2.3L EcoBoost Released by Indmar

[MopedMedicks]

Tuned to 350 ft-lbs and 310 hp.

 

Might be nice for a Bayliner or something.

 

I may have recommeneded the 2.7L or 3.5L, but I don’t know if this new Indmar motor is for ski/wake.

 

https://www.indmar.com/ecoboost/

 

[vtmecheng]

Maybe this is the first and the 3.5 will come soon.

[BraceMaker]

Hot damn

 

[jpattigr]

Ski Boats have been getting heavier, this is like a diet for the boat. I bet a Carbon Pro would ski and pull awesome with this engine.

[Zman]

Love my 3.5 EcoBoost in my F150.

Typically above 21 MPG and great power.

Always wondered how it might do in a ski boat.

They now have a High Output version. 450 HP and 510 ft-lbs torque. Still only 3.5 liters.

[Horton]

[6balls]

Seems to me turbos can produce some nice standardized efficiency numbers like mpg but if your proverbial foot is into them to access that power...the advantage fades significantly and they use a lot of fuel.

Interesting to pair the turbo specifically with a jet...should get RPM and be in turbo range right away.

[ALPJr]

Sounds good. Now can a boat builder come up with a workhorse tug in the 2,000 lb range that's easy to tow?

[MopedMedicks]

To put it simply, they all pound fuel at wide open. Horsepower isn’t free.

[skihacker]

As an auto tech for a fair number of years I've never been a big fan of turbo's. They run extremely hot, the are REALLY hard on engine oil, and expensive things are prone to grenade pretty early on. In my opinion if you want or need horse power get more cubic inches.

[jakecuz23]

EcoBoost sounds great for a recreation boat, but would probably suffer in a ski boat. Zero off is constantly changing the rpm of the engine and that might be hard to do with a turbo engine that has turbo lag. Seems like it would be much harder to make quick adjustments for a skiers pull behind a boat when having to wait for a turbo to spool up. I would love to see ford's new 7.3 liter V8 put in a ski boat!

[Gar]

Sure the details will be worked out.

[eleeski]

@jakecuz23 The turbo will be reasonably spooled up as the baseline power need is pretty big. Add fuel under boost and the power should come on quickly. Big displacement engines have lots of big heavy parts that need to accelerate to add power so maybe it's a wash on which will respond faster.

 

Is this an E-controls computer running the engine? ZO compatible?

 

Darn, I just ZO converted my 79 American Skier with a heavy V8...

 

Eric

[WoodySkier]

Are we going to see the Nautique and Mastercraft (PCM and Ilmor) move to Ford blocks as well? GM has dominated this market for years, will be interesting to see if there is a shift.

[DW]

I did not see a weight posted for the package, it may not be any lighter than an all aluminum NA V8. At a higher output level it will need cooling systems to maintain temperature.

[Horton]

@WoodySkier seems VERY VERY unlikely that PCM or Ilmor would move to Ford.

[MopedMedicks]

I could see the new 2020 Ford 7.3L gasoline pushrod V8 (code name “Godzilla”) being a more suitable candidate or next in line for marinization. Totally different architecture than these dowsized turbos, but fit for the HD market as the article explained, capitalizing on big torque at low RPM. Isn’t that what we want?

 

Illmore already did it with the MV8 7.4L (524 ft-lbs, 522 hp). I’ve heard tournament wakeboat drivers state that the 7.4L NA used significantly less fuel than the Rouscharged Raptors or XS550.

 

Heavy duty truck market needs = modern Ski / wake boat needs?

 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a26306469/ford-super-duty-73-v8-engine-details-specs/

 

 

[ScottScott]

Ilmore has actually jumped around from GM to different blocks some then back to GM (before powering Mastercraft.) More likely tho that GM will start copying the Ford if it proves successful, and Ilmore playing with some turbo etc..... Ilmore seems as much on the edge of tech as anyone, so I"m sure they'll be doing something competitive, as long as its going to work the way they want it to.

[Zman]

@DW I found Ford info saying the 2.7L Ecoboost was 440 lbs. dry weight. If they were ever to marinize the 3.5L EcoBoost, it is only 9 lbs. more.

@MopedMedicks How much does that 7.3L weigh? I would guess a fair bit more? Plus, it might cause a pretty big engine box?

