2.3 EcoBoost Carbon Buildup

[NCOBX]

These engines sound like we’re going back to the days of adjusting points and adjusting the carb.

Maintenance beyond an oil change&air filter in under 100k is crazy talk in 2020.

Sponsored

 

[Straight 6]

These engines sound like we’re going back to the days of adjusting points and adjusting the carb.

Maintenance beyond an oil change&air filter in under 100k is crazy talk in 2020.

Yeah, is this a ford specific problem?
Seems like this is a big issue with ranger, but there's a lot of cars using direct injection today and I haven't heard this much fuss from any of them

 

[NCOBX]

Yeah, is this a ford specific problem?
Seems like this is a big issue with ranger, but there's a lot of cars using direct injection today and I haven't heard this much fuss from any of them

Hyundai has similar issues, in fact if your behind one and it gives it decent throttle it essentially “rolls coal”.
VW/Audi has (had?) similar issues as well.

Plenty of examples of building the engine correctly so that this does not happen, why in 2020 this is still an issue? Can’t tell you that. Frankly it makes more sense to go back to pre-DI engines rather than putting out a half baked engine.

 

[buildbigboats]

Yeah, is this a ford specific problem?
Seems like this is a big issue with ranger, but there's a lot of cars using direct injection today and I haven't heard this much fuss from any of them

https://www.shopdap.com/blog/post/carbon-build-up-and-cold-start-misfires-on-2-0t-tsi.html
Issue on VW/Audi 2.0 engines

 

[aabsalon]

These engines sound like we’re going back to the days of adjusting points and adjusting the carb.

Maintenance beyond an oil change&air filter in under 100k is crazy talk in 2020.

Well, it happened to my Toyota Tacoma. That thing is sooooo reliable. Its a keeper.

 

[Nickp]

These engines sound like we’re going back to the days of adjusting points and adjusting the carb.

Maintenance beyond an oil change&air filter in under 100k is crazy talk in 2020.

Most of this is completely overblown. A 2.3 ecoboost is easily going to get you to 200k with minimal problems. As much as people say that “it has to work harder, heavier vehicle etc” the gearing is also VERY favorable so the 2.3 should be fine within reason. Also, maintaining the 2.3 will be easier for spark plugs etc. I actually just made a profile at the Mustang6G forum and I’m going to start a thread specifically about higher mileage ecoboost engines since there hasn’t been one in over a year. Just to get some better opinions.

The 2.7 is easily a 300k mile engine, but will be a bit more to maintain. Either one is going to be way more reliable than any Bronco engine so far.

 

[NCOBX]

Most of this is completely overblown. A 2.3 ecoboost is easily going to get you to 200k with minimal problems. As much as people say that “it has to work harder, heavier vehicle etc” the gearing is also VERY favorable so the 2.3 should be fine within reason. Also, maintaining the 2.3 will be easier for spark plugs etc.

The 2.7 is easily a 300k mile engine, but will be a bit more to maintain. Either one is going to be way more reliable than any Bronco engine so far.

The 2.3L has the coking issues, no telling how much extra maintenance is “enough” to prevent a problem until you have a problem.
Also a couple extra spark plugs won’t make a dent in anyone’s budget ?

It does appear most 2.3 engine failures that do happen are early in life while Still under warranty, once your past that stage it’s only slightly more work. I do wish the electronics would let the engine still operate at normal speeds when the turbo fails though, huge annoyance of mine.

I’m mechanically inclined enough to keep the 2.3L going, it’s an extra hassle I would prefer not to have but I’m not going to let that stop me from a base 7 speed.

 

[Nickp]

The 2.3L has the coking issues, no telling how much extra maintenance is “enough” to prevent a problem until you have a problem.
Also a couple extra spark plugs won’t make a dent in anyone’s budget ?

It does appear most 2.3 engine failures that do happen are early in life while Still under warranty, once your past that stage it’s only slightly more work. I do wish the electronics would let the engine still operate at normal speeds when the turbo fails though, huge annoyance of mine.

I’m mechanically inclined enough to keep the 2.3L going, it’s an extra hassle I would prefer not to have but I’m not going to let that stop me from a base 7 speed.

I was more referring to probably need to use the dealership for the plugs because I was assuming it would be a clusterfuck to change them on the 2.7

Just watched a YouTube video for it on the F-150 2.7.... I’m honestly super surprised. Looks easier than my 2005 Explorer plugs were since they’re basically on top. Was expecting them to be on the bottom and impossible to get to without pulling out half the engine.

 

[NCOBX]

I was more referring to probably need to use the dealership for the plugs because I was assuming it would be a clusterfuck to change them on the 2.7

Just watched a YouTube video for it on the F-250.... I’m honestly super surprised. Looks easier than my 2005 Explorer plugs were since they’re basically on top. Was expecting them to be on the bottom and impossible to get to without pulling out half the engine.

250 or 150?

Ive been fortunate enough never to have hard to change plugs on a personal vehicle, didn’t realize that was a thing, particularly for a maintenance item.

 

[Nickp]

250 or 150?

Ive been fortunate enough never to have hard to change plugs on a personal vehicle, didn’t realize that was a thing, particularly for a maintenance item.

F-150 I edited right before you posted lol.

Plugs should be replaced around every 100k miles is my understanding. The platinum irdium unobtainium whatever plugs that ford puts in factory may be 120k though.

It can get expensive for some engines. My dad paid $500 or so for our newer explorer due to the plugs being on the back of the engine block

 

[Proudy202]

Me and a friend have actually just gone through the process of cleaning the carbon build up off his 55k 2.0T Audi A4, it is not a job I want to be doing every 50k on the Bronco (even if that is 4 years apart)

From the get go I'll be doing a catch can, using premium gas, good quality oils and regular maintenance, thinking 5-7k oil changes...plus the old Italian Tune Up (or drove it like I stole it)

After warranty is up I'd be tempted to look at something like this...
https://www.speedperf6rmanc3.com/products/port-injection-fuel-kit-for-ford-ecoboost-2-0-2-3l.html

I know it's more performance based and pricey, but if that and a good tune keeps the engine going for the next 15years I'll be happy, I'm not planning on getting rid of the Bronco I'm hoping it becomes a future classic!!!

This is all of course dependent on if the 2.7 bolted to the manual becomes an aftermarket option...in that case that will be my path!!!

 

[JerseyRuss]

Most of this is completely overblown. A 2.3 ecoboost is easily going to get you to 200k with minimal problems. As much as people say that “it has to work harder, heavier vehicle etc” the gearing is also VERY favorable so the 2.3 should be fine within reason. Also, maintaining the 2.3 will be easier for spark plugs etc. I actually just made a profile at the Mustang6G forum and I’m going to start a thread specifically about higher mileage ecoboost engines since there hasn’t been one in over a year. Just to get some better opinions.

The 2.7 is easily a 300k mile engine, but will be a bit more to maintain. Either one is going to be way more reliable than any Bronco engine so far.

I like hearing some confidence about a 2.3 getting up to 200K miles I plan on the 2.3 Manual but it will be a high mileage vehicle for me. Is there any concern I should have about it being manual 7 vs the 10 spd auto. Generally, I would think you run higher RPM's before shifting in a manual vs what the 10 spd auto is gonna do. Will this cause some accelerated wear?

 

[Badplaid72]

The old “Italian tune-up” does wonders for a lot of motors. Weed eaters to tractors.

Had to google this. Apparently I tune up my car on a regular basis? Good job me!

 

[Mattwings]

My understanding and research indicate that it’s not a Ford issue, it’s a direct injection issue. 2.7 uses both direct and port to send fuel over the valves. 2.3 is direct into the cylinder. Fuel type or traditional “carbon buildup“ is not the primary issue. It is made more significant by the crankcase gases (via PCV valve) being combined with incoming air charge not being combined with fresh fuel (like in port or throttle body introduction of fuel). This lets the oil coat the intake and valves. It can be more severe in vehicles driven short mileage (not warmed up) or low rpm/load driving. I believe the intent of the catch can and occasionally driving aggressively are to counteract these issues. I will do both if I opt for the 2.3 (still on the fence).

Sponsored