Having second thoughts

[Gregg Dell]

Ordered a 2017 Limited with the 2.3l on 7/30. I test drove both although not on the same day and was okay with the 2.3. I like the idea of a couple more miles per gallon but having never owned a four cylinder I'm just a bit nervous that it won't be adequit to move this large a car. Opinions?

 

[peterk9]

Ordered a 2017 Limited with the 2.3l on 7/30. I test drove both although not on the same day and was okay with the 2.3. I like the idea of a couple more miles per gallon but having never owned a four cylinder I'm just a bit nervous that it won't be adequit to move this large a car. Opinions?

Welcome to the Forum.
You said you test drove both so I'm guessing the other was the 3.5L V6? Did you check the 'specs' of both engines? The 2.3 has only 10 hp less but reaches it 900 rpm sooner. It has 55 more ft. lbs. of torque realized 1000 rpm sooner. If you are really that concerned test drive them again. I don't think it is too late to cancel the order or to amend it.

Peter

 

[thefranchise713]

I have no complaints about the power of the 2.3L. A better 40-60 passing time would be welcomed, but barring that? It scoots off the line for traffic just fine, even running on regular unleaded--the "minimum" fuel--as opposed to the recommended premium (91 octane).

I would buy this engine again, no questions.

 

[Whickey24]

When I compared the 2.3L EB to the 3.5 EB and against the 3.5 NA I currently have, I felt it was slightly better than the 3.5NA which stands to reason given the modest hp/tq difference. Just like the NA, I found the 2.3L struggled a bit with an extra 500 pounds which included the driver and passenger especially going up inclines like hwy onramps. It is still very much a nice ride, I just think it would be best driven with maybe just the driver and perhaps a passenger, with minimal extra weight.

 

[thefranchise713]

Interesting. I drove the 3.5L NA and it seemed clumsy and heavy compared to the EcoBoost. The latter is actually a far lighter vehicle.

 

[MikB]

Nothing a nice tune won't fix for either the 4 or 3.5 N/A. Speaking 'first person' so to speak, on tunes, Livernois has a nice tune package for the 3.5L N/A in either 87 or 91, 93 tune. They do not yet have a tune for the 4 but, they are working on it. Anyway, these tunes will make you forget any issue you might or may have with performance on the 3.5L N/A. I'm sure the same will be said for the 4 ecoboost when they become available. I have the 87 and 93 tune choices on my tuner, currently running the 93 and will probably stay that way as I have never used anything but premium in my Ex. That being the case, I may have them put together a 'tow' tune in place of the 87 in the future.

 

[Tuscany]

My opinion is differs by 180 degrees.
I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.

After driving both, I felt the 2.3l to be weak unless under full boost. I've owned several turbo charged engines, and I can't stand the lag. The 2.3l has plenty of it. It's small, too small and peaky for a vehicle of this size, and very laggy in urban driving conditions.
The 3.5 na is much smoother, and more importantly, has a much higher tow rating, and that's all in need to know.

I imagine on flat land, driven at a constant speed, in low boost conditions, it may deliver I-4 economy, but I imagine when all is said and done, the V-6 will deliver the same fuel cost during ownership, without all of the side effects of turbo charging a very small engine.

Least important, I can't stand the buzzing sound of the four banger under the hood of a larger SUV like the Explorer.
Again, JMHO.

 

[thefranchise713]

I may have also driven a 3.5L that needed a bit more break-in. I drove a demo with 200 or so miles. My 2.3L is still breaking in, but I have 3500 miles on it already.

Both are good engines, but the 2.3L could use a little charm school refinement. Works well for me, though. Personal preference.

 

[Tuscany]

I may have also driven a 3.5L that needed a bit more break-in. I drove a demo with 200 or so miles. My 2.3L is still breaking in, but I have 3500 miles on it already.

Both are good engines, but the 2.3L could use a little charm school refinement. Works well for me, though. Personal preference.

I would have paid a premium for the 2.7L V-6 EB. That would have been the perfect option for this vehicle instead of the 2.3l IMO.
But no sense wishing... It is what it is.
With the Federal MPG standards just a little further down the road, I know the power options will never get better.

 

[Gregg Dell]

I may have also driven a 3.5L that needed a bit more break-in. I drove a demo with 200 or so miles. My 2.3L is still breaking in, but I have 3500 miles on it already.

Both are good engines, but the 2.3L could use a little charm school refinement. Works well for me, though. Personal preference.

Could you explain "a little charm school refinement" please?

 

[thefranchise713]

I would have paid a premium for the 2.7L V-6 EB. That would have been the perfect option for this vehicle instead of the 2.3l IMO.
But no sense wishing... It is what it is.
With the Federal MPG standards just a little further down the road, I know the power options will never get better.

Funny you mention that.

This week I drove a 2.7L EcoBoost F150. It's quite possibly the smoothest engine I've ever driven. I'm content with what I have, but like you, I'd have paid extra for that powertrain.

C'est la vie. Someday.

Could you explain "a little charm school refinement" please?

It sounds alright to me and I don't mind the engine note, but I would have loved a little greater improvement in the sound and just a touch more NVH control.

 

[Gregg Dell]

Well I changed my order today to the 3.5 NA. I just couldn't get my head around the 2.3 in a car the size of the Explorer. And although I may never tow anything I'm retired now and who knows what I might get into my head to do.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Tuscany]

IMO.
Like I said above, tow rating says it all for me, and like you, I won't be towing with my 3.5l.

The 2.3l isn't the approach I would want to deal with either. It's being boosted to obtain its hp and tq figures which kills MPG, and then there is the flip side issue of low power and torque during non boosted performance to obtain higher MPG figures. You can't have both.

IMO, it's simply a way for Ford to advertise both higher MPH and higher peak torque, but at the cost of overall smooth and consistent drivability and MPG.
People should be asking why doesn't the 2.3l's "higher" torque translate into a higher tow rating than the 3.5l.?
The answer is that the engine is just too small, and cooling is probably inadequate to tow more weight than the loaded vehicle itself.
Interestingly enough, I noticed this week that the dealership that my X is being delivered to in Florida has a row of 2017 Limiteds. 85% are 3.5L V-6 engines.

 

[613GT500]

Well I changed my order today to the 3.5 NA. I just couldn't get my head around the 2.3 in a car the size of the Explorer. And although I may never tow anything I'm retired now and who knows what I might get into my head to do.

Thanks for the feedback.

Good move, as I would dread every single day owing the EX with the puny 4 banger turbo.
This vehicle is close to 5000lbs and you just can't beat physics.

 

[RSNovi]

We have had the 2017 with the 2.3L a few days now and we kept our 2011 with the 3.5. I actually like driving the 2.3L better. It is a louder engine when you pull into the garage.