What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Ecoboost swap?

eodcoduto

eodcoduto

We could have been closer.
 Premium
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Posts
1,550
Reaction score
1,503
Location
Muscle Shoals, AL
Has anyone swapped and ecoboost in to a Chevy here? The though crossed my mind this week because my wife traded in her Tundra for a 2025 Armada, which has a 3.5 twin turbo V6 that puts out 425hp and 516ft-lb of torque. The torque is at 3600 rpm too! I know its not the Ford engine but it’s irritating that these 3.5’s put out more power than the 8.1 I just got, albeit at a higher rpm.
 
Turbo the 8.1. Problem solved. At least that’s what I’m doing on my tundra to scratch the itch.

There’s nothing special about the ecoboost that’s not available aftermarket. Forged crank, good pistons and rods, add boost. I’ve always thought a turbo at 4-6psi on an 8.1 would be a beast. And the biggest upside is you won’t sound like a civic with a fart can.
 
I don’t plan on doing a swap but it is interesting and goes deep into the hotrodding soul, high powe engine in the vehicle you want, brands be dammed. The 8.1l will do everything I need it too but 2.23 ft-lbs per cubic inch is impressive. That maths out to an 1100ft-lb 8.1!
 
I don’t like high strung motors in truck applications. Cars are fine. I had an ecoboost that was tuned with bolt on’s. Fun but got crappier mileage than the 6.7 power stroke I traded in and had less power.

Now, an ecoboost in a Miata or something like that? Maybe a Jetta? Now that would be cool.
 
My nephew had an ECO Boost. Truck was totaled sitting in front of his house. He thought about pulling the drivetrain to swap into an earlier truck. But it sucked towing, and that is what he needed. Bought a pre DEF, Duramax, CC, dually, 4WD with 41k miles on it from a friends grandpa instead.
 
centexk5 said:
There’s nothing special about the ecoboost that’s not available aftermarket. Forged crank, good pistons and rods, add boost.
Click to expand...
No, these new turbo engines work so well because of direct injection and variable valve timing. You can control knock better with DI on 87 octane than an older boosted engine on 92 because it directly "shapes" the injection event. You also get fat low-end torque. My 2.0L LFG makes max torque (about 280) from 1500-5500RPM. Putting 18psi of boost on an old school engine might require methanol injection or something and would probably have a peaky high torque curve.

What's not special about ecoboost is that all of the carmakers essentially have versions of VVT/DI/turbo smaller engines.
 
eodcoduto said:
Has anyone swapped and ecoboost in to a Chevy here? The though crossed my mind this week because my wife traded in her Tundra for a 2025 Armada, which has a 3.5 twin turbo V6 that puts out 425hp and 516ft-lb of torque. The torque is at 3600 rpm too! I know its not the Ford engine but it’s irritating that these 3.5’s put out more power than the 8.1 I just got, albeit at a higher rpm.
Click to expand...
It seems like going with a Ford or Nissan engine will just make things harder. You could use the new Colorado 2.7L or better yet an LF4 for 470hp.

I've thought the same thing. If they would scale the 2.0 up to a 4.0 or 6.0 you could have 850HP. Going to 8.1L would be 1134lb-ft.
 
Comparing where the torque comes in on an eco boost and an 8.1 is kind of silly. Sure the peak numbers are in the same neighborhood, but the eco boost putting peak torque at 3600 rpm is not quite as usable in a big heavy truck. Which is probably why they don’t offer it in an f250.

Besides the massive complexity of twin turbos, and all the stuff that comes with a modern DI engine, you would have to go along with a 8 or 10 speed trans in order to keep that little mill singing in that narrow power and. I’m not denying they are fast as hell in a f150 stock or with a little tuning. But in a heavy truck it’s gonna get beat on constantly running at the higher rpm’s to stay in the power.

Vs an 8.1 making peak torque at much lower rpm and carrying a much flatter curve over a wider rpm range. Most importantly most of that torque is coming in off idle which is much more suited to a heavy truck.

We aren’t even getting into the issues ford has had with the turbskis crapping out.

Obviously I’m biased on the subject. But having swapped my 8.1 in to replace a higher revving 5.3 with peak torque coming in at around 3000 rpm I can say my truck is a lot better to drive with the 5.3 being gone. Granted a 4 speed auto didn’t help keep the 5.3 in the sweet spot for torque but climbing mountain highway passes in 2nd or 3rd gear doing 45-55mph gets old really quick. Plus when my cruise rpm at 65 was well below peak torque rpm it struggled to maintain speed on flat ground with a stiff headwind before dumping into third. Yes, better axle gearing would have helped with that but 4.10’s with 35’s is pretty common and the cost to change to deeper gearing was not worth the minor increase in rpm to overcome the 5.3’s torque deficit.

To put it in real basic terms my combo was not fun to drive with the 5.3. Heavy truck, low torque engine with less than optimal gearing was just a chore to drive. Now the same truck with a lot more usable torque in a reasonable rpm range is fun to drive. It can haul ass if I want to waste the gas but it also don’t struggle going uphill or in a stiff breeze. As we say the 8.1 don’t care. It just works.

