It's the equivalent of sticking a carb on an LS3 
It's the equivalent of sticking a carb on an LS3
In reply to Keith Tanner:
I'd bet it'd still make good power and there would be no wait for the aftermarket to possibly figure out direct injection.
I've been playing with a couple of Ecoboost engined trucks this weekend as well as the V6 Dodge pick up.
The Dodge is the mileage king by about 6 mpg, but the Dodge doesn't have twin turbos.
I took some rough engine measurements. I measured with the engine in the car so aren't 100% accurate, but at least it does give some sort of idea of actual engine size
Pentastar 26" wide.
21" front to back.
22" tall (from bottom of damper to top of intake manifold.)
6500 red line.
300 hp.
3.5 Ecoboost 25" wide.
22" front to back.
?? tall (the dumb engine cover and all the radiator stuff didn't allow me to see the front of the engine clearly enough to get any measurement.)
6000 redline.
365 hp.
The Ecoboost feels like a lot more than just another 65 hp and pulls like a beast.
Both have good fuel cuts and will hold in gear for as long as you want (albeit with no power), but both don't want to shift quickly once you hit the fuel cut. If you shift before redline the shift is very quick. This makes the automatic less attractive as an an autocross option, but not a complete deal killer.
Friend has an F150 running the Ecoboost. He has upgraded the turbos and (flashed or upgraded ecu?) and claims 465 hp. It feels like it!!!
I'm betting the Ecoboost is the better built engine just because of options, but I've read several places that the Dodge engine was developed for forced induction, but they just haven't released an engine with that yet - so maybe it's overbuilt?
I'm going to try to find a Chevy 300 hp V6 in something this next week so I can see how it compares. I'm betting there will be very few differences.
So how much of the donor car would you have to transplant in order to use the newer engines in a different vehicle? Is any of that insurmountable?
I know simpler is better, but if simpler isn't an option then what would it take to make it work?
The Ecoboost feels like a lot more than just another 65 hp and pulls like a beast.
Stock turbos are all about making all the torque at surprisingly low engine speeds. They feel more powerful than they are. Having said that, the ecoboost trucks have plenty of speed potential!!
I also just realized they are the "next gen" Borg Warner turbos advertised in GRM as the bees knees and better than all the rest.
If you want measurements of the Ecoboosts, just ask Ford. They're available as a crate and dimensions are published.
All turbos are next gen and better than all the rest
And that 365hp is for the first gen 3.5 Ecoboost... The 2017+ ones are good for 375hp and 470 ft. lbs (compared to 365/420 in the older ones). And the Raptor version makes 450hp (and 510 ft. lbs) out of the box 
The new 3.5 EB does come with a 10sp auto though, so who knows how that'll perform.
So.... anyone seen any 3.7 mustang swaps?
I really don't see the point.
For any rear drive car just use a LS or a derivative of it. Unless there is a space concern (which would be hard to find for this engine) or there is a good/easier alternative depending on which car it is. Like a Lexus that can fit a 2JZ. I can't think of any car I would put a V6 like this in. It would have to be for some kind of aesthetic reason.
LS swaps are so played out!
The ideal engine swap is one that's been done once before. That way it's not played out yet, but someone else has done all the hard work. I actually had a guy really upset at me on the phone because I didn't have a kit for an engine swap that had never been done, when he wanted that engine specifically because it hadn't been done yet.
yupididit wrote: So.... anyone seen any 3.7 mustang swaps?
There's someone on rx7club putting one in an FC, but I haven't been following it much.
I'm thinking if a 3.7 in a Mustang can do 30+mpg, a 3.7 FC with proper gearing should be able to run 35 easy. Much less frontal area. I'm not sure if that was the guy's goal or not, but it looks like a good idea to me.
Keith Tanner wrote: I actually had a guy really upset at me on the phone because I didn't have a kit for an engine swap that had never been done, when he wanted that engine specifically because it hadn't been done yet.
So what you're saying is, you DON'T have a bolt in kit to swap a BMW V12 mid-engined into a Miata?
Transverse only, not longitudinal.
I was looking at v6's that are NA to put in my Conquest. The LS plus t56 = lots of cutting. And I'm not interested in doing an LS at all.
I want something that can be found easily but also different. The 3.7 ford looks like it would be a great engine it just hasn't been done much or popular.
Other v6's I'm looking at 1gr/2gr, j35/37.
