Sponsored

2.3 EcoBoost vs 2.7 EcoBoost - Poll

2.3 EcoBoost vs 2.7 EcoBoost - Poll


  • Total voters
    1,258

FlyingSpaceLlama

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
27
Reaction score
59
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
1964 Lockheed Blackbird
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Laminar, you are exactly correct. The 2.3 EcoBoost and the 2.3 Duratec are virtually identical short blocks. The reason that the Duratec, as well as the "turbo Duratec" EcoBoost almost always spin rod #3 is that the oil galleys are incorrectly designed and tend not to properly lubricate the entire engine.

There exists more documentation than one could reasonably be expected to read on the common failures, but that's something you'll have to google yourself. The old Duratec 23 had the interesting quality that it would either blow by 100k miles, or run forever. The EcoBoost also has the same reputation for failure, but due to substantially increased load and increased need for lubrication, failures tend to be more common and earlier. Of course, there is likely some confirmation bias there; a huge portion of my research on the engine has been repair information. Invariably forum posts regarding repair of the engine will begin by stating that the cause of failure is among the two common failure modes of the design; spun bearing due to oil starvation or cracked block due to questionable casting quality.

An interesting note is that the Duratec 25 largely avoids the major issues of the 2.3. The block is almost identical but taller and therefore must be a separate casting. The casting itself is revised to address the oil galley issue and does so very well. There is increased webbing in the block where there is a known week point. This doesn't completely negate the fault, but most people never have issues with blocks splitting on the 2.5 unless they're souping it up. The 2.5 also has a longer stroke and makes more torque at lower RPM, runs a little cooler, and because of the improved torque curve, makes slightly better real-world fuel economy. There are still weak points but they're not catastrophic. I have no idea why Ford didn't develop the stronger 2.5 as their primary EcoBoost option; it would cost the same, save a tiny bit of fuel, and make more power.
Sponsored

 
  • Like
Reactions: BE_

Bdisco

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
521
Reaction score
1,045
Location
Flashing my lights behind you, MA
Vehicle(s)
‘88 911,‘15 Chevy 2500, ‘24 Acura Integra Type S
Your Bronco Model
Wildtrak
Clubs
 
2.7 cause...
Ford Bronco 2.3 EcoBoost vs 2.7 EcoBoost - Poll 1594400069520
 

securitysix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
442
Reaction score
832
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
2011 Toyota Tundra
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Clubs
 
There exists more documentation than one could reasonably be expected to read on the common failures, but that's something you'll have to google yourself.
Nope. You're making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. If you're unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support your claim, then there is no reason to assume your claim has merit. Hitchens's razor.
 

HoosierDaddy

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Threads
37
Messages
5,364
Reaction score
13,670
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
68&69 Broncos, 21 AMB Base 2dr, 23 VB BL 4dr
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
I'll decide after I drive it.
I'll not lie, for 99% of the time, the NA 2.5L 4 banger in my Outback works just fine....even hiway merges.....so a Turbo 4 , like the wife's Subaru is fun as heck to drive...... HOWEVER,
....if it will have enough towing capacity for the Ranger boat in 4 door version, I'll go as big as I can get, as long as it is not a "peaky" motor.
So, yes, both.... maybe.
 

Sponsored

FlyingSpaceLlama

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
27
Reaction score
59
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
1964 Lockheed Blackbird
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Nope. You're making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. If you're unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support your claim, then there is no reason to assume your claim has merit. Hitchens's razor.
You are correct; the burden of proof is on me. I can't be arsed to provide a ton of evidence, but here are a few examples of what I'm talking about..

Examples of low-mileage failures:

https://www.ecoboostmustang.org/forum/issues-problems/7729-spun-rod-bearing.html

https://www.ecoboostmustang.org/for...y-blew-head-gasket-my-15-eco-stang-31k-2.html

Here's an example of the power discrepancy I mentioned -- keep in mind that this is measuring RWHP and Ford measures BHP which will account for some but not all of the discrepancy:

-- That's about 287BHP assuming the dyno is properly calibrated and the car is running a 6r80 transmission. 92% of rated HP, which is actually pretty impressively high compared to some that I've seen.

-- About 255BHP The uploader said his dyno "wasn't putting out the right numbers" but also said it was correct on everything else he ran that day. 82% of rated HP is a bit lower than usual. Most that I've seen dyno out somewhere between the two videos shown.

That's about all the evidence I can be bothered to provide and it's obviously anecdotal. Since I'm just here to have a conversation and not a debate, that's the extent of my interest in "proving" what I gave as personal observations. Since most of my opinions are formed based on my own experience doing mechanical work, my views will necessarily be filtered through that experience.

I have enjoyed our conversation to this point, but the employment of debate tactics, correct though they may be, has somewhat tempered my interest in continuing the conversation which I did not intend to be an argument. My desire to debate you further is approximately the same as my desire to rush out and buy a 2.3 EcoBoost. Heck, the ol' attention deficit is kicking in and I'm getting kinda bored of this topic altogether :)
 

Rogues Gambit

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Threads
45
Messages
2,456
Reaction score
2,931
Location
Eatontown, NJ
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ram Rebel, '07 A4 Quattro
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
Driven too many turbo 4's, wanna enjoy a beast

*Now that it's officially announced and we know we can't get the big boy with stick, I'll at least say I know what it's capable of
 
Last edited:

Jforse

Wildtrak
Member
First Name
J
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
5
Reaction score
3
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
F150, Highlander, JKUR
Your Bronco Model
Wildtrak
2.7 if the price to play isn’t to high, but I’d run the 2.3 as well.
 

Sponsored

5280Bronco

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Threads
37
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
4,299
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
02 Mustang GT, 05 Volvo V70R, 17 Mazda 6
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
Clubs
 
It's gonna come down to whichever one is available with the manual. If it's both of them, then it will be the price you have to pay for the 2.7l that will be the factor.
 

Rogues Gambit

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Threads
45
Messages
2,456
Reaction score
2,931
Location
Eatontown, NJ
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ram Rebel, '07 A4 Quattro
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
It's gonna come down to whichever one is available with the manual. If it's both of them, then it will be the price you have to pay for the 2.7l that will be the factor.
Whatcha said basically
 

Speed Racer

Outer Banks
Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
11
Reaction score
27
Location
Cincinnati
Vehicle(s)
2015 Chevrolet Impala
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
I'd preorder on Monday if it had the 5.0

Those days are over, though, so 2.7 it is. Maybe I could be talked into a 2.3 after a test drive and depending on pricing and fuel economy advantage.
Sponsored

 
 


Top