I seriously doubt anybody would go through with that swap, but just looking at the output numbers I get why one would think about it.
 
Plus it would be interesting to do. I’m a hot rodder at heart and I look back at the pioneers, they saw a cool engine and said screw it, lets put it in the car we have right now. I think the same thing applies to these modern EFI swaps. The 5.3 and the 6.0 have become the 327 and the 350 of our father‘s generation. And quite frankly, they are very boring, I’m excited to see what the next generation of engine and powertrain swaps will be.

And you can’t compare the 8.1 and a twin turbo V6 I was just looking strictly at the numbers they produce and it’s awesome how much power you can squeeze out of a small engine with modern technology.
 
I agree. No denying the amount of power these little engines produce. And in the right application for a swap, namely lighter wight vehicles I have no doubt they would fly.

But like anything else, it’s a scenario of the right tool for the job. I wouldn’t put a small displacement boosted engine in a heavy rig.

I also agree the tech in these new more efficient engines pretty amazing. But a lot of the tech coincides with the equally amazing 8 and 10 speed transmissions to make the most of the narrow power band. Add in the use of lighter weight materials for the bodies and you take better advantage of the power the little engines put out.

Hot rodding and engine swaps do go hand in hand for sure. I can imagine a 3.5 ecoboost in a ‘32 Ford highboy would be rowdy and fast as hell. I could see it as a reimagined version of the awd Quadra-deuce from 25 or more years ago. Other ideas would be a ‘55 T-bird.
 
I think that ecoboost is a pretty interesting package, makes good power, is fairly compact and light. Not sure it's any good for heavy trucks but smaller/nimble vehicles it'd do well.

Not real sure why it never made its way into the Mustang - talking the 3.5.

Buddy has one in his F150, and it tows decent for a half ton. Pulls good mileage while towing or not. Wouldn't put 15k behind it but he's pulled 9-10k no problems and still made ok mileage.
 
Mileage goals, even for the Mustang, that get pushed by the EPA.

A turbo 4 cylinder is my goal from the wagon and at the moment, 2.3 ecoboost/6R auto is really the only transplant decently supported by the aftermarket.
 
ZooMad75 said:
Vs an 8.1 making peak torque at much lower rpm and carrying a much flatter curve over a wider rpm range.
Click to expand...
I get confused hearing about the "narrow torque band" on the modern engines. Maybe the 2nd generation ecoboost is just a poor example, because most of them have the flattest torque curve, flatter than an 8.1.

1740136416592.jpeg
 
I’ll concede on the flat torque curve comment. But 348 lb/ft is still under what an 8.1 makes off idle. Don’t get me wrong it’s nothing to sneeze at but there’s a reason they don’t put those in anything bigger than a half ton. But swapped into an early nova or Vega it could be a riot.
 
I'm not suggesting to replace an 8.1L with a 2.7L, but if they had one at 4+ liters it could get interesting. You could argue that towing would require being in the boost most of the time, and that's bad, but isn't that what a Duramax does? In the end, how much are you towing? Lifespan should be better with larger crank journals, more bearings, etc. Making 300ft-lb with 4 cylinders has to run hotter with more pressure than making it with 8 cylinders.
 
If you’re gonna swap in stuff from other manufacturers , why exclude the HEMI engines that Chrysler/Dimler built?
They make great HP/torque. Do OK mileage wise if you keep your foot out of it.
And aftermarket is super hot for them too.
I’d seriously consider a 6.4 HEMI even Naturally Asperated is no slouch.
And with the gearing aspect you all are talking about, the thing would be a screamer.
But, what do I know? I’m still working on the 8.1 I’ve got. With the Turbo400, 5.38/1 gears on 42’s it should be an absolute beast!
 
Modern turbo DI motors are impressive for torque, HP, and efficiency if you baby them. But it still takes fuel to make power, and when you start using that power, boosted engines are usually a higher BSFC than a comparable NA engine because it takes power just to make boost.

Also, if you want it to last for long time, 300K-400K miles, a small turbo engine is not going to last as long as a large NA engine. If you want a small engine to work as hard as a large engine so it can use less fuel when you baby it, the life of the components goes down, simple as that.

I always say yes boost can be used to replace displacement, however, if you put boost on the displacement, then it's hard to top.

I feel like these DI VVT engines have reached a new level of efficiency that is impressive. However, you start using tiny engines with boost, very thin piston rings, cylinder deactivation, etc. All these things have minimum gains with somewhat large consequences. This is kind of why I like the L8T so much, and why it's so popular, they took the awesome L86, added more stroke and slightly lower compression for 87 octane, and got rid of the DoD, winning combination.

Ecoboosts are not known for going long distances without expensive turbo repairs, and that's just on a car, let alone a heavy truck.

With that said, turbos are a lot of fun and awesomeness, just depends on what you want to prioritize, performance, efficiency, or longevity. Pick two.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom