• Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features

    Welcome to the #1 Fiesta ST Forum and Fiesta ST community dedicated to Fiesta ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Fiesta ST Forum today!

1.5 Ecoboost

Messages
475
Likes
349
Location
San Jose
#1
I went to the junkyard last weekend and saw a handful of 2020 Ford Escapes there, a couple of them had the 1.5 3 cylinder EcoBoost which is supposed to be the same motor the mk 8 FiST gets across the pond. I was curious, so I asked how much for the motor, they said if I pulled it, it'd be 2 grand, they'd want 2600 if they pulled it (less than 10k miles on the engines in question). Now, this is entirely a pipe dream at this point, but it is something I could potentially be interested in. I know it'd be easier to just swap a bigger/better turbo on the 1.6 but according to Wikipedia, the mk7 and mk8 use the same gearbox so part of me is wondering if it'd bolt up easily enough although I'd assume it'd need custom mounts. The only other question mark at that point is what ECU would run everything, but I've been mildly obsessed with the idea of splicing an mk8 motor into my ST, wondering what the community's thoughts are on the concept? Based on what I've read on the mk8 the engine appears to take to mods better, and part of me likes the idea of an oddball 3 cylinder.
 


Capri to ST

Senior Member
Messages
912
Likes
707
Location
CHAPEL HILL, NC, USA
#2
That's a fascinating idea, I have also found the new 3-cylinder engine to be really intriguing. My main hesitation besides the practical difficulties of doing it would be that the 1.5L one hasn't been around long enough to have an established record of reliability, whereas ours has proven to be very reliable.
 


Messages
258
Likes
210
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
#3
A junkyard 3 cyl goes for $2600? Apparently it's been a hell of a long time since I went salvage shopping.
 


OP
DoomsdayMelody
Messages
475
Likes
349
Location
San Jose
Thread Starter #5
cool idea a bit pricey at $2k-$2600. I would say wait a year or so and that price will plummet as more wind up in the junkyard and demand for them not being too high.
This is probably the right thought, another year or two and these will be commonplace thanks to the escape and Bronco Sport.

If the price falls below a grand I’d very seriously consider it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


apex1

Member
Premium Account
Messages
470
Likes
202
Location
Dublin, OH
#8
Our 1.6s have a proven record of reliability and an ability to be modded to make enough power to take our drive axles and transmissions. Plus there is tons of aftermarket support. I don’t know why the OP concludes that a Mk8 takes to mods better than our cars. I would think the aftermarket parts availability is a tiny fraction of what it is for our motors. I don’t understand.
 


Dpro

3000 Post Club
Premium Account
Messages
3,639
Likes
2,850
Location
Los Feliz (In the City of Angels)
#9
Our 1.6s have a proven record of reliability and an ability to be modded to make enough power to take our drive axles and transmissions. Plus there is tons of aftermarket support. I don’t know why the OP concludes that a Mk8 takes to mods better than our cars. I would think the aftermarket parts availability is a tiny fraction of what it is for our motors. I don’t understand.
Actually MK8 engines are kinda cool because they come with DI and port injection stock. They have been tuned to 260-270hp ( in the UK ) range with the stock turbo’s because of this. Thats pretty insane . To think you can get into hybrid territory with just tuning is pretty awesome.

Do not sell it short in otherwords.
 


Messages
76
Likes
29
Location
London, ON, Canada
#10
I can't imagine it would be a trivial exercise in terms of PCM integration, etc. Normally when people do engine swaps they pick something which will deliver significant gains. Doing an engine swap to avoid installing a new turbo doesn't make sense to me.

car-part.com shows there are 1.5L engines out there in the $1000-1500 range.
 


OP
DoomsdayMelody
Messages
475
Likes
349
Location
San Jose
Thread Starter #11
I can't imagine it would be a trivial exercise in terms of PCM integration, etc. Normally when people do engine swaps they pick something which will deliver significant gains. Doing an engine swap to avoid installing a new turbo doesn't make sense to me.

car-part.com shows there are 1.5L engines out there in the $1000-1500 range.
I mean it’s not so much about avoiding the turbo, it just seems like an interesting idea to me, although it’d require a ton of r&d but it’s not like there aren’t benefits to it, several of them have been discussed previously in the thread. Personally I’d consider a 20% increase in tuning headroom without increasing weight a significant gain, but what do I know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Messages
275
Likes
129
Location
Boston
#12
you'd may need a gauge cluster to match the ECU as well. mounts might be the same though. you can probably check that
 


MagnetiseST

1000 Post Club
Premium Account
Messages
1,018
Likes
694
Location
Dania Beach
#13
you'd probably need: engine, all accessories attached, complete uncut engine harness, pcm, underhood fuse box, and a bunch of misc stuff. Why not just swap the 2.0 EB from the FoST in with its gearbox, thats been proven to be done already and makes 250hp stock.
 


OP
DoomsdayMelody
Messages
475
Likes
349
Location
San Jose
Thread Starter #14
you'd probably need: engine, all accessories attached, complete uncut engine harness, pcm, underhood fuse box, and a bunch of misc stuff. Why not just swap the 2.0 EB from the FoST in with its gearbox, thats been proven to be done already and makes 250hp stock.
One reason why: the turbo is integrated with the exhaust manifold.

