2.3L EcoBoost or NA 3.5L?

[MAFordFan]

That's the thing. As much as I'm a power junkie, I don't race my truck. I lumber around in my Pilot which I believe is a 3.5L rated at 250hp. So the NA 3.5L should be fine. I like the 3.65:1 gearing too. I think the gearing helps offset what the 2.3L EB can put down.

 

[J_C]

Put it in the perspective of towing. The 2.3L EB can't tow more than 2000lbs while even the FWD 3.5L NA with 3.39 ratio can tow 5000lbs (if equipped with the tow package which doesn't change gear ratio, but does have altered shift point mode selection in addition to the class III hitch, etc).

This hints to me that maybe the 2.3L EB can't handle its torque, is another potential early failure point. Then again I like things overbuilt, would get an F250 if I wanted to tow 5000lbs more than once in a blue moon.

 

[Maurice Walker]

As far as turbo reliability goes, I don't think a turbo car is any less reliable than NA in the long term. My other vehicle is a 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 1.8 Turbo which is pushing 189K miles on the factory turbo and engine. Volkswagen actually purchased one of these blocks back from a customer who had 500K miles on the original block. After tear down and inspection, the original cylinder wall honing marks were visible.

 

[J_C]

As far as turbo reliability goes, I don't think a turbo car is any less reliable than NA in the long term. My other vehicle is a 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 1.8 Turbo which is pushing 189K miles on the factory turbo and engine. Volkswagen actually purchased one of these blocks back from a customer who had 500K miles on the original block. After tear down and inspection, the original cylinder wall honing marks were visible.

First you are only talking about a sample size of two, and second, you're only telling us how many miles they achieved, not the issues and repair costs to get there.

I've seen data that suggests the premature failure rate of a modern turbo (itself, not whole engine) is only around 2% but then there are studies like the following which find that industry-wide, the smaller 4 cyl drivetrains in general are having higher problem rates. Perhaps it's not just the turbo itself but how much power they're trying to get out has increased. Surely the engine displacement to vehicle weight ratio is higher for a 1.8L Jetta than a 2.3L Explorer.

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/jd-power-studies/2014-us-vehicle-dependability-study-results

Consumer Reports surveys have also found problems.

Still, the jury is out in terms of real-world longevity. Consumer Reports magazine, which surveys a large number of owners, has seen some issues.

“Traditional turbos from Audi, Volkswagen and BMW have been reliable when they are relatively new but developed problems as they aged,” Douglas Love, a magazine spokesman, wrote in an email. “Newer turbo engines, such as the EcoBoost from Ford, have not always been reliable, even from the start.”

http://www.record-eagle.com/news/dr...cle_1e983f9a-b7d1-11e4-9c58-2350e5b9a94a.html

However this is secondary to the main issue going on with the Ecoboost, using direct injection which is causing valve carbon buildup. Ford has redesigned the 3.5L EB to add a port injector which should help if not entirely fix the problem, but as far as I know this design change has not made its way to the 2.3L EB yet.

 

[613GT500]

First you are only talking about a sample size of two, and second, you're only telling us how many miles they achieved, not the issues and repair costs to get there.

I've seen data that suggests the premature failure rate of a modern turbo is only around 2% but then there are studies like the following which find that industry-wide, the smaller 4 cyl drivetrains in general are having higher problem rates. Perhaps it's not just the turbo itself but how much power they're trying to get out has increased. Surely the engine displacement to vehicle weight ratio is higher for a 1.8L Jetta than a 2.3L Explorer.

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/jd-power-studies/2014-us-vehicle-dependability-study-results

Consumer Reports surveys have also found problems.

http://www.record-eagle.com/news/dr...cle_1e983f9a-b7d1-11e4-9c58-2350e5b9a94a.html

However this is secondary to the main issue going on with the Ecoboost, using direct injection which is causing valve carbon buildup. Ford has redesigned the 3.5L EB to add a port injector which should help if not entirely fix the problem, but as far as I know this design change has not made its way to the 2.3L EB yet.

Any reference material for the port injector redesign on the 3.5 EB?

 

[J_C]

^ I don't see the Ford press release but there are many articles up now mentioning it.

http://www.enginelabs.com/news/fords-gen-ii-3-5l-ecoboost-set-for-2017-f-150/

https://www.google.com/search?q=3.5L+Ecoboost+2nd+generation

 

[MAFordFan]

I bit the bullet and closed a deal on a Magnetic Grey 2017 XLT with the Technology Package and 20" rims. I went with the NA 3.5L and for my purposes it's been fine so far. I did a 36 month lease. So I'll see how it goes for the next 24 months and maybe the Sport (or Bronco?!?!) with the 3.5L EcoBeast is my next vehicle.

 

[613GT500]

^ I don't see the Ford press release but there are many articles up now mentioning it.

http://www.enginelabs.com/news/fords-gen-ii-3-5l-ecoboost-set-for-2017-f-150/

https://www.google.com/search?q=3.5L+Ecoboost+2nd+generation

Thanks for the links, as I was already aware of the new design going into the F150s, but was looking for reference material pertaining to the Explorers.