[vtmecheng]

Is anyone here an engineer specializing in engine design, not a mechanic but someone who actually designs the parts or knows the thermal calculations? I'm not but there seems to be a lot of conjecture being floated around as fact regarding engine design.

 

One thing I can't figure out is why cooling would ever be a problem in a boat. Cars have to reject heat to possible high temp air with an AC heat exchanger right there. In contrast, a boat has a constant supply of ambient water. I know it's water instead of coolant but the supply endless. Seems crazy for engine temps to ever be a problem on the water.

[ForrestGump]

Turbo lag. LMAO. Pure conjecture. You don't really understand how this works. In all actuality, a boat is the perfect platform for a turbo motor. Turbos build boost based on load. The prop of a boat puts load on the motor instantly. I'd take a turbocharged smaller engine in a boat all day and everyday over a big inch engine .

[jakecuz23]

@BoneHead If a boat is accelerating or traveling a constant speed and under load, there would be no lag. If a skier gets slack in the line and lets up on the load, the engine will bleed boost, and will have to spool up again. This is a very small amount and probably would not be noticeable, but it does exist and is more of a delay than a naturally aspirated or supercharged engine.

 

I think the PWC market is a great example, there are no turbo PWC's. They all use a supercharger to get instant power and better throttle response. If you look at the snowmobile market, Yamaha uses turbo engines in their snowmobiles and they still have minor lag even with triple throttle bodies and fancy computers to keep boost.

 

If weight savings is what you are after, a smaller supercharged engine could be the be a better option. The 3.5 ecobooost is also an overhead-cam engine, this makes generally them wider. The additional width of the engine block combined with the addition of two turbos and piping would make designing a boat to have an open layout more difficult.

 

The new Ford 7.3 is a Iron block engine and might not be the lightest option. Something like a LT1 or a coyote V8(also a dual overhead cam) would be more ideal for a ski boat than a 3.5 ecoboost. I think turbos have there place, but they are not needed in a ski boat.

[jpattigr]

@jakecuz23 I own a Honda PWC that has a Turbo, runs great. I keep thing that a PCM 5.7 weighed 950 lbs and this 2.3 with similar output weighs 440 lbs. 500 lbs is a big difference!

 

[Zman]

Ford lists the 2.3L Ecoboost Mustang engine at about 340 pounds. They have versions of the 2.3L Ecoboost at 350 HP and 385 HP. And, strong torque. Amazing.

I do not notice any turbo lag in my F150 Ecoboost.

I think the possibility of significantly lower weight and a jump in fuel economy is very exciting. Let's hope.

[DW]

@Zman - thx for the data, the LS3 dry weight is listed at 429 lbs.

@vtmecheng - you are correct on the size of the 'radiator' certainly ample, the issue is the radiant heat generated at/or from the turbo, much higher than components on an NA engine so it simply boils down to adding some water cooling to the turbo similar to the water cooling on the exhaust manifolds.

My personal favorite 'high grunt / nice weight' option, an LS-7. Swap in a marine cam and it would be awesome although not cheap.

[ForrestGump]

Everyone who has built turbocharged marine engines and had dataloggers attached to them, please raise your hands. @jakecuz23 I spent a good part of 90s and 2000s building turbocharged engines and testing with mfrs such as Ford. As has at least one other member on here. From testing I've been involved in on small and mid displacement turbo engines, there is no boost bleed or re-spooling on todays engine, turbo , and efi packages. The example of the PWC market is completely and utterly different. The waterjet driveline of a PWC loads the engine completely differently than a prop propelled boat. With the prop driven marine turbo engines, there is ALWAYS load on the engine while while the prop shaft is engaged and up to speed. Even if you pull back the throttle there is load. Because there is always load, there is always positive pressure produced by the turbo. Because there is always load and always positive pressure, there is never lag. Even from a dead stop, properly designed turbo marine engines will go into positive manifold pressure almost immediately upon rolling into the throttle. The variation in throttle by ZO won't take the load off. It will reduce it somewhat yes, but that won't take the exhaust energy away. Not exhaust pressure, because that's not what drives a turbo. Exhaust energy and the heat delta between one side of the turbine blade and the other side is what moves the turbine wheel and therefore the compressor. The only way to totally remove the load and therefore the energy is to put the transmission in neutral. As long as your turbo is chosen so that it doesn't go left of the surge line, then lag is nonexistent during operation in the forward gear.

