2.3L EcoBoost or NA 3.5L?

[cwescapexlt4x4]

I gather that there is a different trans in each, and that it's a big part of the towing rating. I'd pick the 3.5 engines for any real hard usage, to get the stronger transmission.

I bet the trans is the same, just slightly different ratios
http://www.ford.com/suvs/explorer/specifications/view-all/

 

[peterk9]

I believe the transmission in an Ex with the tow package is different than in the one without. This was discussed here quite a while ago.

http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3380598&postcount=8

Peter

 

[retired 2013]

Trans differences

After much research; I have found there is a very different trans in the 2.3 vs the 3.5 NA or Eco. The 2.3 trans can not be towed behind a motor home four wheels down as it will overheat. Also the trailer towing limitation on the 2.3 is related to the trans. So I believe based on this info the 2.3 trans is less robust than the 3.5.

 

[Napalm]

Greetings folks!

I'm getting a 2016 Explorer XLT. It will mainly be used within city, Toronto, Canada, where is cold and congested.

We'd prefer the 4WD over FWD due to the heavy snow in my area, but we're still having hard time to decide between 2.3L EcoBoost and the 3.5L.

We're leaning towards to the EcoBoost which is supposed to be more fuel efficient, however, we've heard that it requires more attention when driving and frequent maintenance, not to mention the high grade gas (which I don't mind). other then that, I have another concern if the EcoBoost perform well in cold environment.

any suggestions?

Thanks

Charlie

other than the desire for AWD I did a similar thought review when we bought ours in June. I actually liked the 2.3 ecoboost over the previous 2015 models 2.0. Driving the 2.3 and the 3.5 TiVCT back to back a few times - I was sort of leaning toward the 2.3 and it was the term of recovery for the 1000 extra that pushed me back to the 3.5. IE it would take a full 5 years at current gas prices to equate out the differential fuel econ - and I was reading where most people say the 3.5 legs out the epa estimate.


Concerns - not many. the 2.3 isn't new and it's setup and design process is rather mature. heat concerns - no I wasn't worried about them. you asked about how it would perform in the cold - I suspect rather well.

It doesn't have to have 91 octane - but it would prefer it. I would go further to say it would prefer 91+ octane in summer months with temps over say 90 F or humidity over 80%.


I wasn't going to tow, or wasn't planning on it. so not an concern for me.

but Fuel Econ payoff - wasn't there in a soon enough manner to sway me. the 3.5 TI-VCT it long in the tooth but still a very good engine - fairly efficient at the job. and I'll even add now with 10K on the clock it does seem to better the EPA estimates. Without further MPG difference between the 2.3 and the 3.5 I see no reason really to move to it. However I suspect Ford will be putting aside the 3.5 Ti VCT soon.

 

[Rhett]

I read this thread to hear about the turbo engine information. I love the 3.5 TT potential, and I'd like to get one in a Fusion or a MKZ(like the Taurus SHO has). Good luck,

The 3.5TT has a ton of potential. If it were in more cars, they might not sell as many Mustangs. I'd love for Ford to build a lightweight stang, maybe as a Cobra variant, maybe for the next refresh -- drop weight to 3,400-3,500 pounds or so -- powered by the 3.5TT.

 

[cwescapexlt4x4]

other than the desire for AWD I did a similar thought review when we bought ours in June. I actually liked the 2.3 ecoboost over the previous 2015 models 2.0. Driving the 2.3 and the 3.5 TiVCT back to back a few times - I was sort of leaning toward the 2.3 and it was the term of recovery for the 1000 extra that pushed me back to the 3.5. IE it would take a full 5 years at current gas prices to equate out the differential fuel econ - and I was reading where most people say the 3.5 legs out the epa estimate.


Concerns - not many. the 2.3 isn't new and it's setup and design process is rather mature. heat concerns - no I wasn't worried about them. you asked about how it would perform in the cold - I suspect rather well.

It doesn't have to have 91 octane - but it would prefer it. I would go further to say it would prefer 91+ octane in summer months with temps over say 90 F or humidity over 80%.


I wasn't going to tow, or wasn't planning on it. so not an concern for me.

but Fuel Econ payoff - wasn't there in a soon enough manner to sway me. the 3.5 TI-VCT it long in the tooth but still a very good engine - fairly efficient at the job. and I'll even add now with 10K on the clock it does seem to better the EPA estimates. Without further MPG difference between the 2.3 and the 3.5 I see no reason really to move to it. However I suspect Ford will be putting aside the 3.5 Ti VCT soon.

The payoff/ROI could be the kicker for me and save me a $1K as well (wife won't complain about that!)

 

[Napalm]

The payoff/ROI could be the kicker for me and save me a $1K as well (wife won't complain about that!)

