2.3 EcoBoost vs 2.7 EcoBoost - Poll

[bbostic5]

2.7. Great torque and will be plenty fuel efficient.

Sponsored

 

[THEMANatwar]

2.7 because

 

[Beachin 74]

2.7. Great torque and will be plenty fuel efficient.

Same here. Low end torque is what makes a good off roader.

 

[North7]

2.7, quieter, reserve power, port injection, larger tires

 

[DrewBronc21]

2.7 if it can be paired with manual transmission otherwise 2.3.

 

[FlyingSpaceLlama]

Whichever engine isn't the 2.3l.

"List reasons for your choice..." Well, this is going to upset 11.9% of you: Because I have already taken one of those Japanese lawn mower engines to the scrapyard at 100k miles when it spun a rod bearing for the second time and parts were unavailable due to demand from the insanely high failure rate. Researching the problem, it turns out that the average lifespan for the 2.3 is 50-60k miles which is consistent with what I saw. Here's the kicker; this was the non-turbo variant that makes less power under lower stress. The inherent block casting flaws have not been fixed, but several new flaws have been introduced which further reduce reliability.

The 2.3 is objectively the least reliable engine ever built by Ford Motor Company. To put the cherry on top of this turd sundae, I've seen the half-Mustang 2.3 engines on a dyno. There is little similarity between advertised power output and real-world output. My experiences with the disposable 2.3 have been enough to make me swear off ever having another, and almost enough to make me never buy a Ford again even after having owned a dozen or so other Ford vehicles that were relatively problem-free.

So it looks like if I buy the Bronco it'll be the 2.7 V6 unless Ford surprises us all and offers a diesel, or somehow shoehorns in the supercharged GT500 variant of the Coyote. That might happen, right? Right?

 

[MCG DAWG]

2.7. Why? Because it's there.

 

[aabsalon]

Whichever engine isn't the 2.3l.

"List reasons for your choice..." Well, this is going to upset 11.9% of you: Because I have already taken one of those Japanese lawn mower engines to the scrapyard at 100k miles when it spun a rod bearing for the second time and parts were unavailable due to demand from the insanely high failure rate. Researching the problem, it turns out that the average lifespan for the 2.3 is 50-60k miles which is consistent with what I saw. Here's the kicker; this was the non-turbo variant that makes less power under lower stress. The inherent block casting flaws have not been fixed, but several new flaws have been introduced which further reduce reliability.

The 2.3 is objectively the least reliable engine ever built by Ford Motor Company. To put the cherry on top of this turd sundae, I've seen the half-Mustang 2.3 engines on a dyno. There is little similarity between advertised power output and real-world output. My experiences with the disposable 2.3 have been enough to make me swear off ever having another, and almost enough to make me never buy a Ford again even after having owned a dozen or so other Ford vehicles that were relatively problem-free.

So it looks like if I buy the Bronco it'll be the 2.7 V6 unless Ford surprises us all and offers a diesel, or somehow shoehorns in the supercharged GT500 variant of the Coyote. That might happen, right? Right?

I thought the 2.3 Ecoboosts were some of the more reliable engines that Ford makes? No?

 

[FlyingSpaceLlama]

Nope, they're really hyped, but I'm not the only one who's been left on the side of the road by a low-mileage 2.3. The majority of them will eventually spin the #3 rod bearing, usually sooner rather than later. There are also issues with the block splitting between the #2 and #3 cylinders, especially on turbo applications where heat becomes a greater factor.

 

[Laminar]

I thought the 2.3 Ecoboosts were some of the more reliable engines that Ford makes? No?

They're fine. The original 2.3 Duratec was in some Focuses and the Fusion. Those cars would fall apart around the 2.3 but it'd be fine. It's a Mazda MZR at heart, and the assertion of an "average" 60k mile lifespan is laughable.

The 2.3 EcoBoost is also fine. The "half Mustangs" are putting out more whp stock than any pre-Coyote Mustang GT ever did. The guy's just trolling and doing a bad job of it.