[Zman]

Indmar 2.3L Ecoboost

 

 

[skihacker]

@vtmecheng, I don't mean to imply that a car's (boat's) cooling system can't handle a turbo, but over 20 some years of fixing cars I've probably replaced several dozen turbos over a range of makes and models. Very likely every single failure relates to the oiling system, the turbo live's at very high temps, the oil gets cooked a little every time the motor is shut off. (Everyone knows to let the motor idle for several minutes before shutting off right?) Over time the plumbing gets restricted from the oil sludging up and eventually the turbo bearings and or seals let go. Cue the wallet grenade. Heck in a boat a fresh water cooled turbo housing might be just the ticket but for me personally I will gladly hold on to my v8.

[Booze]

+1 on supercharger over turbo. Less complexity regarding exhaust manifolds is an advantage. IMO of course.

[andjules]

I'd still love to revisit the 4 litre, aluminum, marinized Lexus engines that were in the short-lived Toyota Epics. But a 3.5L ecoboost might be interesting.

 

Unfortunately, it seems it only takes a couple of traditionalists saying "the hole shot wasn't quite as strong" (as if that matters) and everyone goes back to drooling over 6 litre gas guzzlers.

[BraceMaker]

@andjules engine was fine, I dont think that was a deal breaker for the boats.

 

No dealer network against the mature boats of the late 90s etc. Twisted boat hulls getting recalled.

 

Zero off would have killed it anyways.

[Greg Banish]

Put me in, coach! If I ever have to repower my SN196, an engine like this is my FIRST CHOICE.

 

I have decades of experience in turbocharging modern automotive gas engines and doing calibration work on torque control and emissions. Anyone whining about lag, torque delay, or cooling has little or no first hand experience with this application.

[ForrestGump]

And there is one of those people that I referenced earlier. I knew Greg would agree with me. :)

[andjules]

@BraceMaker indeed, there were all kinds of issues that prevented the brand's success. But it was a moment when someone built a tournament class ski boat engine that sipped about half the gas. I'd like to see something like that happen again.

[jayski]

For the half dozen diesel trucks I have owned and a high HP twin turbo car I still find it hard to believe a small displacement turbo motor in a boat will have enough acceleration under load to get skiers up to speed soon enough. Relating car performance with a 6/8/9/10 speed tranny vs a single speed in a boat is an issue also, hard to compare. Perhaps the answer to everyone's concerns (hole-shot, RPM, Fuel efficiency) is to move away from our single speed tranny's

[ForrestGump]

Due to the nature of how a turbo works, a properly sized turbo engine is pretty easy to make peak torque in a straight line from just about 2500-2800rpm til you let out. That's going to be the case whether it's a 2.3L engine or a 5.0L engine.

[BraceMaker]

@jayski need only to allow the transmission to slip in order to solve that problem.

 

Probably just go hybrid though.

[sixball]

The Ford Ecos are not an automotive engine with a Turbo. They are engines from the ground up built to have turbos. Some very unique oiling for both cooling and longevity. They are twin turbos and have no noticeable lag. Power comes on from the moment you drop the hammer. I have a 2.0L and A 3.5L and drive A 3.7 all of them have been amazing. My ski partner just sold a F-150 3.5 with 180,000 miles only issue was a bad injector. That was a work truck that pulled some heavy trailers. I have often said it's a engine that should be looked at for our tugs. In the past the 3.5L in the F-150 did outrun the 5.0 not much but did. The new 7.3L I am quit sure is a cast iron block but a very narrow package.

[sixball]

As an old Drag racer its a common saying Air and Fuel = HP

[Zman]

Gas economy may not be our first priority, but Ford uses the 2.3L EcoBoost in the Mustang, and claims all Mustang engine options exceed 30 mpg.

So, I like the possibility of strong HP and torque, lower weight and probably very noticeable drop in fuel required.

