What's new
By:
Filters

Modern 4 cylinder 4wd powertrains

FYI the LHU pic with the Haines adapter is my pic and still in my shop. If you need any ecotec dimensions let me know.

A boosted Eco in a krx would be a blast:

Also some of the Polaris slingshots run ecotecs, not sure what trans or transaxle they run.
 
AgitatedPancake said:
OK so as of now on the GM side, the 2.0 LTG paired with its factory 6l45 or 8l45 are my favorites for the minimum custom KISS objective I'm going for

And on the ford side, I'm taking another good look at the 2.3 ecoboost that's been available in the 2019+ rangers. That newness made me a little hesitant, but my friend just reminded me that the Mustang has been getting those engines since 2015, and explorers are getting them too. That's nearing a 10 year run on the engine platform across various models, and they seem to have a pretty good reputation. So while the ideal 4wd transmission and matching tcase may have only become available in 2019 and newer, the engine seems plentiful

19 - 22 FORD RANGER 2.3L ECOBOOST I4 ENGINE MOTOR 4X4 (VIN H (8TH DIGIT)) 71K | eBay

Even a 310HP crate motor is only $5,500

2.3L 310HP MUSTANG ECOBOOST ENGINE KIT
Click to expand...
You know a guy running that. Sort of. My brother and I have been hoarding 5.0 stuff for buggy builds. Then we got a 2.3L Ecoboost bronco with a 7 speed manual transmission. This thing weighs exactly 5K pounds before people get in it. 330 hp. 1st gear in the trans is 6.6:1. 3.8 atlas t-case. I have retard low if I need it but usually use 2nd or 3rd in low.
JR4X said:


Another angle someone sent to me
Click to expand...
 
Lee said:
You're shorting yourself a cylinder.

6259_Volvo_850_5-cyl_2_3_L.jpg


Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
Click to expand...

Im very happy with mine
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
Y’all know I gargle the balls of the blue oval, so I don’t have any ecotec experience to compare against. A 2.3 EB with a C4 transmission behind it is a lightweight small dimensional package that is potent for power to weight. Might not be potent per dollar though. Cheapest I can find Mustang junkyard 2.3’s is $4500 bucks and that doesn’t include harness or ECM. It’s another $1800 ish for a stand-alone power pack kit with DBW pedal intercooler and sensors to run one. So if you’re thrifty a 2.3 is $6,300 ish just for the power plant not including a trans or t-case.
 
JR4X said:
You know a guy running that. Sort of. My brother and I have been hoarding 5.0 stuff for buggy builds. Then we got a 2.3L Ecoboost bronco with a 7 speed manual transmission. This thing weighs exactly 5K pounds before people get in it. 330 hp. 1st gear in the trans is 6.6:1. 3.8 atlas t-case. I have retard low if I need it but usually use 2nd or 3rd in low.
Click to expand...

Such a badass clip, that thing just performs man. Nice driving.

JR4X said:
Y’all know I gargle the balls of the blue oval, so I don’t have any ecotec experience to compare against. A 2.3 EB with a C4 transmission behind it is a lightweight small dimensional package that is potent for power to weight. Might not be potent per dollar though. Cheapest I can find Mustang junkyard 2.3’s is $4500 bucks and that doesn’t include harness or ECM. It’s another $1800 ish for a stand-alone power pack kit with DBW pedal intercooler and sensors to run one. So if you’re thrifty a 2.3 is $6,300 ish just for the power plant not including a trans or t-case.
Click to expand...

Lol. I definitely see the value in these things, they seem like solid platforms. Do you happen to know if there are hardware variations between the platforms? Mustang engines seem to be in that 4500 range locally for me on car-part, but the explorer engines are ~1500-2000 cheaper. On ebay there look to be even cheaper ones, but probably higher risk.

Now just for grins on the transmission, any specific reason you'd chose the C4 over something more modern like what they come paired with? The modern stuff have crazy gear spreads from first to overdrive, may lead to simpler transfer case requirements
 
AgitatedPancake said:
Lol. I definitely see the value in these things, they seem like solid platforms. Do you happen to know if there are hardware variations between the platforms? Mustang engines seem to be in that 4500 range locally for me on car-part, but the explorer engines are ~1500-2000 cheaper. On ebay there look to be even cheaper ones, but probably higher risk.

Now just for grins on the transmission, any specific reason you'd chose the C4 over something more modern like what they come paired with? The modern stuff have crazy gear spreads from first to overdrive, may lead to simpler transfer case requirements
Click to expand...
There are little variations. The truck/bronco ones are derated to 285 hp while the mustang is 310. The 21 and up computers are locked out so you gotta be or know a hacker to get in. I don’t know anyone who can help me with that so I’m using a 2018 ECM.