 

[aabsalon]

Nope, they're really hyped, but I'm not the only one who's been left on the side of the road by a low-mileage 2.3. The majority of them will eventually spin the #3 rod bearing, usually sooner rather than later. There are also issues with the block splitting between the #2 and #3 cylinders, especially on turbo applications where heat becomes a greater factor.

What about gas mileage? I thought the 2.3 gets better MPG than the 2.7

 

[FlyingSpaceLlama]

I can't really comment on that as I don't have a ton of experience with the 2.7. For comparison, I have had the 2.3 non-turbo and the 5.0 at the same time and the mileage was within 1-2mpg of being the same. I'd expect that the 2.7 uses very slightly more fuel than the 2.3, but not enough for it to be a deciding factor in a car purchase.

 

[Imissmy1996bronco]

I can't really comment on that as I don't have a ton of experience with the 2.7. For comparison, I have had the 2.3 non-turbo and the 5.0 at the same time and the mileage was within 1-2mpg of being the same. I'd expect that the 2.7 uses very slightly more fuel than the 2.3, but not enough for it to be a deciding factor in a car purchase.

if I recall correctly, the 2.3 ecoboost has never been offered without a turbo. Ford did used to have another 2.3l inline 4 that was definitely not a great motor, but it has no relation to the new one besides displacement.

 

[securitysix]

If money were no object, I'd definitely go 2.7L or bigger, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to be getting a 2.3L for cost reasons.

Whichever engine isn't the 2.3l.

"List reasons for your choice..." Well, this is going to upset 11.9% of you: Because I have already taken one of those Japanese lawn mower engines to the scrapyard at 100k miles when it spun a rod bearing for the second time and parts were unavailable due to demand from the insanely high failure rate. Researching the problem, it turns out that the average lifespan for the 2.3 is 50-60k miles which is consistent with what I saw. Here's the kicker; this was the non-turbo variant that makes less power under lower stress. The inherent block casting flaws have not been fixed, but several new flaws have been introduced which further reduce reliability.

The 2.3 is objectively the least reliable engine ever built by Ford Motor Company

I'm not saying this didn't happen to you. It's feasible.

But do you have a source to back up the rest of what you're saying here? Specifically with regards to the claim that the "average lifespan for the 2.3 is 50-60k miles"? With stock, unmodified engines? Particularly with stock, unmodified EcoBoost engines?

Because the EcoBoost and the Duratec may share some roots, but they are not identical. From what I can find, the 2.0L EcoBoost has some changes from the 2.0L Duratec (lighter weight, but higher strength components in key areas), and the 2.3L EcoBoost is a modified and reinforced version of the 2.0L EcoBoost.

I'm open to new information, especially if that information pertains to the reliability of what is supposed to be a durable system.

But I also can't discount the probability that you're experiencing confirmation bias. You had a problem, you went looking for others having the problem, found others having the problem, and may have assumed that a very vocal minority grouching about said problem constituted proof that the problem is widespread.

The only common problem I have been able to find with the 2.3L EcoBoost is a head gasket issue, which mostly plagued the Focus RS, and that was due to the wrong head gaskets being installed at the factory.

So, please present any proof you have that this rod bearing issue is a widespread problem with the 2.3L EcoBoost. If you can provide none, I'd suggest that everyone here apply Hitchens's razor.

 

[Laminar]

if I recall correctly, the 2.3 ecoboost has never been offered without a turbo. Ford did used to have another 2.3l inline 4 that was definitely not a great motor, but it has no relation to the new one besides displacement.

Ford had the 2.3 Lima, which originated in the '70s and was used in the Mustang into the '90s.

The 2.3 Duratec is an offshoot of the 2.0 Duratec, same bore just more stroke. Same block, everything bolts up. The Duratecs are just Mazda MZR engines. They were manufactured side by side at the same plant and installed in various Mazda and Ford vehicles. They were perfectly fine engines.

The 2.0 and 2.3 EcoBoost engines are just a hopped up Duratec - nothing special about them, Ford just slapped on a new head and direct injection and a turbo and called it good. Only minor changes to the shortblock (though I'm sure Ford Marketing would claim it's all new).

Sponsored