2.3L Oil Analysis

[dejones64]

Does anyone have a oil catch can brand recommendation please, for the 2.3l ecoboost? Does one really need to spend over $200 for one?

Sponsored

 

[seasaw]

If you do your own maintenance, the difference between the standard suspension and Sasquatch might be the difference between some of us getting to the oil drain plug without a jack.

 

[rcengr]

Does anyone have a oil catch can brand recommendation please, for the 2.3l ecoboost? Does one really need to spend over $200 for one?

The UPR catch can that I put in was $250. The UPR is a dual valve can while all the cheaper ones that I looked at were single valve. In a single valve can, it connects to your crankcase and the intake, just like the stock vent line. This means that when the intake is under boost, the crankcase valve will be closed and it will not vent. In the dual valve can you run another line to before the turbo intake. That way the can always has lower pressure than the crankcase.

A single valve can will work of course. I usually have the boost gage up on my IP and I really don't spend a lot of time in boost where the dual valve can functions better. Also, if you think you might forget to empty the can, don't get the dual valve variety - when it overflows it will dump right into your turbo.

 

[Desert_6G]

I've had 2 samples sent to Blackstone from my 2.3L ecoboost in my Ranger. First at 9k and second at 18.5k. Both came back with good results. I ran M1 full syn from 9-18.5k and the results were so good with plenty of life left on the oil that I could have ran it over 10k. I plan on running M1 in my Bronco as well.

 

[dejones64]

The UPR catch can that I put in was $250. The UPR is a dual valve can while all the cheaper ones that I looked at were single valve. In a single valve can, it connects to your crankcase and the intake, just like the stock vent line. This means that when the intake is under boost, the crankcase valve will be closed and it will not vent. In the dual valve can you run another line to before the turbo intake. That way the can always has lower pressure than the crankcase.

A single valve can will work of course. I usually have the boost gage up on my IP and I really don't spend a lot of time in boost where the dual valve can functions better. Also, if you think you might forget to empty the can, don't get the dual valve variety - when it overflows it will dump right into your turbo.

Thanks for that explanation. So will there by chance anything get sucked into the turbo side, other than not emptying the can?

 

[rcengr]

The oil separator is there to prevent anything from being sucked into the lower pressure lines. You should be good.

 

[aplm7]

This is the sort of scientific evidence that will disprove those folks claiming the 2.3 has universal fuel dilution issues.

Exactly the type of research which will be soundly ignored by 99% of people on here so their claim of "high strung and short-lived" 2.3 turbo motors make sense when they fill the order banks out for their twin turbo v6 Bronco and their ball-squirtingly awesome extra 46 cubic inches.

Okay, on topic: You should be running a higher zinc content oil than Mobil 1 for this application, note the drastically higher zinc findings in ASK NO RIDER's results. You should be at the 850-900 mark at minimum in order to ensure maximum turbo efficiency and lifespan.

Great to see another engine that is not one of the very-rare units to have fuel dilution in the oil. Typically that failure comes from the high pressure fuel pump, not the block. But something to keep an eye on is rising oil levels.

I know very little, count me in that group. Can you perhaps care to try to explain why there is a growing number of bad fuel tests over on the Ranger5g sister forum? They use the same 2.3L ecoboost. % fuel over 2%, some over 10%

poll 1 - https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/poll-test-results-for-fuel-in-oil.9986/#post-186362
poll 2 - https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/fuel-in-oil-poll.6162/
63 page ongoing complaints of high fuel % - https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/fuel-in-oil.4803/

I read through maybe half of that 63 page thread, and basically summary:

lots of members (over 40) have the issue, and several are going for a class action lawsuit unless Ford does a TSB or recall. Their concern is that of safety, because an engine shouldn't run such high fuel in the oil it might catch the whole vehicle on fire, or burn out the engine early. Only one guy had 50k miles so far, but lucky for him, his has always been under .5%

Doesn't seem to matter if it's a brand new 2019 or 2020 ranger, or if it has 20,000 miles on it +, the representation is wide in the sample

