2.0 EcoBoost engine -- overall feedback?

[sanpablo]

Sounds to me just like the nylon clad aluminum timing gears Ford used in the '60s and '70s. Small splinters from a failing gear would enter the oil pump, lock it up and then no oil pressure. Same thing, different era.

Same problem on my 1975 Chevy C-10 van. 350 engine developed timing chain slap. Took it apart and found the nylon tipped crank gear, geez! Replacement part from GM was all metal!

Sponsored

 

[colinl]

What you are feeling is fords trq per gear. They limit the power in the first few gears as to help drivability and ease on gear box.

I didn't go into that detail, but yes, excellent point.

It's limited to about 10 psi in 1st gear. tuners can change some parameters, but really the overall point was just that to say the Maverick has turbo lag is unequivocally wrong.

 

[Snox801]

I didn't go into that detail, but yes, excellent point.

It's limited to about 10 psi in 1st gear. tuners can change some parameters, but really the overall point was just that to say the Maverick has turbo lag is unequivocally wrong.

100 percent agree. Just thought I needed to lay it out as he acted like we simply don’t understand turbos. I do understand but he clearly doesn’t understand tuning.

 

[Scott Asheville]

OP, see the thread that popped up today. A fellow ecoboost owner had his engine fail and be replaced under warranty. It includes an NTSA advisory on ecoboost failures that I wasn't aware of. But pretty rare.

https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/f...maverick-w-38k-miles.56497/page-2#post-958255

 

[Snox801]

As for the op. I have had several 2.0 ecoboost engines. You will enjoy them. Good power especially tuned. And mine have lasted a very long time. Still rolling a 17 2.0 in my wife’s edge that has 230k miles of e30 tuning. So it’s been tuned the whole time. Pulled the intake off to clean the carbon build up at 120k. Put it right back on as I had no noticeable carbon build up at that point.

As an update to others looks like ford has approved the BG cleaner for that issue. So we have another option instead of walnut. I’ve used stp and amsoil power foam with no ill effects on other ecoboost engines.

 

[Decayed]

Yes you are wrong. Turbos do not rob power to make power. They are not super chargers. They don’t need to take power to make power. Lag is just the amount of time it take from throttle input to the time it takes to make boost. Is lag a real thing yes. Is it a real thing with a tiny turbo we have in these trucks no.
Not in the sense of lag you are trying to describe. What you are more that likely feeling is the tuning. As other have stated the time it take to go from 0-18psi is almost instant. Maybe 1 second. That is not what most would call lag. What you are feeling is fords trq per gear. They limit the power in the first few gears as to help drivability and ease on gear box.
What they do is limit the amount of power being made with boost and timing as to not have a massive amount of power sent the instant the turbo lights up.
This is proven by the fact anyone who has tuned the ecoboost knows they can hit the throttle and power is very fast. Fast enough that my wife’s 2.0 edge tuned can chirp the tires on a launch being awd like our maverick.
It’s either trans tuning or fords power per gear you feel not lag.
What I find hard to grasp is the fact that you simply don’t seem to have ever tuned or looked at the data coming from a tuning session to know what you are feeling as lag. The fact the is making a vast amount of its power by 2k rpm when 1200 is the staring point for a launch tells me it’s making boost right off the line. And lots of boost before 2 k. That’s not considered lag.

Did you read what I originally wrote?

 

[OleFordGuy]

As for the op. I have had several 2.0 ecoboost engines. You will enjoy them. Good power especially tuned. And mine have lasted a very long time. Still rolling a 17 2.0 in my wife’s edge that has 230k miles of e30 tuning. So it’s been tuned the whole time. Pulled the intake off to clean the carbon build up at 120k. Put it right back on as I had no noticeable carbon build up at that point.

As an update to others looks like ford has approved the BG cleaner for that issue. So we have another option instead of walnut. I’ve used stp and amsoil power foam with no ill effects on other ecoboost engines.

