Bigger engine for BS

[johnardsg]

I was cleaning both our vehicles today and saw that my rav4 engine bay is full and my BB has a ton more space inside.
(I took pics of both of them)
Anyone else think that the BS can fit a bigger 2.5 to 3.0L engine? There's plenty of room and engineers can make a new innovation for sure to make it powerful yet economical
Let's take out the turbo and just put a 3.0L NA engine in there and zoom the roads with the cruising songs we like.
Thoughts??

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

I was cleaning both our vehicles today and saw that my rav4 engine bay is full and my BB has a ton more space inside.
(I took pics of both of them)
Anyone else think that the BS can fit a bigger 2.5 to 3.0L engine? There's plenty of room and engineers can make a new innovation for sure to make it powerful yet economical
Let's take out the turbo and just put a 3.0L NA engine in there and zoom the roads with the cruising songs we like.
Thoughts??

FWIW my moms 2010 Escape has a N/A 3.0 V-6 240 Horsepower IIRC and my Bronco Sport seams to run just as good if not better!!Although i do have the Pedal Max on the Bronco Sport that helps!!Maybe it's the 8 speed automatic in the Bronco Sport compared to the 6 speed in the Escape!!2.7 Eco Boost would be a blast in the Bronco Sport!!

But i do agree with you the Bronco Sport does look like it has plenty of room under the hood!!The Escape is For Sale has less than 30,000 miles on it!

 

[RSH]

The 2.0 in engines run pretty good, if you mash the gas and the wheels aren't pointing straight you can get into trouble quickly, the 2.0 has some torque steer. I don't really think it needs more power, but a tune could be interesting.

 

[Mark S.]

Let's take out the turbo and just put a 3.0L NA engine in there and zoom the roads with the cruising songs we like.
Thoughts?

Ford used its Duratec 3.0L V6 in the 2001 and later Escape. That engine produced around 200 hp and returned around 20 mpg on the highway. Toyota's latest iteration of it's venerable 3.5L V6--arguably the best mass-produced normally aspirated V6 in the world--was used in the last-generation Tacoma. It produced 278 horsepower @ 6000 rpm, and 265 lb-ft torque @ 4600 rpm. Compare that to the 2.0L EcoBoost's 245 hp @ 6000 rpm, and 277 lb-ft torque at 3000 rpm. Although the Toyota engine produces more horsepower, the EcoBoost makes more torque. What's more, the EcoBoost produces it's maximum torque more than 1500 rpm earlier. Low-rpm torque makes a car much more "drivable" in normal, every-day circumstances--you don't have to wait for the engine to rev up to get useable acceleration.

This improvement in drivability without a significant loss of horsepower is one of the primary reasons the overwhelming majority of auto manufacturers have moved toward small-displacement turbocharged engines. They're far lighter, and offer similar power than their normally aspirated brethren. And because they are significantly more fuel efficient at low-power demand, they provide owners with flexibility--with the EcoBoost you get "Eco" or "Boost" as the situation demands.

All-in-all, the 2.0L EcoBoost is a great fit for this vehicle. I think a normally aspirated V6 would be a step backward.

 

[jkeaton]

LS swap.

 

[Cactus22]

Keep it in the Ford family: Coyote 5.0!

Seriously, a very lightweight, brick-shaped object like a BS probably cannot safely manage more HP/torque than the 2.0 already provides. I’d imagine things get slippery quickly.

 

[Mrmike]

I'd would of been happy if I could've gotten the 2.0 in my OBX!

 

[ATLAS BLUE BADLANDS]

Ford used its Duratec 3.0L V6 in the 2001 and later Escape. That engine produced around 200 hp and returned around 20 mpg on the highway. Toyota's latest iteration of it's venerable 3.5L V6--arguably the best mass-produced normally aspirated V6 in the world--was used in the last-generation Tacoma. It produced 278 horsepower @ 6000 rpm, and 265 lb-ft torque @ 4600 rpm. Compare that to the 2.0L EcoBoost's 245 hp @ 6000 rpm, and 277 lb-ft torque at 3000 rpm. Although the Toyota engine produces more horsepower, the EcoBoost makes more torque. What's more, the EcoBoost produces it's maximum torque more than 1500 rpm earlier. Low-rpm torque makes a car much more "drivable" in normal, every-day circumstances--you don't have to wait for the engine to rev up to get useable acceleration.

This improvement in drivability without a significant loss of horsepower is one of the primary reasons the overwhelming majority of auto manufacturers have moved toward small-displacement turbocharged engines. They're far lighter, and offer similar power than their normally aspirated brethren. And because they are significantly more fuel efficient at low-power demand, they provide owners with flexibility--with the EcoBoost you get "Eco" or "Boost" as the situation demands.

All-in-all, the 2.0L EcoBoost is a great fit for this vehicle. I think a normally aspirated V6 would be a step backward.

Great post - Our other daily driver is a 2024 Subaru Outback 2.4L - rated at 260 hp @ 5,600 rpm / and the same 277 lb-ft of torque but @ just 2,000 rpm! - Heck it idles that fast when cold. Even being over 200 pounds heavier it is just as peppy as the Bronco Sport. The Subaru 2.4L must have a long stroke - last time I had an engine that made max torque at such a low rpm was a Duramax diesel max torque @ 1,600 rpm.

The Bronco Sport definitely has much the same 'snap' to it............

 

[Mark S.]

Great post - Our other daily driver is a 2024 Subaru Outback 2.4L - rated at 260 hp @ 5,600 rpm / and the same 277 lb-ft of torque but @ just 2,000 rpm! - Heck it idles that fast when cold. Even being over 200 pounds heavier it is just as peppy as the Bronco Sport. The Subaru 2.4L must have a long stroke - last time I had an engine that made max torque at such a low rpm was a Duramax diesel max torque @ 1,600 rpm.

The Bronco Sport definitely has much the same 'snap' to it............

Increasing the stroke length is the tried and true method of increasing low-end torque...for normally aspirated engines. Subaru's 2.4L FA24 series engine is a derivative of the 2.0L FA20 series engine. To get the increase in displacement for the FA24 engines, Subaru increased the bore of the FA20. To get the gobs of low-end torque offered by both the FA24F and FA20F engines, Subaru relied almost entirely on its twin-scroll turbocharger. To see how a twin-scroll turbo increases low-end torque check out the video:

 

[sajohnson]

Ford used its Duratec 3.0L V6 in the 2001 and later Escape. That engine produced around 200 hp and returned around 20 mpg on the highway. Toyota's latest iteration of it's venerable 3.5L V6--arguably the best mass-produced normally aspirated V6 in the world--was used in the last-generation Tacoma. It produced 278 horsepower @ 6000 rpm, and 265 lb-ft torque @ 4600 rpm. Compare that to the 2.0L EcoBoost's 245 hp @ 6000 rpm, and 277 lb-ft torque at 3000 rpm. Although the Toyota engine produces more horsepower, the EcoBoost makes more torque. What's more, the EcoBoost produces it's maximum torque more than 1500 rpm earlier. Low-rpm torque makes a car much more "drivable" in normal, every-day circumstances--you don't have to wait for the engine to rev up to get useable acceleration.

This improvement in drivability without a significant loss of horsepower is one of the primary reasons the overwhelming majority of auto manufacturers have moved toward small-displacement turbocharged engines. They're far lighter, and offer similar power than their normally aspirated brethren. And because they are significantly more fuel efficient at low-power demand, they provide owners with flexibility--with the EcoBoost you get "Eco" or "Boost" as the situation demands.

All-in-all, the 2.0L EcoBoost is a great fit for this vehicle. I think a normally aspirated V6 would be a step backward.

Something I've wondered about is why some sources say the 2.0L makes 245 hp and others say 250.

 

[Mark S.]

Something I've wondered about is why some sources say the 2.0L makes 245 hp and others say 250.

Rounding up?

The "official" number from Ford looks to be 250:

https://www.fordcomponentsalesllc.com/powertrain/ford-2-0l-ecoboost-engine/

 

[sajohnson]

Rounding up?

The "official" number from Ford looks to be 250:

https://www.fordcomponentsalesllc.com/powertrain/ford-2-0l-ecoboost-engine/

Could be, although IIRC there is a law/regulation regarding the accuracy of hp and torque claims by mfrs. An SAE procedure they have to follow to get net hp at the crank with all accessories.

Maybe most/all mfrs 'embellish' though, IDK. My impression was that hp and torque claims are closely monitored, but maybe not. For decades I've heard that they sometimes deflate hp/torque figures for insurance purposes, but that's obviously not the case here.

 

[Mark S.]

For decades I've heard that they sometimes deflate hp/torque figures...

Wouldn't be the first time.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a23739443/buick-regal-grand-national-gnx-history/

 

[Mrmike]

Rounding up?

The "official" number from Ford looks to be 250:

https://www.fordcomponentsalesllc.com/powertrain/ford-2-0l-ecoboost-engine/

I believe it can vary depending on what octane gas you use.

 

[Dude]

Perhaps different sources of info for the 2.0L EcoBoost

Mark S stated:
245 hp @ 6000 rpm,
277 lb-ft torque at 3000 rpm

Documentation for my ‘22 Badlands:
250HP @ 5,500 RPM, (186.5 kW | 254 PS)
277ft-lbs Torque @ 3,000 RPM

Sponsored