use MZR rods. You definitely don't want to lower compression with these engines IMO. 9.5:1 is low enough.

I do question the harmonics part of it. I wonder how the EB parts would play with our balance shaft unit.

[mituc]

To be honest all I want from the 2.3EcoBoost engine is the head, eventually without the cam shafts. This will open our 2.3DISI-fTw platform for a lot of injector options, manifolds (eventually a twin scroll exhaust manifold), the awesome factory intake manifolds from ford, and so on. the short block itself is pretty solid as is (or can be made very solid with only rods, pistons and bearings), I'm not sure we need any 2.3ecoboost part.

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by mituc To be honest all I want from the 2.3EcoBoost engine is the head, eventually without the cam shafts. This will open our 2.3DISI-fTw platform for a lot of injector options, manifolds (eventually a twin scroll exhaust manifold), the awesome factory intake manifolds from ford, and so on. the short block itself is pretty solid as is (or can be made very solid with only rods, pistons and bearings), I'm not sure we need any 2.3ecoboost part.

I'm actually looking into this already. I need to see if I still have a headgasket laying around that I can lay over one of the EcoBoost ones we have at work. If the coolant and oil passages line up then the only other concern is for the timing cover to line up as well. Everything else can be adapted over I think.

Right now I am hopeful. If this works it means we have larger injector options and HPFPs that are full E85 compatible possibly.

[Jeff23spl]

Originally Posted by MD1032 Why would you use the MZR pistons with the EB rods? The point is to swap out the entire piston-rod combo for an Ecoboost equivalent unit, which would keep the overall length of the assembly the same but hopefully down the road lower the cost of parts for us. Otherwise it would just make more sense to use MZR rods. You definitely don't want to lower compression with these engines IMO. 9.5:1 is low enough. I do question the harmonics part of it. I wonder how the EB parts would play with our balance shaft unit.

It was because they look at it for an economical option but you and others said MZR pistons are a lot cheaper so it may not worth it unless you mix it...But i agree i would pay the 200$ extra to get the Ford pistons.

I'm curious to know if it is better to have a shorter rod with longer piston or the oppposite...It would change the rotating angle so it would probably affect the blance shft efficiency too...Do they have the same kind of BS in the EB ?

[nindoja]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 I'm actually looking into this already. I need to see if I still have a headgasket laying around that I can lay over one of the EcoBoost ones we have at work. If the coolant and oil passages line up then the only other concern is for the timing cover to line up as well. Everything else can be adapted over I think. Right now I am hopeful. If this works it means we have larger injector options and HPFPs that are full E85 compatible possibly.

I seem to remember hearing that the coolant passages on the head are different, making a direct swap of the head not possible. If you need a used head gasket, I can drop one in the mail to ya.

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by nindoja I seem to remember hearing that the coolant passages on the head are different, making a direct swap of the head not possible. If you need a used head gasket, I can drop one in the mail to ya.

I've got one of my blocks at work. I'm gonna go run back to the build area and see how the EB head gasket lays on that.

My biggest concern is the fuel system. I don't think we have enough space in the engine bay to carry over our HPFP because it moves to the exhaust cam. And I don't think we can use the EB HPFP because it uses a solenoid on the HPFP for the relief valve to dump fuel back into the low pressure side. So without a mechanical relief or a way to control the electronic relief we don't really have any options that I can think of.

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 I've got one of my blocks at work. I'm gonna go run back to the build area and see how the EB head gasket lays on that. My biggest concern is the fuel system. I don't think we have enough space in the engine bay to carry over our HPFP because it moves to the exhaust cam. And I don't think we can use the EB HPFP because it uses a solenoid on the HPFP for the relief valve to dump fuel back into the low pressure side. So without a mechanical relief or a way to control the electronic relief we don't really have any options that I can think of.

Well, ours works the same way. Our spill valve runs off a duty cycle set by the ECU to dump fuel back to the low pressure side based on the pressure setpoint. The real problem is that the EB pump spill valve probably won't respond the same way as ours if it was driven by our ECU (could be different duty cycle or voltage). Who knows, maybe it would still work. After all, we put internals that move 50% more fuel into the same housing and our ECU's don't seem to mind at all.

If you have a block at work, do you have any way of verifying the crank compatibility? The person I reached out to about donating one for science never responded to my message and I don't trust my ability to verify that they are the same for all intents and purposes. It's a shame because we stand to gain a lot from being able to use EB cranks since ours cost around 4 times as much.

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by MD1032 Well, ours works the same way. Our spill valve runs off a duty cycle set by the ECU to dump fuel back to the low pressure side based on the pressure setpoint. The real problem is that the EB pump spill valve probably won't respond the same way as ours if it was driven by our ECU (could be different duty cycle or voltage). Who knows, maybe it would still work. After all, we put internals that move 50% more fuel into the same housing and our ECU's don't seem to mind at all. If you have a block at work, do you have any way of verifying the crank compatibility? The person I reached out to about donating one for science never responded to my message and I don't trust my ability to verify that they are the same for all intents and purposes. It's a shame because we stand to gain a lot from being able to use EB cranks since ours cost around 4 times as much.

