2.3 or a 2.7

[Tonka Bronka]

All direct injection engines are more susceptible to fuel dilution. Some engines worse than others.

So in your opinion does the 2.3 need catch cans?

Sponsored

 

[Ducati1098]

So in your opinion does the 2.3 need catch cans?

Personally I'm a fan of catch cans. I wont say it absolutely needs one, but I pull a lot of shit out of mine every oil change

 

[White Zombie]

Interesting to hear this catch can issue in gas engines. I have 2 powerstrokes (7.3 & 6.7) which the ccv has either been deleted or reouted with and internal catch can (basically looks like a mini cheese grater in the valve cover).
I didnt know anything about catch cans until I started following this whole forum site. Apparently these turbo gas engines have the same oil issue causing the need for a catch can.

I guess I'm going to look for one and get one installed. They dont look that difficult to do.

Personally I'm a fan of catch cans. I wont say it absolutely needs one, but I pull a lot of shit out of mine every oil change

 

[Ducati1098]

Interesting to hear this catch can issue in gas engines. I have 2 powerstrokes (7.3 & 6.7) which the ccv has either been deleted or reouted with and internal catch can (basically looks like a mini cheese grater in the valve cover).
I didnt know anything about catch cans until I started following this whole forum site. Apparently these turbo gas engines have the same oil issue causing the need for a catch can.

I guess I'm going to look for one and get one installed. They dont look that difficult to do.

Yeah it's a typical subject where some believe in them and some don't.
The stuff I pull out of mine is nasty and reeks like fuel. While it may not necessarily harm anything if you don't have one, I'd rather not have all that shit going back into my crankcase, charge pipes, intake, etc.

 

[White Zombie]

Im guess its the same stuff that is going through the ccv filters in the diesels, oil particles in the exhaust running back through the intake. The internal catch can on my 6.7 let's the oil particles drain back and the air then exits through the 3/4" rubber hose under my pickup. The way my 7.3 is done is even simpler.

Yeah it's a typical subject where some believe in them and some don't.
The stuff I pull out of mine is nasty and reeks like fuel. While it may not necessarily harm anything if you don't have one, I'd rather not have all that shit going back into my crankcase, charge pipes, intake, etc.

 

[23OBX2.7]

Who said the 2.3 dumps copious amounts of fuel into the crank case? Most of the time when you read about fuel in the crank case its not the 2.3, but one of the TT V6. I change my oil at 5000 which is about once a year and have no detectible fuel in the crank case. This is with stop & go city driving. You are living in the dark ages, the head gasket issue was 10 years ago and mostly on the Focus ST. As for the 2.0 vs 2.3, if builders only use the 2.0 why are there so many performance parts available for the 2.3? Makes no sense. The 2.3 is designed to handle more power and torque than the 2.0. There is a good video on YT explaining the differences, from a guy obviously knowledgeable on Ford engines. The 2.7L is obviously the best choice for power with or without tuning. Its a great engine, but why does Ford have to do crap like use a wet belt? The 2.3L has the advantage of less complexity. It has half the heads, cam shafts, turbos, catalytic converters and other parts vs the V6. Bottom line there are pros & cons to either engine, and not everything is about power.

It's legendary in S550 Mustang world and I personally had a dirty side catch can installed at 38K miles on stock HPP 2.3 with Radium PVC Baffle connected to catch can and Garrett IC.. A few tables spoons of mostly fuel with some oil at every 3000 mile change.

I have to search harder on the 2.7 fuel contamination because the only thing I saw so far was a guy who wasn't catching anything with catch can...I will get catch cans instantly if needed.....still at only 6000 miles

 

[timn]

So I think I am buying a 2025 left over tommorrow its a basic package with Sasquatch added. So is that just bigger wheels and tires with lockers. It that ruby read with metal flakes. What else should I add wife wants heated seats

 

[MNBigfoot]

...... So is that just bigger wheels and tires with lockers. ....

If this is a question, the Sas package is more than that, it's stronger axles, stronger rack, gearing for 35's, Bilstein shocks with 1.1" of lift, Advanced 4WD, wider fender flares, and rims with with the proper off-set for the bigger tires. Apologies if it wasn't a question.

 

[timn]

Yes thanks for your answer.

 

[timn]

So with all you guys help we purchased a new 2025 base with the sas package, 2.3 engine 2 door we really like it. Here it is before they detailed it i think we got a great price also.

 

[23OBX2.7]

Very nice I love the agility and bottom end torque of 2.3 plus thats a great color.

 

[timn]

We like the color also and Ford is really wanting to move the 25s out the door price was under 40k. I was looking at used for more than this one.

 

[nc-hiker]

I test drive both the ‘25 2.3 and 2.7 and ultimately went with the 2.7. I also have a ‘22 Ranger with the 2.3 and FP tune. I loved the exhaust sound on the 2.7.

It's fake by the way.

 

[23OBX2.7]

It's fake by the way.

Sound real and good.

 

[Brian_B]

I just saw an article earlier today

https://fordauthority.com/2026/02/h...rd-f-150-raptor-makes-after-200k-miles-video/

Late Model Restoration put the pickup through its paces. The first-gen 2010 Ford F-150 Raptor packs the 5.4L Triton V8, which, in this guise, is factory rated at 320 horsepower and 390 pound-feet of torque.

So that puts a bit of perspective on it. Original Gen 1 F150 Raptor ratings fall in at almost equal to 2.3 with a mild tune, or just under stock 2.7.

Sponsored