 

[Trilifter7]

I know very little, count me in that group. Can you perhaps care to try to explain why there is a growing number of bad fuel tests over on the Ranger5g sister forum? They use the same 2.3L ecoboost. % fuel over 2%, some over 10%

poll 1 - https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/poll-test-results-for-fuel-in-oil.9986/#post-186362
poll 2 - https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/fuel-in-oil-poll.6162/
63 page ongoing complaints of high fuel % - https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/fuel-in-oil.4803/

I read through maybe half of that 63 page thread, and basically summary:

lots of members (over 40) have the issue, and several are going for a class action lawsuit unless Ford does a TSB or recall. Their concern is that of safety, because an engine shouldn't run such high fuel in the oil it might catch the whole vehicle on fire, or burn out the engine early. Only one guy had 50k miles so far, but lucky for him, his has always been under .5%

Doesn't seem to matter if it's a brand new 2019 or 2020 ranger, or if it has 20,000 miles on it +, the representation is wide in the sample

I’ll be following this closely. I was leaning heavily towards the 2.3 but not sure now.

 

[aplm7]

I’ll be following this closely. I was leaning heavily towards the 2.3 but not sure now.

Same.. 2.7L upgrade is totally worth it to me. Read that whole thread last night and those battles seem completely not worth the risk . Not sure why it only affects the Ranger and not mustangs or Focus etc. But it sounds like none of the dealers can figure it out still and won't give out loaners, engine swaps or TSB's for over a year now. I'd think bronco would be closer to Rangers build too not mustang ? .. so if they don't know what is causing it this far into November 2020 how can we be sure it won't carry over to Rangers brother?

Also just today from a new victim: "They also stated they had another new ranger in the shop with the same issue and even checked one they had on their lot with only 25 miles on it that also measured a high level on the dipstick. So my dealership has at least 3 Rangers that have this issue.
The poll on this site clearly does not fully represent the magnitude of this problem."

 

[Trilifter7]

Same.. 2.7L upgrade is totally worth it to me. Read that whole thread last night and those battles seem completely not worth the risk . Not sure why it only affects the Ranger and not mustangs or Focus etc. But it sounds like none of the dealers can figure it out still and won't give out loaners, engine swaps or TSB's for over a year now. I'd think bronco would be closer to Rangers build too not mustang ? .. so if they don't know what is causing it this far into November 2020 how can we be sure it won't carry over to Rangers brother?

Also just today from a new victim: "They also stated they had another new ranger in the shop with the same issue and even checked one they had on their lot with only 25 miles on it that also measured a high level on the dipstick. So my dealership has at least 3 Rangers that have this issue.
The poll on this site clearly does not fully represent the magnitude of this problem."

2.7L it is for me

 

[Trustable]

This is the sort of scientific evidence that will disprove those folks claiming the 2.3 has universal fuel dilution issues.

Exactly the type of research which will be soundly ignored by 99% of people on here so their claim of "high strung and short-lived" 2.3 turbo motors make sense when they fill the order banks out for their twin turbo v6 Bronco and their ball-squirtingly awesome extra 46 cubic inches.

Okay, on topic: You should be running a higher zinc content oil than Mobil 1 for this application, note the drastically higher zinc findings in ASK NO RIDER's results. You should be at the 850-900 mark at minimum in order to ensure maximum turbo efficiency and lifespan.

Great to see another engine that is not one of the very-rare units to have fuel dilution in the oil. Typically that failure comes from the high pressure fuel pump, not the block. But something to keep an eye on is rising oil levels.

So lets say you wanted to stick with mobil 1 or another oil with not as high zinc levels, would a zinc additive be out of the question? Im going to be getting the 2.7 but based on what you say zinc is helpful to turbos, and that has two, so It will probably be pretty important over long term ownership?