Yes but there's no mechanical relief valve on the EB stuff. I see that as an issue since I'm guessing their ECU can control fuel pressure a lot more precisely.

Yea I can, you'll have to send me a set of main bearings though.

Also, head gasket lines up but covers up a lot of water jackets. It's strange because the deck is nearly identical to ours.

[Jeff23spl]

pictures ?

[jbywaters]

At the end of the day it would be convenient if these parts worked.. but c'mon, do you really wanna rebuild your mazda to be driving a ford lol

[Etipp98]

Originally Posted by jbywaters At the end of the day it would be convenient if these parts worked.. but c'mon, do you really wanna rebuild your mazda to be driving a ford lol

Guess you've never seen any FoMoCo stamps on your car yet....

[MS3Shadow]

Originally Posted by Etipp98 Guess you've never seen any FoMoCo stamps on your car yet....

Probs never opened the hood.

Sent from my Pixel XL

[zenit]

imma leave this here:

https://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?p=8100140

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by zenit imma leave this here: https://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?p=8100140

This thread is why I offered to send a crank to an engine builder in the community, since they look visually compatible, but the thread is ultimately useless because no measurements were taken. The snout and pilot bearing area are potential areas of incompatibility.

Now it looks like @Mazdazilla6; will accept my offer. So hopefully I will be sending him a crank and Mazda main bearings, and possibly other goodies for inspection. Honestly I just want the community to have a cheap crank option because I am sure lots of engines will be showing up on the used market in the coming years with spun bearings.

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by zenit imma leave this here: https://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?p=8100140

That pretty much settles it. I haven't looked at the bottom end stuff in months but it's not a surprise to me. Still should check pilot hole. My biggest reserve was the snout diameter, since we know it's the same now then things are looking pretty good.

I also made a list of what I think would be needed to fit an ecoboost head onto our shortblock. I thiiink it's fairly doable without much hassle.

[adamsjus1]

I'm sitting here thinking wait... Ford claimed that the 2.3 turbo motors used the same 6speed as the v8's did.... Which would mean that there is a tranny option if i where to 2.3 mzr swap a miata... Am interested now.
I wish my speed6 sounded like a RS tho... Factory exhaust in those things are pretty good.

[Djohns]

So did anyone find out if the cranks are okay to use?

[ajkulish]

Update after 3k on built motor, Ecoboost oil pump is holding up great.

[Djohns]

Originally Posted by mister.speed3 Would you recommend this set up?

Well he did say it’s holding up great.....so what does common sense dictate?

[Varomnia]

Originally Posted by Djohns Well he did say it’s holding up great.....so what does common sense dictate?

I don't think it's holding up well at all, it's not engineered to hold much weight at all, pumping however, i'm sure it's doing a fantastic job. Kidding aside, very interesting thread.

Edit: Something meaningful to add if it hasn't already been added. Ecoboost has been having some issues with their headgaskets at 20-22 psi. So, wouldn't necessarily recommend that part specifically. https://drivetribe.com/p/ford-focus-...T_eDel9ZAllzfw

[mituc]

Originally Posted by Varomnia Ecoboost has been having some issues with their headgaskets at 20-22 psi. So, wouldn't necessarily recommend that part specifically.

We can't use their head gaskets anyway because the water passages differ in location and size. Also, a head gasket from an open deck block will not fit a closed deck block like ours, and it's also suspected that the open deck design may be part of the problem.

[tmillner]

So I guess I'm going to be the first try this aren't I...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[MSMS3]

Originally Posted by tmillner So I guess I'm going to be the first try this aren't I... Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

What "this" are you going to try? Lots of different Ecoboost 2.3 parts being discussed in this thread.

[tmillner]

Reply didn't show up right, was replying to someone asking about the crank. Really the only part that matters out of all the parts.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[nindoja]

Originally Posted by tmillner Reply didn't show up right, was replying to someone asking about the crank. Really the only part that matters out of all the parts. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It's been done. It is a direct fit. Chris @ Speed Solutions recommends them for people with destroyed cranks.

[tmillner]

Originally Posted by nindoja It's been done. It is a direct fit. Chris @ Speed Solutions recommends them for people with destroyed cranks.

You just made my damn day sir

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[dagrimey1]

Rehash I know internet murder me!

FML can't use my crank as I don't want to go with +1 sized bearings. I've read and seen about the EB crank but has there been sustainable miles on one of these cranks? I know KJ MZR is running kne from his Speed Solutions build be he doesn't have very many miles. Are their any other success stories? I rather not be a guinea pig.

Can't believe I using Tapatalk again!

[Jeff23spl]

If the crank doesn't really fit, one will probably know in the first 100 miles....