Why are almost all modern engines 2.0-liters? - DRIVETRIBE

[D Fresh]

My first Dragbike was an RD 400 Daytona, wish I had it today !

I wish you did too.

In high-school I dated a chic who's dad dragbiked. She was alright, but hanging out with him was FUN!

Sponsored

 

[Jason B]

The 2.3 Ecoboost in the Mustang is either 310HP or 330HP, that is more HP than every V8 Ford has ever put in a Mustang prior to 2005 with the exception of the 03 04 Cobras.

Since you mentioned it, I have to ask: What's the difference between the Ranger 2.3 and the Mustang 2.3? Why does the Mustang have 310HP as the Ranger has 270HP? Does the Ranger have the same engine, just detuned for economy? Is there anything mechanically different, like cam shaft or intake design?

 

[Dgc333]

Since you mentioned it, I have to ask: What's the difference between the Ranger 2.3 and the Mustang 2.3? Why does the Mustang have 310HP as the Ranger has 270HP? Does the Ranger have the same engine, just detuned for economy? Is there anything mechanically different, like cam shaft or intake design?

Most of the difference is that the Rangers rated HP was done on 87 octane fuel and the Mustangs rated HP is on 93 octane. Both owners manuals state the engines can be run on 87 but best performance is obtained with 93 octane. An interesting tidbit is the owners manual for my 13 Focus ST said the same thing but went on to give you the HP on 87 and 93. The advertised 252 HP was with 93 and on 87 it was 242.

 

[Apples]

Everyone thinks the Ranger's 2.3L is the same as the Mustang and ST. It is, and it isn't. The cam specs must be different (at least the part numbers are), and the Ranger has an EGR cooler the others don't. They're not meant to tow a trailer, the Ranger is, and that fact alone has to tell you something. Personally, I don't care. All I know is, laying down rubber couldn't be easier in the Mustang or ST.

 

[Apples]

Well Doug, her dad might be more fun, unless of course, you used the right wrench!

 

[D Fresh]

Well Doug, her dad might be more fun, unless of course, you used the right wrench!

Ohh I was trying to use that wrench.

You remember High School, every thing is a nut when the only tool you have is a wrench. Or something like that

 

[Cmar]

Litre bikes are OK. But in the motorcycle world nothing beats a 2-stroke on the pipe.

Here here, I owned 2 Kawasaki 500 triples back in the seventies, nothing sounded like them once you dialed up a few revs, nothing much was capable of catching them at that stage either!

 

[Cmar]

Since you mentioned it, I have to ask: What's the difference between the Ranger 2.3 and the Mustang 2.3? Why does the Mustang have 310HP as the Ranger has 270HP? Does the Ranger have the same engine, just detuned for economy? Is there anything mechanically different, like cam shaft or intake design?

Probably detuned it slightly to widen the torque band for a heavier vehicle.

 

[Doc]

Here here, I owned 2 Kawasaki 500 triples back in the seventies, nothing sounded like them once you dialed up a few revs, nothing much was capable of catching them at that stage either!

I had an RD 400, but the triple was the boss.

 

[Cmar]

I had an RD 400, but the triple was the boss.

Yes but the RD400's were kinda cool, so much power in such a light little bike.
Also the engine was a bit quieter than the Kawa triple engine, they used to run warm so Kawasaki built them with a bit of slop in the pistons even from new.

 

[Dgc333]

Most of the difference is that the Rangers rated HP was done on 87 octane fuel and the Mustangs rated HP is on 93 octane. Both owners manuals state the engines can be run on 87 but best performance is obtained with 93 octane. An interesting tidbit is the owners manual for my 13 Focus ST said the same thing but went on to give you the HP on 87 and 93. The advertised 252 HP was with 93 and on 87 it was 242.

I ran across this info while pursuing the Ford web page for the Bronco. It stated the 2.3 is rated for 275HP when operated on 87 octane and 305HP when operated on 93 octane.

Sponsored