If all else fails, I'll go back to a 1uz lol 
I was looking at v6's that are NA to put in my Conquest. The LS plus t56 = lots of cutting. And I'm not interested in doing an LS at all.
I want something that can be found easily but also different. The 3.7 ford looks like it would be a great engine it just hasn't been done much or popular.
Other v6's I'm looking at 1gr/2gr, j35/37.
If all else fails, I'll go back to a 1uz lol
LS = more weight & more money.
Plus it means having to build up other areas of the car that I might not have to with the V6, plus ancillary parts will be lighter.
LS should be more expensive than the V6 cause everyone wants an LS but they don't really know thy want the V6.
And then there's the fact the V6 will fit in places the V8 won't or it would be much more work to fit the V8
I don't want a V8, especially in a fun car. The gas guzzling properties of a V8 make me want to limit the fun pedal and in a fun car I don't want to do that. The V8s only get good gas mileage in the double over drive aspect of top gear. Most of the fun factor is in the lower gears.
I've beat the snot out of the V6 pickup and I'm still getting 20-21+ mpg.
For a given power/torque level, I'm not sure an LS is more weight. You'll need the same transmission strength. You'd also need turbos on that V6, which introduces more weight, more volume and more heat management. When you're into the boost, it'll drink like a V8 because it takes fuel to make power.
Now, if you're saying you don't want the power and torque of an LS, then of course you'll have savings throughout the build because you don't need the strength.
carguy123 wrote: Friend has an F150 running the Ecoboost. He has upgraded the turbos and (flashed or upgraded ecu?) and claims 465 hp. It feels like it!!!
Is this from Tifosi Performance?
In reply to Keith Tanner:
I think that's exactly the point. Not everything needs 400+ hp to be enjoyable. In my opinion, the ~300 hp range of most modern naturally aspirated V6's really hits kind of a sweet spot for a lot of applications.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
This thread is about 300hp-ish v6's. So, I'm not sure all that applies in this case.
I'm willing to bet the aluminum LS's weigh less than some v6's though lol.
Well, carguy was talking about 3.7 Ecoboosts that start at 365 and are boosted to 465 hp. So they're not all 300 hp
The cool thing about having 400 hp is that if you only want 300, you just don't have to put your foot down as far This is from a guy who commutes in a car with less than 5 lb/hp, so it's possible I have a slightly tweaked world view.
I do get the interest in a middle ground. It's either the best of both worlds or the worst - if you're taking care of the transmission, it may be just as much work to do an LS as a V6. Or maybe you're lucky enough to have enough drivetrain strength in your car to reliably deal with 300, which gives you a big step up. Of course I'm used to a very specific example, and they don't have a reliable 300 hp transmission.
Keith Tanner wrote: Transverse only, not longitudinal.
Driven5 wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: I think that's exactly the point. Not everything needs 400+ hp to be enjoyable. In my opinion, the ~300 hp range of most modern naturally aspirated V6's really hits kind of a sweet spot for a lot of applications.
My RX-7 guessimately has just a little under 300hp. I can never use it, ever.
Although, it was kinda fun while tuning this weekend, because I had the trailer attached (HF 40x48 trailer, 6 mounted rally tires (two on heavy steel wheels), tools, heavy steel Giant Floor Jack, etc) and I found myself downshifting to 2nd at 60mph (with 4.78 gears...) so I could see the 8000-11000 range in datalog, and I had to do it while going uphill so that I wouldn't catch up to traffic too fast... which was light and mostly moving at 80mph ever since Ohio finally made its maximum speed limit 70mph to catch up with all of the states around us, except PA because PA is PA and we feel kinda sorry for them, like they're the older brother who never had to try hard and now everyone else is better than them and they are just sitting there kinda confused and wondering how come everyone else passed them by, and BTW we only buy Leinenkugel now because we feel sorry for you, it's actually pretty E36 M3 beer.
The point is, why need more? When you find yourself having to lift because you're encountering tirespin at 80mph, and you are towing a nose heavy trailer, maybe it is time to re-evaluate how much power you think you want.
BTW we only buy Leinenkugel now because we feel sorry for you, it's actually pretty E36 M3 beer.
Lienenkugel is from Wisconsin. On topic, I love my 330ish V6 for a daily driver, mileage would be nice over 23, but not enough to put up with a slug. Only thing that would be better would be a 4 door stang or camaro with V8, 400ish and 25mpg.
Is this deal typical?
You'll need to log in to post.
