2016 Explorer engine options ?

[Truckguy7]

I'm new here, and looking at getting a new Explorer this year.

I see the current V-6, and also the new 2.3 Ecoboost. What do
some think of this engine, is there any advantage in mileage, etc?
Has this engine been used in any of the cars?

Looking at getting an XLT or Limited, AWD.

 

[slay65]

I actually have the same question but I think we will need to wait until the new 2.3L Ecoboost engine is out in the wild on the Explorer. I expect anyone who has driven one can not comment on it yet publicly.

Since the only thing I "tow" with my car is a bike rack I will likely get 2.3L if it gets good reviews. I am leaning that way for the increased MPG and torque.

 

[hotmel86]

I have the exact same question as I m also thinking about a new Explorer and I want the tow package as well.

 

[ExCrystal]

Hi there--

I am facing the same issue with engine choice. Either engine would be ideal - the torque and MPG boost with the 2.3L would be helpful. The only thing I am concerned with is the real-world MPG ratings falling short of the advertised ones - especially with the Limited trim (members have posted about the wheel size/width bringing down the MPGs in the 2.0L). The extent to which how true this is partially does make me reconsider which option is best.

The 4WD v6 is rated at 17/23 (3.5L ecoboost 16/22).

Lincoln's MKC with the 2.3L 4WD ecoboost is rated at 18/26, so the numbers may be around there.

The only problem is whether the MPGs will fall short of the EPA as they did with many ecoboost engines (from reading articles and posts on here).

Another thing you may want to consider is that the Limited trims with the 2.3L or v6 are around the same price (2.3L being about 1K more), and the 3.5L ecoboost Sport is around the same price, too. With gas prices kind of cheap at the moment (~1.99 reg in NJ), either engine will be 'economical'.

Sorry if I am incorrect with some of my words--I'm new to Fords and such, and I based my info off of findings. If I'm wrong, please correct me!

-Gabe

 

[dutchman71]

Ordered 2016 loaded limited 4WD with the new 4cyl ecoboost engine and tow package. Also only use the tow package for my bike rack.

Will keep you posted, scheduled to be built the week of 5/25.

 

[ExCrystal]

Ordered 2016 loaded limited 4WD with the new 4cyl ecoboost engine and tow package. Also only use the tow package for my bike rack.

Will keep you posted, scheduled to be built the week of 5/25.

Awesome! Def let us know how it is when you get it and def take pics!

If the 4WD 2.3L is good on mpg I may trade up. I opted for a 15 limited 4WD because I can't wait lol

 

[slay65]

Anyone get a 2016 4 cyl Explorer yet or seen any good detailed reviews on its performance and MPG.

I saw a youtube video by Fast Lane Cars which seemed to like the new engine. Any more info would be helpful in my 4 cyl vs V6 decision making process.

I would get the 4 cyl if it moves the explorer as well as the V6 and gets a significant boost in MPG. Unless of course I get the platinum. In that case I get the "fast" ecoboost V6 engine.

 

[cwescapexlt4x4]

Hi there--

I am facing the same issue with engine choice. Either engine would be ideal - the torque and MPG boost with the 2.3L would be helpful. The only thing I am concerned with is the real-world MPG ratings falling short of the advertised ones - especially with the Limited trim (members have posted about the wheel size/width bringing down the MPGs in the 2.0L). The extent to which how true this is partially does make me reconsider which option is best.

The 4WD v6 is rated at 17/23 (3.5L ecoboost 16/22).

Lincoln's MKC with the 2.3L 4WD ecoboost is rated at 18/26, so the numbers may be around there.

The only problem is whether the MPGs will fall short of the EPA as they did with many ecoboost engines (from reading articles and posts on here).

Another thing you may want to consider is that the Limited trims with the 2.3L or v6 are around the same price (2.3L being about 1K more), and the 3.5L ecoboost Sport is around the same price, too. With gas prices kind of cheap at the moment (~1.99 reg in NJ), either engine will be 'economical'.

Sorry if I am incorrect with some of my words--I'm new to Fords and such, and I based my info off of findings. If I'm wrong, please correct me!

-Gabe

Keep in mind, that is a smaller vehicle but should be better MPG of the 3 available engines (at least on the "Monroney sticker"

 

[CajunFordEx]

Anyone get a 2016 4 cyl Explorer yet or seen any good detailed reviews on its performance and MPG.

I saw a youtube video by Fast Lane Cars which seemed to like the new engine. Any more info would be helpful in my 4 cyl vs V6 decision making process.

I would get the 4 cyl if it moves the explorer as well as the V6 and gets a significant boost in MPG. Unless of course I get the platinum. In that case I get the "fast" ecoboost V6 engine.

I would steer clear of any 4 banger in an Explorer unless all you will be doing is city driving. At speeds above 50 mph, even the 2.3 Ecoboost will be working harder than the NA 3.5 V6. Our Explorers are not light vehicles.
It's your $$$ so spend them as you wish.

 

[hotmel86]

When looking for the Explorer I have now, I test drove the Explorer with the Eco Boost engine and was not impressed with the performance. Not enough power for such a large vehicle. So I am very leery about those being the only engine choices on a new. I love my Explorer, this is my second one and I hate to think that I couldn't get a new one to my satisfaction.

 

[briteboy]

I too, (like hotmel) test drove the ecoboost. I tested one on an Edge, and then on the Explorer.

It was OK for the Edge, and seriously under torqued for the Explorer. I've had a turbo before in a Mazda, and it ran like a scalded dog. But not the Explorer. It was very sluggish in my judgement.

Glad I got the V6. I get 24½-26 mpg with it, depending on terrain.

Just my $.02

Happy 4th to everyone !

 

[Gatortailale]

51,000 + miles on my 2.0 ecoboost and no issues. heavy city driving in dc area I get around 20, less if I kick in boost at stoplights. on highway I get about 24 @ 74-80. I run premium fuel. plenty of power off the line, plenty at highway speeds, plenty to climb steep hills and motor along at 75 no problems. 2.3 should be a nice little bump and result in a good ride imo.

 

[Napalm]

having just bought our 2016 - I did drive both.

almost thought about buying a 2.3 ecoboost but I think with tinkering I can get the 3.5 up about 2 mpg and I like a challenge.

on paper the extra mpg for our normal driving routings - didn't pay for the cost in 3 years. not that I don't expect to keep the car longer than that.


but - driving impression. the 2.3 ecoboost - moves out pretty well for hauling all that extra behind it - it's responsive enough for the job - and when prodded on the highway - the trans will drop 2 gears and it's going to get to 80 from 70 rather quick.

but - the 3.5 does very very well - and ratings aside - stop and go in the city, the 3.5 is more responsive. granted neither 2016 I drove was fully broken in either - so there is that. gearing is different between the 2 and it helps some - I would not get an AWD ecoboost - defeats the purpose IMO.

if the wifey did more city driving we'd have an ecoboost in the driveway - because mpg wise it would tip the math scale and she doesn't drive that hard. it's close to a wash and should be a good motor choice.

in the 2015's we drove - the 2.0 ecoboost was a dog in comparison. in the 2016's - the 2.3 feels very similar to the 3.5

I didn't put the trans in sport mode - wished I had - but I know the wifey won't. I bought it for her - the 3.5 made her slightly more comfortable in city traffic.

 

[HamHands]

While I cannot comment on the 2.3 EcoBoost... I can comment on the 3.5L EcoBoost engine. On a trip to Highlands NC from Atlanta; there and back we averaged about 21mpg's using 93 Octane. My Sport has 2800 miles on it and she has really opened up in the performance category. I drove a naturally aspirated Explorer for a month before buying my Sport and liked it. However I cannot imagine driving anything but an Explorer with the 3.5L twin turbo engine, now. It's got more than enough power (feels like a true sports car), and the MPG's are more than acceptable (to me) in the economy department. YMMV.

 

[Dr Plastic]

Just remember that the only trailer tow pkg available for the 2.3 liter Ecoboost is the Class II. The V6 gets you a Class III. The 2011-2015 2.0 liter worked too hard hauling the fat EX around. Many people have complained about anemic power when passing and going up hills under load. Hopefully the 2.3 does a better job.

 

[Fordracefan]

Have any of the 2.3l engines shipped yet? Looking at Limited AWD with 2.3l, but concerned about mileage. Currently between Explorer, MDX, Q7 TDI and ML 250. Currently have a 2010 Flex and hoping for an increase in MPG.

 

[182RG]

Q7 TDI and ML 250

None of the engine options will give you the MPG/power you'll get from a TDI or Bluetec. Mid 20s will be the limit, compared to 30s with the diesels.

 

[chefduane]

OFF TOPIC:

182RG: Is that what you're flying or is 182RG a different reference?

 

[182RG]

OFF TOPIC: 182RG: Is that what you're flying or is 182RG a different reference?

Flying. Owned one for 10 years. Great bird. Been out of flying for a few years.

 

[chefduane]

Flying. Owned one for 10 years. Great bird. Been out of flying for a few years.

Nice airplane. Learned in a 152, then 152II, 172, 182. 182rg is a nice plane.
Always dreamed of a P210 tho... from the old days.