Ecoboost Engine Video
#1
Ecoboost Engine Video
I don't know if this is the right place, but it seems good enough to me. Around 6:50 in the video theres an awesome taurus with the 3.5L ecoboost engine and it killed the cadillac and bmw! Heres the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgilKUwMl2A
#3
#4
#5
Originally Posted by krewat
Those Chrysler 2.2's were an accident waiting to happen without even pushing the gas pedal...
Lots of motors last a long time, little itty bitty things with a turbo, putting out decent amounts of torque. Just gotta have enough bearing width
Lots of motors last a long time, little itty bitty things with a turbo, putting out decent amounts of torque. Just gotta have enough bearing width
#6
Originally Posted by osbornk
I don't know if you have rhe 2.2 but my daughter did for several years. Tough little engine and no problems with it or with the ones owned by other people I knew. The 2.2 had plenty of bearing width. It was a copy of the Rabbit engine that was designed to be converted to a diesel (VW did, MOPAR didn't). The bearings were oversized and seldom gave any problems. I've seen many 2.2 turbos with high miles on them and no problems.
( that was a long sentence.....)
#7
Not to get even further off-topic, I meant that the 2.2 was known as a gutless, unreliable, wonder. Not that it's bearings were too narrow.
When I said something about bearings, I was referring to any engine that can handle the power of a turbo should be upgraded enough to handle the power, AND last a while.
When I said something about bearings, I was referring to any engine that can handle the power of a turbo should be upgraded enough to handle the power, AND last a while.
Trending Topics
#8
Originally Posted by SMIGGS
My parents at one time had a K Car with the 2.2L. Let me just say that turning on the A/C would render the car more gutless ( if that was possible ) to the point of being dangerous if you were trying to pass anything faster than a 10 speed bike on the highway.
( that was a long sentence.....)
( that was a long sentence.....)
#9
[QUOTE=builtfordtough13]I don't know if this is the right place, but it seems good enough to me. Around 6:50 in the video theres an awesome taurus with the 3.5L ecoboost engine and it killed the cadillac and bmw! Heres the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgilKUwMl2A[/QUOTE]
That is very interesting..I like to see how it plays out..Might help Ford with sales.
That is very interesting..I like to see how it plays out..Might help Ford with sales.
#10
Originally Posted by krewat
Not to get even further off-topic, I meant that the 2.2 was known as a gutless, unreliable, wonder. Not that it's bearings were too narrow.
When I said something about bearings, I was referring to any engine that can handle the power of a turbo should be upgraded enough to handle the power, AND last a while.
When I said something about bearings, I was referring to any engine that can handle the power of a turbo should be upgraded enough to handle the power, AND last a while.
Anyway, the Turbo dodges had no more problems than their NA counterparts, it is quite a shame that when they came out in 84, the 5.0L mustang could barley out pull an engine with half the displacement, and In 1987 (the year of My mustang), the GLHS charger could do anything better than my stang except top speed.
#11
Anyway, the Turbo dodges had no more problems than their NA counterparts,
None of these cars are on the road today due to the lack of uncracked servicable heads. If you have a 2.2 turbo cyl head that ISN'T cracked (very unlikely) you can just about name your price for it.
#12
Originally Posted by Krochus
None of these cars are on the road today due to the lack of uncracked servicable heads. If you have a 2.2 turbo cyl head that ISN'T cracked (very unlikely) you can just about name your price for it.
My machinist told me about all the turbo heads he used to see, and a long-lost girlfriend had one that she babied to the point of NEVER going into the boost part of the boost gauge - on advice from her mechanic who had already done the head on it - at somewhere near 30K or so.
But what do I know?
Maybe the NA motors held together, I don't know. I just know that my machinist had LOADS of them in his shop all the time. But hey, maybe they were Ford 5.0's, and I didn't know the difference
#13
Maybe the NA motors held together,
But those poor van's their engines were just were too overtaxed. They lived even more briefly than the cars. Hence my comment on forcing a smaller engine to work harded than it should.
Last edited by Krochus; 01-22-2008 at 09:46 PM.
#14