Jump to content
Ford Transit Connect Forum
   

TC Turbocharger


Recommended Posts

   

If you were really serious you could do it. the fuel efficiency would not be up to the twin variable cam direct injection  1.6.  The boost pressure that you  could run would be limited with out risking damage to the crank rods and piston's and the trans-axle.  Having said all that  it might be fun for a short time. 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is always a lot of talk on this forum about tubocharging but only one member actually did anything. Back in 2011, a forum member, sunnysmith (a very nice guy), turbo charged his Transit Connect. Do a search on his forum name and enjoy the read! Here is one of his posts......

With the current FSWERKS setup I am not sure where we are at on HP, but it is probably above 200. Once we have the electronic boost controller in we can push it more, but even where it is, the van is awesome. I've put 500 miles on it since the install and have been driving a little more spirited now and then. Most people that I take for a ride just smile and laugh. They can't believe it. The van is a real contradiction. You hear the big turbo whoosh and it puts you back in your seat a little bit.

I think the real value of the turbo comes out on the highway. Its not a sports car, but it is drivable and you can cruise at 80mph in the wind with no problems.

As for the transmission... With the extra cooler on it, I have not seen temps above 150. Granted, the highest outside temp has been 90, so it will be interesting to see what happens this summer. I don't feel that I am abusing it really.

If I remember correctly, he also added a third row of seats!

Sunny has not been on the forum since the turbo project finished back in 2011. I always wondered what happened to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 8/9/2016 at 8:04 PM, 103west43rd said:

 

Sunny has not been on the forum since the turbo project finished back in 2011. I always wondered what happened to him.

This forum is a bit pedestrian compared to other car forums.  

 

However, that just may reflect on the demographics of ownership.  Younger guys with fast cars, are just going to do more to their cars and are more apt to be involved in posting on the internet.  Like my Dad is really going to spend his time online, writing about how his latest mod, a pillow, makes his butt feel so much nicer when he sits on it.  

 

While there are many of these vehicles on the road, and I see them everywhere, most are probably driven by employees.  Employees who don't treat the company car as their own.  Employees who are now driving this, as opposed to the big V8 that the company used to buy for them.  Employees who will routinely overload the vehicle, then complain about how terrible it drives......no power!  Employees who have no interest in investing in the vehicle, or modifying it.  

 

It's up to us, the owners, to create a demand for the aftermarket to fill.  And I doubt if the aftermarket will be in performance upgrades, since no matter what you do, you're not going to raise the horsepower and torque to make this a 12 second car.  

 

There is already an aftermarket of sorts, that most of us aren't using.  At least you don't see a lot of buzz on the forum about it.  Since day one, plenty of companies have been in production of tool boxes, ladder racks, and other industrial mods.  

Now that there are more people purchasing the wagons, maybe we'll see more accessories for camping, road trips, and turning your van into the ultimate love machine.  I'm just a love machine, and I won't work for nobody but you.  That's right.  I'm taking advantage of all that head room by hanging a disco ball.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great points.  Ford's idea about this vehicle sets the tone. The engine performance option added 9 hp and moved the torque curve. They have removed that option for 2017! If performance were in anybody's thoughts the optional engine would have been a 2.0 liter ecoboost at around 245 hp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrtn said:

The 2.0 Ecoboost is rated at 240 hp over here. That would be mindless fun in a TC.

You have to look at where the power is made - the 1.6 Ecoboost has torque down to your socks - the NA engine makes its power at 3.5-4k rpm.  You want to pull trailers or otherwise haul freight, the 1.6 is the way to go.  Of course, IF the 2liter Ecoboost were available over here... even if they de-tuned it down to - say - 180hp?  And the torque.  I was thinking, the VW TDI and DSG would be a great transplant. (no dieselgate jokes, please) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The torque is in a different place.  I have three trailers I pull with the TC I own and the performance is completely adequate at the load rating.   If  I were going to pay extra for more power then I would want substantially more power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think the market would ever be there.  Anyone who is interested in a tow vehicle, would look at a pickup truck.  

 

How nice it would be to have a multipurpose tool.  The Leatherman or Swiss Army Van.  Fuel economy.  3 rows X 3 passenger bench seats + 9 passenger seating.  Large payload.  Nimble handling characteristics.  4 wheel drive.  LED lighting all around.  Low profile roof mounted refrigeration system for crisp air conditioning.  Individual climate controls for all passenger positions.  12 volt power, USB ports, and 110 inverters for all passengers.  Individual flat screens at all passenger points with onboard in-vehicle high speed WiFi.  Massage seats.  Enough HP & torque for 12 second quarter mile times with a trailer in tow.  Helicopter rotors for vertical takeoff to skim over traffic congestion.  50 caliber machine guns mounted at each sliding side door.  Built in loading ramp, strap down points, and higher roofline for motorcycles.  Amphibious rudders and props for water crossing.  And last, but not least, a deep fryer because I really enjoy chicken wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 23, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Fifty150 said:

Ford must have figured out that the extra money spent on a smaller turbo engine, did not merit such a small and seemingly insignificant net in performance.  I wouldn't mind spending more, if it actually made a difference.   But 9 HP? 

9 HP at sea level. Keep that in mind. I went with a 2016 specifically because I spend a lot of time in Summit County Colorado. Up there it's probably closer to 20-30 HP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, G B L said:

chong  its 1% per 1000 feet and you are one of the few people that the Turbo engine is perfect for.

Yes, I realize I'm strongly in the minority! That's a good rule to follow though. So roughly speaking the 2.5L motor is operating at 90% or ~152hp at 10k feet based on the figures here. That's 26hp down from the EB!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...