 

[Rick Astley]

So lets say you wanted to stick with mobil 1 or another oil with not as high zinc levels, would a zinc additive be out of the question? Im going to be getting the 2.7 but based on what you say zinc is helpful to turbos, and that has two, so It will probably be pretty important over long term ownership?

From what i've heard, only turbo charged cars blow up if you drive them because turbos have to work hard to operate a Bronco.*

Full disclosure: These statements have been shared by many people who extol the virtues of the 2.7 as the superior engine. I'm not exactly sure if they are aware of the twin-turbo setup as you are clearly aware. It has been common advice across domestic turbo manufacturers and oil companies alike that turbo shaft wear is reduced with higher zinc content in oil..... The rest is up to you!

 

[Trustable]

From what i've heard, only turbo charged cars blow up if you drive them because turbos have to work hard to operate a Bronco.*

Full disclosure: These statements have been shared by many people who extol the virtues of the 2.7 as the superior engine. I'm not exactly sure if they are aware of the twin-turbo setup as you are clearly aware. It has been common advice across domestic turbo manufacturers and oil companies alike that turbo shaft wear is reduced with higher zinc content in oil..... The rest is up to you!

Haha. I've heard a lot of how the turbos are gonna blow up on here. Kinda crazy when almost every vehicle has turbos now. I'm not sure why people see turbos as a bad thing. I'll definitely be on the lookout for a higher zinc oil though, regardless if I go 2.3 or 2.7TT. As a sidenote I was all for the 2.3, my mom's mkc she had a couple years ago was way faster than it ought to be lol. After driving an f150 with the 2.7, I really enjoyed that too. It really just comes down to manual vs automatic. If I got automatic I might as well upgrade to the 2.7tt. Im sure ford is pushing people to do that anyway. I'm sure when the bronco starts hitting lots though it will all be 2.3 auto.

 

[Rick Astley]

Haha. I've heard a lot of how the turbos are gonna blow up on here. Kinda crazy when almost every vehicle has turbos now. I'm not sure why people see turbos as a bad thing. I'll definitely be on the lookout for a higher zinc oil though, regardless if I go 2.3 or 2.7TT. As a sidenote I was all for the 2.3, my mom's mkc she had a couple years ago was way faster than it ought to be lol. After driving an f150 with the 2.7, I really enjoyed that too. It really just comes down to manual vs automatic. If I got automatic I might as well upgrade to the 2.7tt. Im sure ford is pushing people to do that anyway. I'm sure when the bronco starts hitting lots though it will all be 2.3 auto.

You're definitely right on all accounts!

The forced induction 2.3 debuted in 2015 with the Mustang (remember, it was the mid-level engine above the venerable V6 in that engines final year of service in Mustang). Ecoboost has also permeated across the Ford lineup with negligible issues from the turbo.

Personal feeling here, but the 2.3 hate stems from Americans desire to always have the largest engine and cylinder count no matter the situation or need. But as somebody who already has a PROPER engine (>7 ltr, V8, carbureted, still setting points), the arguments for the additional 43 cubic inches of the tiny little 2.7 is precisely what you said and that is the only real argument. "If i'm already getting an automatic, then why not?"

 

[bravely]

This is the sort of scientific evidence that will disprove those folks claiming the 2.3 has universal fuel dilution issues.

Exactly the type of research which will be soundly ignored by 99% of people on here so their claim of "high strung and short-lived" 2.3 turbo motors make sense when they fill the order banks out for their twin turbo v6 Bronco and their ball-squirtingly awesome extra 46 cubic inches.

Okay, on topic: You should be running a higher zinc content oil than Mobil 1 for this application, note the drastically higher zinc findings in ASK NO RIDER's results. You should be at the 850-900 mark at minimum in order to ensure maximum turbo efficiency and lifespan.

Great to see another engine that is not one of the very-rare units to have fuel dilution in the oil. Typically that failure comes from the high pressure fuel pump, not the block. But something to keep an eye on is rising oil levels.

Why high zinc? I know old cars (pre roller) needed it. This is the first I've heard of high zinc for new cars.

Sponsored