2.3 ecoboost performance parts | Page 2 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

2.3 ecoboost performance parts

Has any of you noticed any better mpg with a drop in filter? Maybe a little more passing umph on the interstate? Or not worth messing with either?

You know I just had my oil changed today and I ended just putting an oem filter back in. I was really tempted by the k&n filter but found an old Post on this forum that trashed it. Especially for it's poor filtering function. I read some reviews elsewhere that claimed mpg improvement but I don't want to risk my engine. If that risk is even true.

Has anybody asked Shawn at SSI tuning to see if he is willing to do the 2.3? I have a 3.5 NA and have been more than happy with my tune. Had it over 6k miles and it's awesome.

Not really aware of his work but I would love to reach out or if someone knows him, to reach out.

The 2.3 is the standard engine for the updated 2020 explorer. This engine is here to stay for now. It's totally worth the effort to tune it imo.
 



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!
.





..................The 2.3 is the standard engine for the updated 2020 explorer........
Not actually so. The standard engine for the ST and Platinum is the 3.0

Peter
 






Not actually so. The standard engine for the ST and Platinum is the 3.0

Peter

The 2.3 is the standard base engine for the explorer. The engine that will be found in the base, XLT, and limited. Yes, the Platinum and ST will have the bigger, more powerful engine. Those trims start at $55k. Those who purchase those trims will be the minority most certainly.

So, the 2.3 will arguably be the most popular engine sold in the 2020 explorer.
 






The 2.3 is the standard base engine for the explorer. The engine that will be found in the base, XLT, and limited. Yes, the Platinum and ST will have the bigger, more powerful engine. Those trims start at $55k. Those who purchase those trims will be the minority most certainly.

So, the 2.3 will arguably be the most popular engine sold in the 2020 explorer.
If the posts about 2020 Explorers that have been ordered by the members are any indication, the ST is leading. No XLT has been ordered here yet. The Limited Hybrid has a 3.3.

Peter
 






If the posts about 2020 Explorers that have been ordered by the members are any indication, the ST is leading. No XLT has been ordered here yet. The Limited Hybrid has a 3.3.

Peter

As in any forum, members generally do not represent the true population. We're the enthusiasts. Not the average consumer. I've been trying to find some data breakdown on trim level sold but coming up empty.

But from my experience and what I've seen on the road, base level, XLT, and limited are definitely more common than platinums. I do see a lot of sports but very little platinum models. I would assume the same pattern continues for 2020.
 






Agreed. I believe the 2020 Base is fleet orders only.

Peter
 






I see mostly xlt around me. Standard 3.5 not with 2.3 eco. Does anyone run only premium gas? Vs regular to see how much performance gain there is?
 






I see mostly xlt around me. Standard 3.5 not with 2.3 eco. Does anyone run only premium gas? Vs regular to see how much performance gain there is?

Yeah I agree with this as well. And it's the 3.5 NA that is currently the standard engine found in most trims, the trims that most people buy I would imagine. For 2020, the 2.3 is just replacing that 3.5 NA which is why I think now is better than ever to start some development on tuning that very capable turbo(see it in the mustang).

But I have not tried higher octane fuel. Performance improvement I would imagine is there, just how noticeable is it is the question. And in terms of mpg, I'm sure it helps but I'm guessing any improvement is loss with the added cost of the fuel itself.
 






Yeah I agree with this as well. And it's the 3.5 NA that is currently the standard engine found in most trims, the trims that most people buy I would imagine. For 2020, the 2.3 is just replacing that 3.5 NA which is why I think now is better than ever to start some development on tuning that very capable turbo(see it in the mustang).

But I have not tried higher octane fuel. Performance improvement I would imagine is there, just how noticeable is it is the question. And in terms of mpg, I'm sure it helps but I'm guessing any improvement is loss with the added cost of the fuel itself.

Unless you're in very hot weather or towing, premium fuel isn't recommended. Performance and mileage gains on almost all engine types seem to be negligible. The only noticeable difference is how much money you're spending.
 






You know I just had my oil changed today and I ended just putting an oem filter back in. I was really tempted by the k&n filter but found an old Post on this forum that trashed it. Especially for it's poor filtering function. I read some reviews elsewhere that claimed mpg improvement but I don't want to risk my engine.