I had a spreadsheet setup for it - I'm an engineer I do crap like that.

with assumed average mpg's of our assumed weekly average run. (wifey's car so her work commute is 3 miles, day care another 2, daily + 200 for weekend) and with using costs for 89 octane and last years composite average . . . . . .

the pay off for the extra just wasn't there.

also I have to say we average out to a 20.6mpg - that's very heavily city biased.

 

[cwescapexlt4x4]

yeah with my 13 4wd i am around that # as well.

Thanks!

 

[Napalm]

if she drove more overall - or drove all city

I'd have been on the 2.3 ecoboost like hair on a biscuit.

good luck.

PS I also did the math using 87 on one engine and 93 on the other - didn't make major difference.

we run 89 mostly in the 3.5 right now anyway. summer I run 93 in all of my cars.

 

[cwescapexlt4x4]

The 2.3 vs 3.5 na seems right in the time to pay back.

 

[silverfz]

We love in Salt Lake City and ski all winter. Almost every day we drive up Little Cottonwood Canyon, elevation 8200 feet, I do not notice any difference in performance from the NA 3.5 liter. We just drove 1500 miles in Southern Utah visiting four National Parks and going through numerous 7500 foot + passes on I 70 with the speed limit 80. Other than the transmission down shifting to hold the speed the 3.5 liter had no issues at all, more than enough power. We were not towing but honestly I dont think it would have made a difference.

Let me start by saying I am jealous .I live in the flats and wish I could ride my motorcycles around those mountains..
I just made a point to the OP view that turbo`s might perform less efficiently compared to a NA engine. I said due to forced induction in theory a engine of similar size the turbo will hold its true bwhp then the non turbo model.

Ford is putting the 2.3 eco on a F150. Even though the tow rating is low, still its a big truck which can tow 5000 lbs with the same engine.

 

[silverfz]

Welcome ,you are hearing from the same people who predict the 2011 ecoboost f150 to exploded while towing. That engine is a proven winner. The 2.3 ecoboost in again a f150 is rated to tow a sizeable trailer and also in a heavier f150 . So I will be happy with the 2.3 Ina a explorer to be a daily driver and towing a small camper.

 

[Halwg]

I'll wait until they bring back the 5.0 L V-8.

 

[peelman]

Greetings folks!

I'm getting a 2016 Explorer XLT. It will mainly be used within city, Toronto, Canada, where is cold and congested.

We'd prefer the 4WD over FWD due to the heavy snow in my area, but we're still having hard time to decide between 2.3L EcoBoost and the 3.5L.

We're leaning towards to the EcoBoost which is supposed to be more fuel efficient, however, we've heard that it requires more attention when driving and frequent maintenance, not to mention the high grade gas (which I don't mind). other then that, I have another concern if the EcoBoost perform well in cold environment.

any suggestions?

The 2016 3.5 EcoBoost does not require premium gas, owners manual calls for 87. I live in Oakville and I went with the 3.5 EcoBoost, for me I made the right choice.

 

[cwescapexlt4x4]

I drove a 2.3 when buying last weekend and from a start and up the ramp onto the freeway i felt more "grunt" but once at speed the magic seems to disappear. On paper it should have been worth the $995 (USD) option, but back in the V6 N/A I preferred the saving the money. Test them back to back before you decide.

 

[bigdude2468]

FWIW the EcoBoost version of the 3.5 liter gets 18 MPG combined and the NA version gets 19. My view is unless you are towing near the vehicle max of 5000 lbs and need the extra HP and torque it is not a good value. I tow a 3000 lb boat with my 2014 with the NA 3.5 liter and I don't know the trailer is even there. I have never felt my Ex is under powered. I guess the only time I might even notice it is when it is loaded to the gills and we are driving in the mountains of Wyoming and Utah. The speed limit is 80 and it has to downshift to hold speed when going up steep inclines. I suspect the added 95 lbs of torque would prevent this. Interesting to note that the NA version has a higher compression ratio that the Turbo.

 

[613GT500]

There's no replacement for displacement.

 

[peelman]

There's no replacement for displacement.

 

[Halwg]

3.5L XLT VS 2.3L Ecoboost Base

Changing jobs, I got a 2016 Explorer with the 2.3L Ecoboost engine. I've driven and XLT with the 3.5L engine for the last 2 years, it was a 2014 model. I always felt that engine was underpowered even though it's listed at 290 HP.

I've only had the 2.3L since Friday and have 245 miles on it, but the engine is night and day different from the 3.5L. I never thought I'd like a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine, but this one has so much better acceleration, pick-up and runs much smoother.

Time will tell on the mileage. On the 3.5L I got up to 24.5 Highway and I think averaged around 17 in normal town driving.

I will keep you informed, but the 2.3L seems like a good choice in this car vs the normally aspirated 3.5L.

 

[Ellocovg]

If it wasn't for the $1,000 up charge for the ecoboost id have opted for it. That mpg for the 6banger is pretty good I get about 16-18mpg on mine. I do drive heavy usually about 80 mph but I don't beat it off the line.