The C4 just because they’re little light can be easily built to take any amount of power these engines can make.

71874949793__00E959F9-D353-42D2-B591-EA4247EEFC66.jpeg
71875920949__DE5BB906-4ADA-4DDF-B6BA-A7A2F6BE2DA7.jpeg
IMG_5706.jpeg
IMG_5705.jpeg


There is currently no way to control a 10 speed stand-alone. And the 2.3’s that came with the 10 speed from the factory are in locked ECM land. I’d like to try a 6R80 because they have stand-alone options and with that 4.17:1 first gear should work well.
 
Oh and another variation. I think 2.3’s are on gen 3 now. And the newest version have a variable vane turbo instead of a fixed vane. And the 2.3 all versions have a chain driven oil pump where all the other versions have a belt driven oil pump. A wet belt in the oil pan, and they come apart a lot because a belt living its life submerged in hot oil is a terrible idea.
 
JR4X said:
There are little variations. The truck/bronco ones are derated to 285 hp while the mustang is 310. The 21 and up computers are locked out so you gotta be or know a hacker to get in. I don’t know anyone who can help me with that so I’m using a 2018 ECM.

The C4 just because they’re little light can be easily built to take any amount of power these engines can make.


There is currently no way to control a 10 speed stand-alone. And the 2.3’s that came with the 10 speed from the factory are in locked ECM land. I’d like to try a 6R80 because they have stand-alone options and with that 4.17:1 first gear should work well.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, do you know if the derating comes with noteworthy hardware changes like cams/pistons/rods, or does it seem to be more tune related? Just trying to get a feel for if the Mustang engine is truly worth the extra the market demands.

Fawk. Great call on the ECM being locked, GM computers got locked somewhere in the same ballpark as well IIRC? My buddy was saying just unlocking them can be ~$1500+ alone. That definitely complicates things.

Half way related to the locked ECM and half regarding the 10 speed - So if I want an 2.3 with an OEM computer and longitudinal trans, I can only use 2019-2020 model year rangers? That tightens things up a good bit, but might mean there are a few unlocked 10 speed computers out there?

JR4X said:
Oh and another variation. I think 2.3’s are on gen 3 now. And the newest version have a variable vane turbo instead of a fixed vane. And the 2.3 all versions have a chain driven oil pump where all the other versions have a belt driven oil pump. A wet belt in the oil pan, and they come apart a lot because a belt living its life submerged in hot oil is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

Hmm I heard about that wet belt setup, seems silly. Can you clarify again which versions came with the belt instead of chain? Chain definitely seems preferable
 
AgitatedPancake said:
Hmmm, do you know if the derating comes with noteworthy hardware changes like cams/pistons/rods, or does it seem to be more tune related? Just trying to get a feel for if the Mustang engine is truly worth the extra the market demands.
Click to expand...

It’s all tuning for torque management and warranty restraint on 4x4’s.
AgitatedPancake said:
Fawk. Great call on the ECM being locked, GM computers got locked somewhere in the same ballpark as well IIRC? My buddy was saying just unlocking them can be ~$1500+ alone. That definitely complicates things.

Half way related to the locked ECM and half regarding the 10 speed - So if I want an 2.3 with an OEM computer and longitudinal trans, I can only use 2019-2020 model year rangers? That tightens things up a good bit, but might mean there are a few unlocked 10 speed computers out there?
Click to expand...
it would b worth looking into. Fucking CoPart has ruined any junkyard sourcing in the first place. Then vin locking vin syncing of software components also makes this cost and effort prohibitive.
AgitatedPancake said:
Hmm I heard about that wet belt setup, seems silly. Can you clarify again which versions came with the belt instead of chain? Chain definitely seems preferable
Click to expand...
it’s the 1.0 1.8 and 2.0’s that have the bullshit belt
 
dirtzuk said:
Im very happy with mine
Click to expand...
What transmission are you running, KL Racing adapter? Stock ECM or standalone, if standalone which one?

I've got 3x Redblocks, a B21 a couple B230s, a couple Whiteblocks (850 & XC90), and a bunch of turbo Redblock parts in my hoard.

I've day dreamed about Volvo swapping my TJ countless times. Redblock would be easier but Whiteblock is super appealing.

Gen III/IV LS is a very well documented path, and no doubt a whole lot less headache though. I keep telling myself that's the most logical path.
 