Also for whatever reason the 2.0EB has a shit load of intake valve coking which is a problem that apparently the 1.6 EB doesn’t really have and the 1.5 EB 3 cylinder won’t have because of dual injection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Messages
76
Likes
29
Location
London, ON, Canada
#15
I mean it’s not so much about avoiding the turbo, it just seems like an interesting idea to me, although it’d require a ton of r&d but it’s not like there aren’t benefits to it, several of them have been discussed previously in the thread. Personally I’d consider a 20% increase in tuning headroom without increasing weight a significant gain, but what do I know?
I'm not trying to disparage your idea, but if you look at the effort of what you're proposing vs. the benefit vs. the effort/benefit of other options, I can't see it making sense. If you want to do it, because you want an interesting project, all the power to you and you'd have the admiration of many for being able to pull it off.

One reason why: the turbo is integrated with the exhaust manifold.

Also for whatever reason the 2.0EB has a shit load of intake valve coking which is a problem that apparently the 1.6 EB doesn’t really have and the 1.5 EB 3 cylinder won’t have because of dual injection.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but on the 2.0L ecoboost there is an integrated exhaust manifold. The turbo itself has a long casting which connects up directly to the integrated exhaust manifold. If you want to use a generic aftermarket turbo, you need an adapter ("turbo manifold") to connect the turbo to the exhaust manifold. Is there any reason this is a noteworthy negative? I suspect the periodic maintenance require to keep valve coking down would be small relative to the overall effort of any swap. With a 2.0L you'd be gaining 25% displacement vs. losing 7% with the 1.5L.
 


Dpro

3000 Post Club
Premium Account
Messages
3,639
Likes
2,850
Location
Los Feliz (In the City of Angels)
#16
I'm not trying to disparage your idea, but if you look at the effort of what you're proposing vs. the benefit vs. the effort/benefit of other options, I can't see it making sense. If you want to do it, because you want an interesting project, all the power to you and you'd have the admiration of many for being able to pull it off.



Correct me if I'm mistaken, but on the 2.0L ecoboost there is an integrated exhaust manifold. The turbo itself has a long casting which connects up directly to the integrated exhaust manifold. If you want to use a generic aftermarket turbo, you need an adapter ("turbo manifold") to connect the turbo to the exhaust manifold. Is there any reason this is a noteworthy negative? I suspect the periodic maintenance require to keep valve coking down would be small relative to the overall effort of any swap. With a 2.0L you'd be gaining 25% displacement vs. losing 7% with the 1.5L.
First off you are looking at this from a mathematical theoretical viewpoint. The 2.0L Ecoboost is not considered the superior engine. Though it has more displacement there are several negatives that have just been pointed out. If you want to upgrade its Turbo you will need an adapter and that is more expensive . Second off the intake valve coking you consider minor maintenance is actually expensive maintenance as you have to take the intake manifold off the head to clean those valves.
The 1.5 on the other hand is downright amazing. It puts out slightly more hp than ours stock it come with direct and port injection stock. They are tuning them in the UK to 260HP on stock fueling and nothing more. Just a fricken tune. The engine has a lot of potential , Oh and did I mention the 3 cylinder has a really cool engine note similar to a 6 cylinder.

I have done engine swaps in the past as I used to own a RB25DET( Nissan Skyline 2.5L turbo 6 cylinder) in a 240sx . Its eaiser to swap a smaller engine into the car than a larger one. Not that the larger swaps have not been done (LSX I hear you in the corner yelling at me. ) :ROFLMAO:
Though ya the more fascinating swap is indeed the 1.5 in my opinion. Plus whatever engine you are gonna swap you will have to port over the ECU so the amount of wire work to do the swap is the same.
Sure from I am a cheap ass I just want to swap in more HP the 2.0L might be the what seems logical swap( I told you to shut your mouth LSX swap.) The 1.5 swap would be way more interesting and higher in the possible cool factor scale.
Truth be told total more swaps are a pain in the but either way . Ya LSX just pipe down. Unless its an older car even then wiring will be done.
 


Last edited:

M-Sport fan

9000 Post Club
Messages
10,198
Likes
2,996
Location
Solebury, Pa.
#17
LOL An LSx swap would require a FULL ON conversion to RWD, just like that nutter did with his track toy, blown Coyote swap into a FiST, over in England. [wink]
 


OP
DoomsdayMelody
Messages
475
Likes
349
Location
San Jose
Thread Starter #18
LOL An LSx swap would require a FULL ON conversion to RWD, just like that nutter did with his track toy, blown Coyote swap into a FiST, over in England. [wink]
While we’re talking V8s, There were Northstar V8s that were setup transversely.... be way more pain in the ass than it’d be worth though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Messages
177
Likes
94
Location
Baton Rouge
#19
While we’re talking V8s, There were Northstar V8s that were setup transversely.... be way more pain in the ass than it’d be worth though.
A couple YouTube builds with transverse LS motors. And yeah... How you're going to fit all that in the front of Fiesta...
 


M-Sport fan

9000 Post Club
Messages
10,198
Likes
2,996
Location
Solebury, Pa.
#20
...and HOW would anything besides a slushbox, or an adapted/fabricated in, sequential transaxle work either, even if they could be made to fit?? [dunno]

(There were some automatic transverse LSxes made, [Impala SS], but NO manuals at all from the factory. [wink])
 


Similar threads



Top