EcoBoost Long Term Reliability?

[Lefty]

Hello all. I have been watching the posts and the pics of the Next Bronco with great excitement. I love the idea and the design so far, however, I have one outstanding issue. The longevity and reliability of any turbo engine over many, many years. I have an 01 Explorer with 180,000 miles. While it is not super fast, it has been peppy and reliable for many, many years. In concept, I have no issue with the power of a turbo 4, but all that pressure and heat, to me is a recipe for maintenance and reliability issues, especially for towing a small trailer, say for a 4 wheeler. The boost will be on A LOT. While it may never have a naturally aspired engine, I can hope someday there is that option. Has anyone out there had issues (long term) with the 2.3 EcoBoost engine, or is it so new that we just don't know yet. In the meantime, I am on the fence. I love all I am seeing so far design-wise, but turbos make me nervous.

Sponsored

 

[Wolperdinger]

Am I trapped in a time loop? I swear I see a version of this thread every week.

 

[securitysix]

Hello all. I have been watching the posts and the pics of the Next Bronco with great excitement. I love the idea and the design so far, however, I have one outstanding issue. The longevity and reliability of any turbo engine over many, many years. I have an 01 Explorer with 180,000 miles. While it is not super fast, it has been peppy and reliable for many, many years. In concept, I have no issue with the power of a turbo 4, but all that pressure and heat, to me is a recipe for maintenance and reliability issues, especially for towing a small trailer, say for a 4 wheeler. The boost will be on A LOT. While it may never have a naturally aspired engine, I can hope someday there is that option. Has anyone out there had issues (long term) with the 2.3 EcoBoost engine, or is it so new that we just don't know yet. In the meantime, I am on the fence. I love all I am seeing so far design-wise, but turbos make me nervous.

According to Ford Authority, the 2.3L EcoBoost has been around since 2015, so they've had some time in the market. I can only find 2 common complaints of problems.

One was specific to the Focus RS, which had head gasket problems on some vehicles. This was due to a difference in the specific 2.3L EcoBoost that was used in the Focus RS (heads were different) that resulted in it requiring a different head gasket. A goof at the factory resulted in some vehicles getting the standard head gasket instead of the RS specific head gasket. I doubt that will be a problem for the Bronco.

The other is an issue of carbon buildup on the valves, which is evidently common on all direct injection turbo engines, not just the 2.3L EcoBoost.

 

[BroncoFanBoy]

Is additinal maintenance required due to it having turbos?

 

[Deleted member 3063]

The intake carbon issue can be real. With that said there is no documentation on the maintenance done on those high mileage engines effected. Did they change the oil reg, use walmart oil and fuel quality etc. Fan boy high boost engines have their own basket of issues.
Part of this is because of the German brands listed below and Ford DI turbo motor seem to be judged guilty by association.
Use a high quality syn oil (which is specifically formulated with additives to reduce carbon and withstand more heat than other oils), and a PCV oil catch can and all will be well.

Assuaging potential sky-is-falling fears, Michael Karesh, the developer of TrueDelta.com said carbon buildup is “not an issue for all direct-injected engines” based on the data he collects. His website surveys the owners of around 33,000 different vehicles to acquire relevant and timely data about vehicle reliability and fuel economy among other things.

But of course there are some instances of deposit-related issues that have popped up. Karesh said, “The only engines it’s reported quite a bit is [with] the VW/Audi 2.0T and then the Audi V6s.” He also said, “I know there are some BMWs that end up with carbon buildup as well.”

As for the frequency of reported problems with these Volkswagen cars he said his numbers indicate “it can be as high as one in six over the last two years,” which “is a high number” and one that he said is consistent across different models.

https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news...a-problem-with-direct-injection-engines-.html

 

[HCGxKaLiBeR]

The 2.3L doesn't have dual injections like the 2.7, which mean you will get carbon build ups to the values. Install an oil catch-can as soon as you can to minimize the carbon build ups.

You may have turbo wastegate issues later down the road (rattle, boost leak, etc). All turbo does, but you shouldn't see it until 70K-100K + miles.

 

[tb8983]

Have the 2.7 in my 18 f150 with 4x,xxx miles on it and have had no issues. A buddy has a 17 f150 with 9x,xxx and nothing has gone wrong with his either. We are both very spot on when it comes to the required maintenance also.

 

[NH-Bronco]

I'm on board with the 2 door, BD, 2.7 V6, Auto trans, Sasquatch and Mid. packages.
But, the Turbo is a concern for me. My last three Jeeps, all bought new.
97 TJ Sport. 189K miles, sold due to rusting.
2006 Rubicon. 194K miles, sold due to rusting.
2015 Rubicon Hard Rock, currently at 128K Miles.
All three Jeeps 511K miles so far and not a single engine issue. Regular maintenance only.
I'm assuming this isn't possible with a Turbo ?

 

[jtzako]

There's nothing special about maintenance on turbo engines these days. You can see the maintenance schedule for these engines (or similar ones) online and there is nothing about the turbo anywhere on it up to 200k miles. Supercharged engines are different since they have their own oil in many cases.

 

[NH-Bronco]

Good to know jtzako, I'll have to read up on these turbo engines. I will say that with all of the aluminum body panels on the Bronco,.. I may never have a rust issue again !!

 

[Jp215]

I do currently have an explorer in with a 2.3 L eb waiting on an engine due to coolant intrusion into the cylinders but I can’t tell if it was a flaw with the engine or if it was due to something the driver was doing. The 2.3 is way better and way more reliable than ford 1.6 and 1.5 liter ecoboost engines. Those are just horrible.
I have a 2.7 in my 15 F150 with just about 50k on it with no problems at all

 

[Thed]

Carbon buildup isn't really an issue as long as you do a few Italian tune-ups fr time to time.

If you don't know what that is, race the hell out of that little engine.

 

[bowhun2r]

Looks like in 2018 Ford added both port and direct injection on the 2.7. Carbon build-up should not be as much as a concern as it was on previous generation.

https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=146

I've Never owned a ford and have been reading posts here as well as other locations. From my readings looks like the 2.7 is solid. Especially seeing they updated some known weak spots of DI engines with the updated 2018 engine.

 

[SCH]

I currently drive a 2018 F150 with the 2.7. Zero problems so far in 47,000 miles and it continues to impress. I’ll be going with the 2.7 in the Bronco. Seems to have different HP ratings though 310 vs 325 for the F150. Maybe a tuning difference?

 

[SCH]

This is what I get for spouting my mouth off about how reliable my truck has been..... I should’ve known. This happened on the way home today. Don’t know what the issue is but just thought it was funny after I said I’ve had no issues.

Sponsored