For thought: Factory Five Hot Rod & 2.3 EcoBoost

For quite sometime I have had the desire for a vehicle that was part hotrod and part Fast & Furious.   A turbo 4 banger in a Factory 5 Hot Rod (esp. with the 32ish nose) would be about as close as I could ever get to that.  It even has a removable hardtop.  Maybe I should start a GoFundMe page...  *sigh*  

Given you can get to about 500hp before it windows the block.... I say go for it.

Hmmmmmmm....like these?

...or a 2.3 EB in a FFR Cobra - if to just watch purists heads explode.  

But out of curiosity, what is the real world weight difference between the 2.3 EB and a regular SBF with aluminum heads?  According to the Ford crate engine specs, a 2.3 EB has a "package weight" of 568 lbs. A similar HP spec 347ci pan-to-carb crate engine  is advertised at 521 lbs.  It would appear if saving weight is the goal, the EB is not necessarily going to do that.

Too many rods running around with too obvious Chevy v8s. For a car that's supposed to embody automotive creativity, creative engine choices just work better. Make the turbo very visible.

Ian F said:

...or a 2.3 EB in a FFR Cobra - if to just watch purists heads explode.  

But out of curiosity, what is the real world weight difference between the 2.3 EB and a regular SBF with aluminum heads?  According to the Ford crate engine specs, a 2.3 EB has a "package weight" of 568 lbs. A similar HP spec 347ci pan-to-carb crate engine  is advertised at 521 lbs.  It would appear if saving weight is the goal, the EB is not necessarily going to do that.

The Ecoboost crate comes with starter, alternator, wiring harness, etc. The 347 doesn't come with an alternator, water pump, starter or any accessories/brackets.

IF you're really weight conscious, Ford says the Coyote crate engine weighs 440lbs with everything but the alternator and PCM. But if the Coyote is lighter than the Ecoboost 2.3, then why is the Ecoboost Mustang over 150lbs lighter than the GT? This leads to more questions than answers, but I'm guessing these aren't "apples to apples" comparisons for engine weights.

STM317 said:

Ian F said:

...or a 2.3 EB in a FFR Cobra - if to just watch purists heads explode.  

But out of curiosity, what is the real world weight difference between the 2.3 EB and a regular SBF with aluminum heads?  According to the Ford crate engine specs, a 2.3 EB has a "package weight" of 568 lbs. A similar HP spec 347ci pan-to-carb crate engine  is advertised at 521 lbs.  It would appear if saving weight is the goal, the EB is not necessarily going to do that.

The Ecoboost crate comes with starter, alternator, wiring harness, etc. The 347 doesn't come with an alternator, water pump, starter or any accessories/brackets.

IF you're really weight conscious, Ford says the Coyote crate engine weighs 440lbs with everything but the alternator and PCM. But if the Coyote is lighter than the Ecoboost 2.3, then why is the Ecoboost Mustang over 150lbs lighter than the GT? This leads to more questions than answers, but I'm guessing these aren't "apples to apples" comparisons for engine weights.

Rest of the running gear maybe? More options? 

In reply to z31maniac :

I'm sure that's part of it, but slightly larger rotors and thicker sway bars probably isn't going to add hundreds of pounds right? And why is the 5.0 more nose heavy if it's a lighter engine? In EcoBoost guise, weight distribution is 52/48 front-to-rear; wearing 5.0 trim, it's slightly more nose-heavy at 53/47.

I guess what I was getting at, is that none of the weights of these crate engines are directly comparable for what would be needed to run in a chassis with similar features. And none of them are in similar stages of build either. I mean, the Coyote crate engine that I linked comes with only the passenger side exhaust manifold, WTF? How is giving the weight of an incomplete engine really useful? And that's before you get to human error related things like listing shipping crate weights vs actual engine weights, etc on various websites.

I always wanted to build a 'glass highboy roadster with an SR20DET for the same reasons

In reply to STM317 :

Well, that is why I asked if anyone knew the "real world" difference.  I only picked those numbers since they were easy to get and represent somewhat "official" numbers to start from.  There are additional parts required that aren't included with either.

In reply to Ian F :

The "packaged weight" is the weight of the thing they ship you that contains an engine.  That number also contains packing material, etc.  I bet the actual dry weight of the engine is around 350lb.

2.3EB FFR sounds just about perfect

STM317 said:

In reply to z31maniac :

I'm sure that's part of it, but slightly larger rotors and thicker sway bars probably isn't going to add hundreds of pounds right? And why is the 5.0 more nose heavy if it's a lighter engine? In EcoBoost guise, weight distribution is 52/48 front-to-rear; wearing 5.0 trim, it's slightly more nose-heavy at 53/47.

I guess what I was getting at, is that none of the weights of these crate engines are directly comparable for what would be needed to run in a chassis with similar features. And none of them are in similar stages of build either. I mean, the Coyote crate engine that I linked comes with only the passenger side exhaust manifold, WTF? How is giving the weight of an incomplete engine really useful? And that's before you get to human error related things like listing shipping crate weights vs actual engine weights, etc on various websites.

Transmission, diff, driveshaft, exhaust?  

Also wanted to say, I think this sounds like a super cool idea just for the different factor. And you can still make plenty of power. 

Is there an automatic that goes together with the 2.3 ecoboost crate?  I thought that it would go nicely in FFs pickup kit but the wife’s days of working a clutch are behind her.

In reply to Wally :

You can buy a new Mustang 2.3 EB with a 10 speed behind it.

Sounds cool to me.

On weight, the 2.0 EcoBoost in my garage weighs a little over 300 lb with it's starter, alternator, and flywheel/clutch.  I'm guessing the 2.3 wouldn't weigh much more.

How about this Model A with an S2000 engine:

http://www.speedhunters.com/2018/06/introducing-the-f20c-powered-1930-ford/

Ian F said:

In reply to STM317 :

Well, that is why I asked if anyone knew the "real world" difference.  I only picked those numbers since they were easy to get and represent somewhat "official" numbers to start from.  There are additional parts required that aren't included with either.

For what ever it's worth, wikipedia says the dry weight of the 2.0 Ecoboost is 328lbs.

I dream of ideas like this all the time....  now if I could just find the free time and money.