Another real world testimony for all the "sky is falling" carbon buildup fearful posters. Great post and good information for folks to know/realize.

 

[AlpineKid74]

22k On My 22/FX4/4K-TOW- Recently added the S/B intake and just loving it - Wakes the motor up, more punch, a little more grrrr and such- No problem with the Autobahn here in Utah with on/ramps and Mad/Max type drivers -)

S/B most likely does not have anything for the 2025 yet. Will look into that sometime next year.
I have also heard that Ford did something with the fuel filter and is different then the 2024 setup.

 

[dochawk]

With the ecoboost, you have about a second of turbo lag,

I got talked into test driving a 2.0 Maverick today. I didn't turn it down, but we're after a hybrid.

Anyway, I opened it up as soon as I straightened it leaving the dealer driveway. A nice hefty response, and I didn't feel a lag. But as I lifted my foot off the pedal, I heard the high pitched whine, and so I pushed down again, with significant power gain. So in my grossly subjective view while I wasn't watching for *that*, it appeared to be about a second of lag before spun up.

Turbos do not rob power to make power. They are not super chargers.

Yes and no.

NO direct power tap like a turbocharger, but using the the exhaust spin reduces exhaust flow, which *does* affect power. The question isn't "if" it reduces power, but rather "how much"--which could run the gamut of "not enough to worry about" to "strangulation."

Same problem on my 1975 Chevy C-10 van.

I've been advised by a couple of experienced folks to preemptively replace the timing chain on my '72 Eldorado for this reason.

 

[Snox801]

Did you read what I originally wrote?

Yes, but it doesn’t change what I said. The lag you feel is not the turbo.
You also stated they rob power which they really don’t. They can create some more back pressure but that doesn’t always lead to reduced power. That is always a case by case situation.
You also said you prefer a N.A. v6.

At that point I can’t even take someone serious. Not saying v6 is not good but to compare a N.A. v6 to any modern turbo 4 is laughable. I can think of one thing that a v6 N.A. would best a turbo 4 at that wouldn’t be subject. Everything we can measure the 4 beats it.
So yes I did read it. Still can’t figure out what you thought I missed?

 

[Superg0]

This thread is getting

 

[Decayed]

Yes, but it doesn’t change what I said. The lag you feel is not the turbo.
You also stated they rob power which they really don’t. They can create some more back pressure but that doesn’t always lead to reduced power. That is always a case by case situation.
You also said you prefer a N.A. v6.

At that point I can’t even take someone serious. Not saying v6 is not good but to compare a N.A. v6 to any modern turbo 4 is laughable. I can think of one thing that a v6 N.A. would best a turbo 4 at that wouldn’t be subject. Everything we can measure the 4 beats it.
So yes I did read it. Still can’t figure out what you thought I missed?

The entire point of my comment was about the very early throttle response from idle.. Not at 4500 rpm. Not at 3000 rpm. Not even 2000 rpm. From idle. You still following because it's really very simple.

My entire point was that response from idle is not as robust with the ecoboost than it is with an NA V6. My 20 year old V6 explorer does better. Even by new subaru has better response from idle. Never said it was horrible, just noticeably different. From idle, remember. And it's not a huge effect, just enough to be noticeable.

Once the air gets flowing through that turbo it's not even close - the eco wins and it doesn't take much time at all to get there. Whether it's turbo lag (and I still think that's a major contributor in this very specific instance - from idle remember ) or programming or something else is irrelevant.

Coupled with the auto stop start, it nearly killed me once merging into heavy traffic and that incident made me acutely aware that if I needed to accelerate hard, I was going to have to factor in that slight delay - a slight delay but a delay nonetheless - coming up from idle. This was my lived experience with the mav and if you don't believe it at this point there is no reason to try to change your mind.

The assertion that the computer reduces power to protect the trans at that rpm is completely ridiculous. The power produced at that point is no where near the limits of the trans. Higher rpms - sure but not from idle.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[Snox801]

The entire point of my comment was about the very early throttle response from idle.. Not at 4500 rpm. Not at 3000 rpm. Not even 2000 rpm. From idle. You still following because it's really very simple.