So aside from the risk, was there any improvement noted from these filters? K&n has had a bad wrap in the diesel world too for quite some time due to weak structure on the cone style, poor fitment on the drop ins, and just poor filtering. But there have been several other brands to not have these bad reviews, AFE and s&B come to mind, Afe even has their pro Dry line, no more worries about the oil and the MAF
 






Unless you're in very hot weather or towing, premium fuel isn't recommended. Performance and mileage gains on almost all engine types seem to be negligible. The only noticeable difference is how much money you're spending.


But his being a turbo engine it's different. From reading online in Mustang forms the engine reads the quality of fuel and adjust s the timing accordingly. So higher octane better fuel it runs better and makes the advertised HP. If you buy junk fuel it will take out timing to save the engine but hurt performance.
 






So aside from the risk, was there any improvement noted from these filters? K&n has had a bad wrap in the diesel world too for quite some time due to weak structure on the cone style, poor fitment on the drop ins, and just poor filtering. But there have been several other brands to not have these bad reviews, AFE and s&B come to mind, Afe even has their pro Dry line, no more worries about the oil and the MAF

I've been running the afe dry flow for over 4 years now. I had it in my edge 3.5 and the same one fit my explorer.

I like it.
 






But his being a turbo engine it's different. From reading online in Mustang forms the engine reads the quality of fuel and adjust s the timing accordingly. So higher octane better fuel it runs better and makes the advertised HP. If you buy junk fuel it will take out timing to save the engine but hurt performance.

True.... but do the math, to determine your benefits.
EX: 87octane = $2.50/gal 93octane = $3.00/gal
Therefore 93 is 20% more expensive, as $2.50 + 20% = $.50, for cost.

Hypothetically:
If you get 10% better gas mileage, you go from EX: 20mpg to 22mpg (doubt you will get 20% or 24mpg, from just fuel)...
So you are paying 20% more, for maybe 10% improvement in fuel economy...

BUT...
If you get 3% more HP, and you like the extra timing, and better acceleration... then that is a subjective benefit.

Your call.


p.s. I run 87octane in my wife's 2016 Explorer 3.5 Ecoboost, as well for my 2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost, for sheer cost benefit.
But I can justify the 93octane in my custom tuned Mustang Ecoboost, making 350hp, and get 28mpg going to work. ;)
 






I've been running the afe dry flow for over 4 years now. I had it in my edge 3.5 and the same one fit my explorer.

I like it.
Any MPG gain? Or anything else you've noticed? I know on my 09 Focus with the old 2.0 NA saw right under a 3mpg gain with just a filter (and I swear it opened up and passed better on the interstate as well, could've been the ole placebo effect though lol) , but our 3.0 NA in our 11 escape saw no improvement at all
 






Any minimal increase in mileage will be outweighed by the extra cost of the higher octane fuel. I started out using 87 and switched to 91 and found very little difference in mileage or power. Because I don't drive that much and get a 13 cent/L discount (0.59/gal.CDN) at Petro-Canada, I have continued using 91 octane. Going back over my fillups at Fuelly.com, my 2014 MKT averaged slightly better mileage (0.8 mpg) on 87 than my 2017 Explorer on 91. The 2011 Explorer was best of all.:)

Peter
 






Does anybody know the specs on the turbo in the 2.3L, wonder if there are any wheel/housing upgrades?
 






Any MPG gain? Or anything else you've noticed? I know on my 09 Focus with the old 2.0 NA saw right under a 3mpg gain with just a filter (and I swear it opened up and passed better on the interstate as well, could've been the ole placebo effect though lol) , but our 3.0 NA in our 11 escape saw no improvement at all

Possibly a tiny bit. I did see right at 0.8 to 1 MPG increase on my edge with the 3.5.

I've been driving the explorer like my ass is on fire so it's hard to give a solid number on it.

From the testing I have seen it filters better than the factory paper one and flows more air. Since it's a simple blow it out and replace it it's worth it to me just to not have to buy an air filter again.
 






Well, maybe with this becoming the standard engine, we'll see some stuff here soon, I know in some of the trucks, just the turbo wheel upgrades can make a huge difference
 






Got to thinking a little more today, even if we do get some tunes for these 2.3ls, do we believe the 6f35 will hold up?
 



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!
.





Got to thinking a little more today, even if we do get some tunes for these 2.3ls, do we believe the 6f35 will hold up?

Might not. Then again, if you have the tow package with the 2.3, you'll have the 6F50, which comes standard with the 3.5 NA.
 






Back
Top