2.3L reliability

[Blksn955.o]

2.3’s like to go ecoBOOM on the mustangs

The consensus is most of those are non-stock situations, fairly rare overall. Especially once you get away from the mustang (probably the largest mod market or mod demographic in the US for the 2.3). I it possible, sure bad luck/engines happen.

Sponsored

 

[Jp215]

I have a 2.7 in my f150 and i haven’t had any problems. I do have an explorer with a 2.3 I’m working on in the shop that needs an engine but it’s hard to pinpoint if it’s from how it’s being driven or component fault. Either way it was covered under warranty. But I’ll be sticking with a 2.7. Im just not a fan of 4 cylinders in anything other than a car

 

[aabsalon]

You can tune a 2.3 EcoBoost up to 310 hp and 370 ft lbs of torque. There are aftermarket tuners available.

 

[WuNgUn]

The 2.3 is direct injected only which means over time the intake manifold will get caked with gunk and need to be cleaned out or power will start to fade. Not a huge problem but definitely a bit higher maintenance. It can be somewhat avoided or slowed down by using a catch can.

The 2.7L is port + direct injected so that gunk mixes into fuel and gets burned away, leaving a cleaner intake manifold and increasing longevity of the injectors etc.

I think overall the 2.7L would be a more reliable engine but not probably a huge difference.

(Wasn't clear from your post but note that bumping up to the 2.7L engine means you also have to get the auto transmission. There is no stick for 2.7 offered)

Ford already uses a condensation unit on the crank case breather, I'm sure. But aftermarket units probably work better.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

2.3’s like to go ecoBOOM on the mustangs

Mine definitely wasn't an ecoboom

Curious, did those people do intercoolers?

 

[aplm7]

Ford already uses a condensation unit on the crank case breather, I'm sure. But aftermarket units probably work better.

Can you explain this further please?

 

[WuNgUn]

Can you explain this further please?

Any positive pressure in the crank case is vented to the engine intake. Oil vapour from here can cause issues with carbon and caking up the intake valves on a DI engine.
So if you can catch this oil before it get re-injested, all the better.

 

[nomnom]

Any positive pressure in the crank case is vented to the engine intake. Oil vapour from here can cause issues with carbon and caking up the intake valves on a DI engine.
So if you can catch this oil before it get re-injested, all the better.

would catch cans come into play for something like this?
and what about just venting to atmosphere instead of re-routing through the intake, wouldn't that help with gunking?

 

[Section8]

I feel like people have lower standards for vehicles than they probably should, given the breadth of reliability engines have had in the last 30 years. Yes, it turns out an engine using expensive oil changed every 4k miles and driven like a baby only 5 miles a day is probably going to be pretty reliable. I also keep hearing folks say they had no problem with a vehicle that they had 60k miles on.

However, I actually plan to use my Bronco. Long drives, Texas heat, mountain road trips, miles of gravel and dirt roads, 80 mph highways, rock strewn mountain roads, all of that. A modern utility vehicle should be able to handle that kind of driving and any car I buy I expect to go 200k miles with routine maintenance only at the absolute minimum. There's no excuse for a car I drove in the 90s having better engine reliability.

 

[WuNgUn]

would catch cans come into play for something like this?
and what about just venting to atmosphere instead of re-routing through the intake, wouldn't that help with gunking?

Yupper... But being a responsible auto maker, ford has to burn off those vs pours. I think their "collector" drains back into the oil pan...

 

[Irish#1]

I feel like people have lower standards for vehicles than they probably should, given the breadth of reliability engines have had in the last 30 years. Yes, it turns out an engine using expensive oil changed every 4k miles and driven like a baby only 5 miles a day is probably going to be pretty reliable. I also keep hearing folks say they had no problem with a vehicle that they had 60k miles on.

However, I actually plan to use my Bronco. Long drives, Texas heat, mountain road trips, miles of gravel and dirt roads, 80 mph highways, rock strewn mountain roads, all of that. A modern utility vehicle should be able to handle that kind of driving and any car I buy I expect to go 200k miles with routine maintenance only at the absolute minimum. There's no excuse for a car I drove in the 90s having better engine reliability.

You are going with the 2.3?

 

[Section8]

You are going with the 2.3?

I am looking into that, but still going to assess how well everything comes out with the Bronco. I have only owned manuals, so I would be pretty hard pressed to move out of one.

*edit* I would say I am still in the research phase, but got my reservation in none the less.

 

[buildbigboats]

Yupper... But being a responsible auto maker, ford has to burn off those vs pours. I think their "collector" drains back into the oil pan...

Catch can might be the way to go on the 2.3. Condensed oil vapor going back into the oil pan would probably be ok but any condensed water or fuel vapors...not so much. I put a CC on my 2019 Subaru DI within first 500 miles. Have not gotten a lot of liquid in 5500 miles, maybe 1/4 cup total, but has been milky white/gray once or twice leading me to think I might be catching some water vapor.
BTW I want manual as well but 2.7 looks like a great power plant. Wish I could get it mated to the 7spd

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

I am getting the 2.3 Auto, four-door Badlands. It is a good engine on the Ranger and it can be tuned.

But if it only gets 1 MPG better than the 2.7, and you don't want the manual, why not just get the 2.7?

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

You can tune a 2.3 EcoBoost up to 310 hp and 370 ft lbs of torque. There are aftermarket tuners available.

At that point, for the money, why not just get the 2.7? Fuel economy will be basically the exact same. Only reason I'm even considering the 2.3L is the MT. And I just don't think I can justify it due to the fact that the only reason I'd want a 4 cylinder is for economy. On the Bronco, the economical advantage of the 2.3L is almost nothing. Vs. say on the Mustang where you can get up to 32 MPG with the 2.3L.

Sponsored