 

 

[EricKelley]

I have a Raptor with the 450hp version of the 3.5 Ecoboost. Without a doubt the 3.5 would do a good job in our boats with the ECM properly tuned. As far as fuel efficiency in the large Raptors go, it is extremely variable related to how hard you drive it. I get pretty good mileage with mine because I tend to be easy on the peddle. Mileage definitely goes down hill fast when you drive it hard or fast on the highway......of course this happens with all engines but with the Raptor, it is dramatic.

Think it would work well in a boat. But more fuel efficient? I have my doubts. With the engines you can have Eco or you can have Boost. But not both.

[ForrestGump]

It doesn't matter if it's a 2.3L or a 6.2L engine making the hp. 400HP equates to a certain amount of fuel. For gasoline, that calculation is GPH = (specific fuel consumption x HP)/Fuel Specific Weight which equates to about 50% of target hp in gph. So a 400hp gas engine will consume 40Ghp of gasoline at full throttle. That is universal. Where economy is had is off throttle, transition, and off idle. And that is where the smaller engines will pick up economy over the bigger engines. That too is universal.

[Greg Banish]

Keep in mind that Ford also puts the 2.3T in the new Ranger pickup. It is plenty capable of pulling. I'm not advocating this engine for a 5000#+ballast surf barge, but it IS ideal for our slalom tugs.

 

The biggest hangup will probably be getting used to a new "home" on the tach. If you trade engine torque for RPM, you deliver the same POWER to the propeller to accelerate the boat. This engine has just as much power as the 5.7L V8 that most here are used to. Who cares if the tach needle points to 4000 instead of 3600 during a run if the engine is still quieter and has enough power to keep up with the demands of ZO? Until you ski one, you won't really be able to complain. And I suspect that if we did a true blind test, many here could be completely satisfied with the pull of this engine in a lightweight boat.

[eleeski]

Lighter weight does directly translate into less drag. So fuel burn will be lower and more power will be available to pull the skier. For a trick skier, custom ballasting can replace the static engine weight to improve the wake.

 

In boats and skis, lighter is better!

 

Eric

[Jmoski]

Turbos gives the illusion of more power with better fuel economy because it siphons power for the air compressor out of the exhaust being passed through a turbine, whereas a supercharger is powered of the drive train like any other accessory.

[Zman]

@BoneHead Sort of yes, sort of no. Versus the 2.3L the 6.2L has twice as many pistons (more friction) and about twice as many bearings (more friction) and other additional internal mechanical losses that will prevent it from ever being as efficient as the 2.3L.

While pulling a slalom skier these 300+ HP engines are not working all that hard. They do gulp fuel when hitting the throttle, especially on short set ups.

I can work my 3.5L F150 Ecoboost pretty hard and still get good mileage. But, not when I tow a camper. I drop about in half, and no better than an 8 cylinder would do.

So, at that point, under heavy load, I agree a big block engine will not be much different that a normally very efficient turbo 4 cylinder.

 

Typical slalom ski boat is usage is somewhere around 70 to 80% idle time. The smaller engines will shine here too.

 

I do wonder how much the ski boats designers will have to rethink hull design with about 350 to 400 pounds less engine weight?

 

[sixball]

It takes power to drive a supercharger. The more boost the more power. But some nice superchargers out now. Its all about boost / air and fuel, Don't think illusion is true they are both very efficient at making a bunch of power!

[eleeski]

One downside to turbocharged gasoline engines is that the boost required a lower compression ratio. High compression ratio engines are more efficient. This used to more than offset the efficiency of using the waste exhaust energy. Old turbos were gas hogs. I don't know if modern computer controlled engines can adjust parameters enough to allow high compression and turbocharging to achieve improved fuel economy.

 

Note that diesel engines do fine (better) when turbocharged.

 

Eric

[Jmoski]

@BoneHead - the illusion is the fuel economy angle on it, no doubt both add a significant boost in power.

 

One argument that could be made is a smaller turbo charged engine is more fuel efficient that a V8 while driving casually around town or in traffic, but if your driving it like it was meant to be your clearly not trying to save on gas :)

[Zman]

You guys must drive different turbocharged vehicles than I do. Mine are clearly more efficient unless pushed very hard.

My wife's turbo 2L sedan we drive on trips at 80 MPH, and always exceed 33 MPG.

And, it has great power.

Let me know a gas, naturally aspirated 8 cylinder that can do this.