JR4X said:
It’s all tuning for torque management and warranty restraint on 4x4’s.

it would b worth looking into. Fucking CoPart has ruined any junkyard sourcing in the first place. Then vin locking vin syncing of software components also makes this cost and effort prohibitive.

it’s the 1.0 1.8 and 2.0’s that have the bullshit belt
Click to expand...

Sweet that it's just tuning, so the cheaper engines should be worthwhile. Gotcha on the belt too, glad the 2.3s avoid that all together. And yeahhh, junkyards sure have changed over the last decade.

Sean said:
2.3L EcoBoost Dimensions from one of the links: https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/PDFS/M-6007-23T_dimensions.pdf

Probably best to open in a new window so you can blow it up....



So 26.18" wide, 29.606" tall, back to front worst case at the top of the intake 25.96"

Anyone have a ballpark on weight for a fully dressed one?
Click to expand...

Excellent specs. And it looks like there are a couple accessory configurations as well that make the dimensions a bit more flexible. Then of course you can do intake/exhaust manifold changes if needed, but the more stock the better

From a quick skim online, it looks like they are ~310lb long block, then around ~420 with accessories?

Ford 2.3L Ecoboost Specs, Features, Performance & Reviews | Ford Component Sales LLC


Lee said:
What transmission are you running, KL Racing adapter? Stock ECM or standalone, if standalone which one?

I've got 3x Redblocks, a B21 a couple B230s, a couple Whiteblocks (850 & XC90), and a bunch of turbo Redblock parts in my hoard.

I've day dreamed about Volvo swapping my TJ countless times. Redblock would be easier but Whiteblock is super appealing.

Gen III/IV LS is a very well documented path, and no doubt a whole lot less headache though. I keep telling myself that's the most logical path.
Click to expand...

Sorry I kinda ignored the 5 cylinder comments haha. I honestly know nothing about them, just generically assumed they would be long but maybe that's not the case. Are they pretty respected platforms? Were they transverse or longitudinal?
 
AgitatedPancake said:
Sorry I kinda ignored the 5 cylinder comments haha. I honestly know nothing about them, just generically assumed they would be long but maybe that's not the case. Are they pretty respected platforms? Were they transverse or longitudinal?
Click to expand...

Volvo Whiteblock was available in 4, 5, & 6 cylinder variants. I think all 4s were turbo, 5 & 6 cylinders were available in turbo & N/A. One of the few transverse mounted I6s in existence, so they're fairly compact. The 6 was also available in longitudinal RWD 960 & S/V90 cars. Those cars' bellhousings are frequently used for transmission swaps.

5 cylinders were 2.3 to 2.5 liters. Some variant was made from the early '90s until around 2017. All aluminum, DOHC, and performance "R" trim turbo models made 240-300 HP stock, over the years. They are an interference engine, timing belt maintenance is important. They have a sort of complicated PCV system that the internet likes to make a big deal about, but it's nothing that's going to slow down your average shade tree wrench.

They use Aisin transmissions, makes Toyota trans swaps doable with junk yard parts. The same aftermarket adapter kit to put a CD009 behind a 2JZ works with a Volvo Whiteblock.

They've been swapped in a lot of stuff in Europe, mostly Sweden obviously, they've been popular swaps in the Turbo Brick community (200/700/900 series cars) for years. They're starting to pop up in more builds in other genres.

Early cars were still distributor ran off the cam, no VVT, later cars get more complicated to run standalone on with VVT on intake and exhaust, and COP.

I'm obviously a fanboy. :homer:
 
Lee said:
What transmission are you running, KL Racing adapter? Stock ECM or standalone, if standalone which one?

I've got 3x Redblocks, a B21 a couple B230s, a couple Whiteblocks (850 & XC90), and a bunch of turbo Redblock parts in my hoard.

I've day dreamed about Volvo swapping my TJ countless times. Redblock would be easier but Whiteblock is super appealing.

Gen III/IV LS is a very well documented path, and no doubt a whole lot less headache though. I keep telling myself that's the most logical path.
Click to expand...

Im running a stock 960 bellhousing to an ax15/r151 hybrid trans to a 4.3 atlas .. Hummer portal axles .. For the ecu im running a M4.4 with a 18 psi tune on it .. Should be somewhere around 300 hp in current form... So much torque right off idle.. Very happy with it.. Lots of fun to drive
 
dirtzuk said:
Im running a stock 960 bellhousing to an ax15/r151 hybrid trans to a 4.3 atlas .. Hummer portal axles .. For the ecu im running a M4.4 with a 18 psi tune on it .. Should be somewhere around 300 hp in current form... So much torque right off idle.. Very happy with it.. Lots of fun to drive
Click to expand...