My entire point was that response from idle is not as robust with the ecoboost than it is with an NA V6. My 20 year old V6 explorer does better. Even by new subaru has better response from idle. Never said it was horrible, just noticeably different. From idle, remember. And it's not a huge effect, just enough to be noticeable.

Once the air gets flowing through that turbo it's not even close - the eco wins and it doesn't take much time at all to get there. Whether it's turbo lag (and I still think that's a major contributor in this very specific instance - from idle remember ) or programming or something else is irrelevant.

Coupled with the auto stop start, it nearly killed me once merging into heavy traffic and that incident made me acutely aware that if I needed to accelerate hard, I was going to have to factor in that slight delay - a slight delay but a delay nonetheless - coming up from idle. This was my lived experience with the mav and if you don't believe it at this point there is no reason to try to change your mind.

The assertion that the computer reduces power to protect the trans at that rpm is completely ridiculous. The power produced at that point is no where near the limits of the trans. Higher rpms - sure but not from idle.

Hope that clears things up for you.

My point was more that you kept referring to it as turbo lag which it’s not. Never once did I say they won’t make more power at higher rpm.
You are saying over and over that off throttle is turbo lag. Which it’s not. What you are feeling is the transmission tuning and trq limit per gear.
I’m not saying it doesn’t have a lag but we need to be clear on what it is not spreading false info.
this is all the tuning by ford mainly in the trans it is not turbo lag. The fact that these can chirp the tires from a stop dead off throttle stop to a launch tells us it’s not turbo lag. Well that and data collection showing boost.

So no it’s not irrelevant. I was never saying it wasn’t lagging off the line stock. I never said that I simply said it was not turbo lag. Which the data shows.

 

[Bigfoot7262]

Anyone who complains about the 2.0 eco motor should drive a Bronco Sport with the 1.5 eco motor, you'll never complain again.
For the bargain basement price of an entry level Maverick, Ford could have cheaped out and stuck the XLs & XLTs with a lesser motor. They didn't.

 

[Phimosis]

My point was more that you kept referring to it as turbo lag which it’s not. Never once did I say they won’t make more power at higher rpm.
You are saying over and over that off throttle is turbo lag. Which it’s not. What you are feeling is the transmission tuning and trq limit per gear.
I’m not saying it doesn’t have a lag but we need to be clear on what it is not spreading false info.
this is all the tuning by ford mainly in the trans it is not turbo lag. The fact that these can chirp the tires from a stop dead off throttle stop to a launch tells us it’s not turbo lag. Well that and data collection showing boost.

So no it’s not irrelevant. I was never saying it wasn’t lagging off the line stock. I never said that I simply said it was not turbo lag. Which the data shows.

There must be some miscommunication here. Because what I hear him talking about totally sounds like turbo lag. When I whack the throttle open on my ecoboost from an idle, it is making something like 80 lb/ft of torque because the 122 cubic inch engine is off of its torque curve and it making 0 bar of boost. At 1,500 rpm, it is making about 120 lb/ft of torque because it is coming into its torque band, thanks to variable valve timing, but it is still making near 0 bar of boost. At 2,000 rpm it is making about 190 lb/ft of torque because the turbo is starting to spool up and it is making about 0.5 bar of boost. At 2,500 rpm it is making 250 lb/ft of torque because the turbo is nearly fully spun up and is making 1.2 bar of boost. That rapid ramp up in torque takes about 1 second. Maybe 1.5 seconds. That is all turbo lag. It has nothing to do with the transmission limiting the torque. The transmission has no qualms about delivering twice as much torque in first gear at 3,000 rpm as what it can deliver at 1,500 rpm. And the story being referenced to, was going from start-stop to idle, to full power, for an evasive maneuver. And the numbers I’m referencing are from 2.0 ecoboost engine-stand dyno charts where transmission torque limiting is not an issue.

Sponsored