2.3L EcoBoost or NA 3.5L? | Page 4 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

2.3L EcoBoost or NA 3.5L?

city side it is a decent bit more fuel efficient than a v8. now if the v8's would cylinder deactivate while at idle with a stop light.

Or if they would rig a full start stop system

it would balance back the other direction.

As I said, I think the issue is more size and weight related.
To pack a V-8 and a trans under that small hood (if even possible) leaves zero room, and a lot of extra unwanted weight .
Ford's entire future goal revolves around vehicle weight reduction.


BTW, I've owned two vehicles with GM's cylinder deact, and I hated them both.
My wife's old 5.3L Tahoe would shutter every time it switched from deact to active.
My 2500HD doesn't have it, and thank God for that.
Her new 6.2L deact is much less noticeable, but it also makes 460 lbs of peak torque, so even in deact, it makes decent power

It's just not a smart play in a mid size SUV.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





my G8 has cylinder deactivate and I love it. hardly noticeable to anyone but me.

I wish it would cut in at idle for all the stop and go I do. I know why they don't and it has everything to do with the GO part of that issue.

but I'd also love a full on start stop system like the porsche or the GM system.

(large higher voltage battery pack, larger starter, electrical accessory drives)
 






Have fun cleaning the carbon deposits off the valves in the ecoboosts. If you put on a LOT of miles, maybe the fuel economy difference will make up for that expense difference, but I doubt it unless you're a travelling salesman or just leasing it for 3 yrs.
 






Have fun cleaning the carbon deposits off the valves in the ecoboosts. If you put on a LOT of miles, maybe the fuel economy difference will make up for that expense difference, but I doubt it unless you're a travelling salesman or just leasing it for 3 yrs.

DI has been around well before Ford's EB.
Nothing to see here...
 






I have only test driven and subsequently purchased the 3.5L V6 Ecoboost, so I don't know what the other engines are like, so this is just my opinion. The 2.3L Ecoboost on paper reminds me of the Volvo XC90. Basically a 4-banger engine struggling to power the large beast. And the engine during the test drive had a poor engine note and it basically sounded high pitched and unpleasing... overtaxed even. Reviews of the 7 seaters with 4-banger engines, such as the XC90 or the CX9 complain how underpowered they are, though the Mazda chose to go fuel economy over performance.

I'd say test drive both, do a couple harder accelerations to freeway speeds and pay attention to the sound and the feel.

But that's kind of the way it goes. V6 NA = I4 Turbo, V8 NA = V6 Turbo, etc... everyone's downsizing and V8s are disappearing. Majority of it for fuel economy targets.

Turbos are amazing, but there are trade-offs. You get more power and recycle energy and that boosts your fuel economy. However if you drive with a heavy foot, you'll lose much of those savings. You'll also sacrifice some low end torque due to turbo lag.

But the NA V6 will almost certainly sound better, but it won't be as fast or as powerful and will eat more gas, and you'll have a smaller torque curve. But you won't have any turbo lag either.

For what it's worth, the V6 Ecoboost that you can only get in Sport/Platinum trims is indeed a monster, and it sounds awesome. But it is frankly overpowered as a daily driver, and more power than most people will ever need. If you have a large family and like to haul trailers or boats around, then one could justify it more.
 






Have fun cleaning the carbon deposits off the valves in the ecoboosts. If you put on a LOT of miles, maybe the fuel economy difference will make up for that expense difference, but I doubt it unless you're a travelling salesman or just leasing it for 3 yrs.


funny

so those deposits people love to focus on are the result of PCV oil vapor in the intake stream for emissions control. IE instead of venting like cars used to do - the crank case pressure must be vented into the intake stream of the engine to be burned though and put across the catalytic converters. TO that end - without indirection injection flowing the air AND fuel down the same pipe to help clean the oil vapor away - DI engines would soot up that oil vapor on the intake valves with no way to clean it out.

Today there are now cleaners you can spray down the hold with tubes long enough to be useful - AND - modern spec requirement oils have far higher flash points so as to soot less.

This is where the newer oil specs from BMW, Merc, GM, Ford, and Honda come from.
 






DI has been around well before Ford's EB.
Nothing to see here...
Everything to see here because it directly relates to engine choice, the topic of this thread. DI has caused problems and still does. Certainly it's not isolated to Fords.

Napalm is stating it's funny but instead it would be infuriating if I owned one. It is fact that this is a problem with DI and there is no Ford approved spray that magically melts it away without other problems.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/1...leaners-can-damage-ford-ecoboost-engines.html

I suspect opposition to the truth is buyers in denial that they didn't make a good choice. If only they were putting thought into this, that they accept this design flaw and perpetual expense down the road in order to get a little higher mileage, then at least we'd have a sane discussion.
 






Actually there is - go down to your nearest autozone or Oriely and there is a intake cleaner spray - it's similar to the fogger for cleaning the MAF and the chemistry is the same as modern carb cleaner. you can with engine at idle - spray that down the intake tube - sticking the spray tube past the MAF.

do it a few times and worries be gone.

option 2 - make sure you run the car fairly hard on regular basis. IE merge hard into traffic at least once a week or something . Not running it hard enough is one of the main causes of these issues. quoting BMW and Ford on that.



option 3 - (and this is what I would do first honestly) rig some inertia trap (catch can) for the car's PCV system that has a significant collection volume (due to the air pressure at full throttle) Thus greatly reducing the amount of oil vapor pulled though the intake.

Also the issues of the 12-14 truck ecoboost installation are different than today's 16+ ecoboost installation as there have been some design tweaks. ALso the trucks had more issues with deposits than the explorer, taurus, or flex by significant margin. most of that was chalked up to wrong oils used and not enough hard work on the engine.
 






Everything to see here because it directly relates to engine choice, the topic of this thread. DI has caused problems and still does. Certainly it's not isolated to Fords.

Napalm is stating it's funny but instead it would be infuriating if I owned one. It is fact that this is a problem with DI and there is no Ford approved spray that magically melts it away without other problems.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/1...leaners-can-damage-ford-ecoboost-engines.html

I suspect opposition to the truth is buyers in denial that they didn't make a good choice. If only they were putting thought into this, that they accept this design flaw and perpetual expense down the road in order to get a little higher mileage, then at least we'd have a sane discussion.

Is it an issue, yes, is it catastrophic; not if proper care and maintenance is performed.

There's effective method such as walnut blasting that can be done on the most extreme cases.
 












Is it an issue, yes, is it catastrophic; not if proper care and maintenance is performed.

There's effective method such as walnut blasting that can be done on the most extreme cases.
Sure, there's nothing about a vehicle that can't be fixed if proper maintenance of this magnitude is performed, except this isn't proper maintenance, this is a relatively new, substantial cost and/or labor problem. Proper maintenance is changing your fluids and filters, etc, not taking the top half of the engine off.

The point is that it has to be performed at all.

To kmarnes, sure, you could take the head off and use sand if you got it all off. I am not suggesting it's impossible to fix (no, not fix, keep in check) the problem, only that there is one which to many people, would be worse than a minor MPG difference which may be gone once this problem builds up.

It's a topic about engine choice and this IS one of the factors involved in that choice, one that can cost an owner thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle. "Just blast it with nut shells" costs a lot less to write than to have it done a few times.

It's not "most extreme cases". It's all cases. There's no fairy watching over certain vehicles to keep it from happening. It's not something where if you otherwise take really good care of your vehicle that this can be prevented.
 






Sure, there's nothing about a vehicle that can't be fixed if proper maintenance of this magnitude is performed, except this isn't proper maintenance, this is a relatively new, substantial cost and/or labor problem. Proper maintenance is changing your fluids and filters, etc, not taking the top half of the engine off.

The point is that it has to be performed at all.

To kmarnes, sure, you could take the head off and use sand if you got it all off. I am not suggesting it's impossible to fix (no, not fix, keep in check) the problem, only that there is one which to many people, would be worse than a minor MPG difference which may be gone once this problem builds up.

It's a topic about engine choice and this IS one of the factors involved in that choice, one that can cost an owner thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle. "Just blast it with nut shells" costs a lot less to write than to have it done a few times.

It's not "most extreme cases". It's all cases. There's no fairy watching over certain vehicles to keep it from happening. It's not something where if you otherwise take really good care of your vehicle that this can be prevented.

I'm sure something else will go before the carbon build up becomes a major issue.
We'll be in touch in 5yrs and if carbon build up becomes a major issue on my EX, I will send you a Tim Hortons gift card. :)
 






Check out the fuel additives which reduce that issue. I read of one last week being used in the new 3.0T of the MKZ, a 1oz per 6 gallon ratio. I didn't hunt the pricing for it, but it sounded like a good idea.
 






I'm sure something else will go before the carbon build up becomes a major issue.
We'll be in touch in 5yrs and if carbon build up becomes a major issue on my EX, I will send you a Tim Hortons gift card. :)

There's no reason to believe something else will go first. People have stated it can happen in 50K mi. Even the timing chain problem with the 2nd gen 4L V6 usually takes closer to 150K mi. and it's the first thing to go on those. Well, maybe the turbo if you use fluid to try to clean it yourself.

Ironically the next most likely problem of this magnitude would be needing new intake manifold gaskets if not the whole upper manifold, ironic because you might as well have the walnut shell treatment done while they have it torn apart that far, or have that replaced while they're doing the walnut shells. I wrote "they" though, and once you get a shop involved you're asking for lower quality work than if you did it yourself, except personally, I don't own a walnut blaster...
 






and as with most issues I know a guy with a 14 F150 with 80K on it, 3.5 ecoboost mill - and hasn't had issue one with deposits, turbo oil pressure, over temps, etc.

bone stock

I'm sure though he redlines it merging with traffic atleast once per day.
 






Up to you what to own then, I'm just glad they offered both options when I got mine and I don't think there's anyone who has ever made a rational argument that the ecoboosts are going to have fewer problems. On the other hand, knowing "a guy" putting on 40K hwy mi/yr that could be having reduced performance (but doesn't even realize it yet because this kind of problem builds up, since it literally IS buildup), isn't necessarily indicative of the average customer experience. Personally, I "almost" have 100K mi. on my '98 ! Granted it's no longer a daily driver so...
 






Good info in this thread. I'm looking to jump out of my 2014 Pilot lease and into a 2016/2017 Explorer (I'll research Sync vs Sync3). I really wanted the 3.5L EcoBoost in the Sport but I think finances will force me to consider the Limited or even XLT. Looking at the specs, I'd probably lean towards the NA 3.5L as I compare the gearing:

3.16 non-limited-slip (3.5L EcoBoost)
3.36 non-limited-slip1 (2.3L EcoBoost with FWD)
3.51 non-limited-slip (2.3L EcoBoost with 4WD)
3.39 non-limited-slip (3.5L Ti-VCT with FWD)
3.65 non-limited-slip1 (3.5L Ti-VCT with 4WD)

I'm wondering too. Manufacturers always rate engine power (HP and Torque) at the crank, not "rear wheel". So even though the 2.3L is rated with more torque, the gearing in the NA 3.5 models should compensate, no?
 






Remember that the 2.3L requires premium to make it's top numbers, the 3.5L NA does not.

If you don't need the extra fuel economy, get the 3.5L NA. I love my 2.3L, but it's a narrower use case to justify having to go with the baby turbo and risks of direct injection.

Of course, the Sport/Platinum's 3.5L TT is the most smiles per gallon, but you'll pay well for it...
 






No lie! Seems most Sports are $45K+ I'd much prefer the EcoBoost 3.5L but the extra $$$ doesn't seem to justify it. I dumped too much into building my 05 Mustang this year too.

Plus I'm thinking this may only be a 2-3 year plan, especially if the Bronco becomes a reality.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





lol, there's nothing wrong with the 3.5 NA. By that I mean there's everything right! I never floor mine, so the 3.5L Ecoboost would just be a liability even if it were a free upgrade. Real world fuel economy reports from owners between these engines is a lot closer than EPA estimates and that's BEFORE the carbon buildup penalty, and if you're driving it like you stole it so you need the 3.5L EB, are you expecting to get good fuel economy doing so?

Then again there's POWER, but see above, I never floor mine, it has enough.
 






Back
Top