As a former volvo tech, I love this and can confirm, lots of torque and fun little engines. And they sound sweeet opened up.:smokin:
 
dirtzuk said:
Im running a stock 960 bellhousing to an ax15/r151 hybrid trans to a 4.3 atlas .. Hummer portal axles .. For the ecu im running a M4.4 with a 18 psi tune on it .. Should be somewhere around 300 hp in current form... So much torque right off idle.. Very happy with it.. Lots of fun to drive
Click to expand...
I snooped through your post history and don't see a build thread. We're going to need you to fix that stat!
 
'84 Bronco II said:
Certainly, which is why I would be interested in discussion involving what it takes to adapt some of these alternative small displacement engines since there are options that don't need any adapting for a longitudinal 4x4 drivetrain.

EDIT: I am still super intrigued by the idea of adapting a side-by-side engine like the 4 cyinder Pro R or a turbo engine that makes similar power to an automotive drivetrain for a cone dodger/trail buggy. You only need around 300 HP in a light weight rock car.
Click to expand...
ProR engine is basically a GM ecotec
 
FelixstoweF.2 said:
I'm just the kinda guy that likes deep reduction. Yes, the torque converter does a great job of increasing torque. Are you going to go with a high-rise torque converter in this setup to keep it from stalling out under tough conditions?
Click to expand...
a high rise torque converter ?
 
Bebop said:
It like you're Arse, but with even less automotive knowledge.
Click to expand...

I"m not a big fan of Automatic Transmissions-- Don't work on them. Don't use them. But, from my understanding you can get torque converters with didn't stall speeds and thus have ones with different torque multiplier ratios. It was my understanding that you could get aftermarket ones with different ratios to improve your vehicles performance either down low or up high in the torque band by changing this ratio.

It's never really been an issue for me since I've always been a fan of the manual gearboxes and the more of them put together the better.
 
Been thinking about this thread and the 4400 thread where the modern 6+ speed autos were being discussed and went down a rabbit hole. I know transaxle buggies were a flash in the pan idea, there were some really successful builds but never seems to get popular. An ecoboost 2.0/2.3 looks like it comes with a 6f35 transaxle in a couple different platforms. Looks pretty damn compact for a 6 speed, and has a 2.77 final drive ratio. It doesn't have the double overdrive like a 6r80, but the gear spread looked comparable to a T400 with a 3.8 Atlas and 5.13 axles, if the ecoboost transaxle buggy has 3.73 axle gears, just without 3rd Hi that the T400 has. Not the same, but comparable. Not sure how it would stand up, I assume the axle reduction would take strain off the transaxle?

Just random thoughts. May not be 100% fitting to this thread but I felt was worth bringing up

Transaxle ratio
123456RFinal drive
4.4842.8721.8421.4141.0000.7422.882.77, 3.16, 3.39

T400 3.8 atlas 5.13 versus 6F35 3.73
Screenshot 2024-03-14 092408.png
 
posford said:
Been thinking about this thread and the 4400 thread where the modern 6+ speed autos were being discussed and went down a rabbit hole. I know transaxle buggies were a flash in the pan idea, there were some really successful builds but never seems to get popular. An ecoboost 2.0/2.3 looks like it comes with a 6f35 transaxle in a couple different platforms. Looks pretty damn compact for a 6 speed, and has a 2.77 final drive ratio. It doesn't have the double overdrive like a 6r80, but the gear spread looked comparable to a T400 with a 3.8 Atlas and 5.13 axles, if the ecoboost transaxle buggy has 3.73 axle gears, just without 3rd Hi that the T400 has. Not the same, but comparable. Not sure how it would stand up, I assume the axle reduction would take strain off the transaxle?

Just random thoughts. May not be 100% fitting to this thread but I felt was worth bringing up
Click to expand...

So something interesting about a few specific transaxles that caught my attention a while back - while I thought of most having a spur gear final drive which locks in the crazy low final drive ratio, some like the 4T65E actually use planetaries for the final drive. So it should be pretty reasonable to bypass/lock that out to a 1:1 if desired. Would be even cooler to hack the OEM planetary out entirely and mount a selectable 2.72:1 range box in its place. Then the transaxle is doing all transfer case things for all driving speeds except disengaging outputs

Or you could leave the final drive stuff in place, weld the spiders, and run a range box backwards to multiply by 2.72:1, that’s probably the more reasonable option (Edit - if the bronze bushings can handle it, which they might not)

75410-10_Combo.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh