2.3L EcoBoost or NA 3.5L?

[peterk9]

Changing jobs, I got a 2016 Explorer with the 2.3L Ecoboost engine. I've driven and XLT with the 3.5L engine for the last 2 years, it was a 2014 model. I always felt that engine was underpowered even though it's listed at 290 HP.

I've only had the 2.3L since Friday and have 245 miles on it, but the engine is night and day different from the 3.5L. I never thought I'd like a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine, but this one has so much better acceleration, pick-up and runs much smoother.

Time will tell on the mileage. On the 3.5L I got up to 24.5 Highway and I think averaged around 17 in normal town driving.

I will keep you informed, but the 2.3L seems like a good choice in this car vs the normally aspirated 3.5L.

Although the 2.3 only has 280 HP, the difference is the torque. Much more torque and at lower RPM's.
The NA 3.5L V6 has 255 ft-lbs torque @ 4000 rpm while the 2.3L Ecoboost has 310 ft-lbs torque @ 3000 rpm. HP for the 3.5 is 290 @ 6500 rpm and the 2.3 has 280 @ 5600 rpm.

Peter

 

[Tuscany]

We just bought a vacation home in Florida, and this week we've settled on ordering a new Explorer to park down there.
I've got it narrowed down to a limited FWD with a 3.5l.

This thread is the first I've come across with a direct comparison between the 2.3 and 3.5l na.
I'm very interested on the opinion of which of these two engines is better. The option price difference won't bother me.
I want something that will have enough torque to move the vehicle without having to stab the gas to the floor or being wound up like a top.

Thanks.

 

[Halwg]

Although the 2.3 only has 280 HP, the difference is the torque. Much more torque and at lower RPM's.
The NA 3.5L V6 has 255 ft-lbs torque @ 4000 rpm while the 2.3L Ecoboost has 310 ft-lbs torque @ 3000 rpm. HP for the 3.5 is 290 @ 6500 rpm and the 2.3 has 280 @ 5600 rpm.

Peter

It's very apparent driving the 2.3 L. I dropped off the old one and got into the new one and thought, wow, this car is much peppier.

I am surprised that it's a $1,000 option. Since it's a 3 year lease I won't have that many miles on it, probably 60,000 at lease end. I always wonder how turbo engines perform long term.

 

[peterk9]

We just bought a vacation home in Florida, and this week we've settled on ordering a new Explorer to park down there.
I've got it narrowed down to a limited FWD with a 3.5l.

This thread is the first I've come across with a direct comparison between the 2.3 and 3.5l na.
I'm very interested on the opinion of which of these two engines is better. The option price difference won't bother me.
I want something that will have enough torque to move the vehicle without having to stab the gas to the floor or being wound up like a top.

Thanks.

Welcome to the Forum.:wavey:
If it's torque you want then I don't think there is much choice here. The 2.3L Ecoboost has it. Now I don't know if there is any noticeable difference between the FWD or the AWD setup. If there is, I would guess the AWD would be better since any front wheel slippage would automatically engage the rear wheels.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2.7L Ecoboost introduced into the Explorer lineup before long.

Peter

 

[Napalm]

city driving I found the 3.5 more get up and go.

highway passing I suspect the 2.3T has a bit more grab. Overall I bet they are closer to equal than the number portray.

 

[Tuscany]

Thanks for the replies guys.
I had the opportunity to drive both back to back today.
There is no question that the 3.5l is a better engine for me.

Although the 2.3l does have a sweet spot, like every turbo engine I have driven, throttle response suffers from lag.
IMO, it's still too small of an engine for the size of the vehicle, and the small size makes the turbo lag even more noticeable while in traffic and changing lanes.
The 2.7l would have been a much better choice, especially when offered as a power upgrade option.
I think the V-6 just offers a more smooth and more consistent application of power, and definitely a better interior sound.

 

[Halwg]

Thanks for the replies guys.
I had the opportunity to drive both back to back today.
There is no question that the 3.5l is a better engine for me.

Although the 2.3l does have a sweet spot, like every turbo engine I have driven, throttle response suffers from lag.
IMO, it's still too small of an engine for the size of the vehicle, and the small size makes the turbo lag even more noticeable while in traffic and changing lanes.
The 2.7l would have been a much better choice, especially when offered as a power upgrade option.
I think the V-6 just offers a more smooth and more consistent application of power, and definitely a better interior sound.

I actually think you are completely wrong. There is NO lag at all, that must be predetermined in your head, and it certainly isn't too small. I had the back end completely loaded moving my office, and it would run circles around the 3.5L. Not sure what you are smoking.

 

[peterk9]

I don't understand the "too small" part. It is only 10 HP less than the normal 3.5L and definitely has more lower end torque. I haven't driven the 2.3 but I had the 3.5 in my 2011 and found it to be more than adequate. I'm therefore basing my opinion on the numbers only.

Peter

 

[Tuscany]

Sure, plant your foot on the gas, and the lag is minimal. Agreed.
But in real world traffic, planting your foot isn't always an option. What's left at partial throttle before it fully spools up again is a little flat.

If only we drove these vehicles on a dynamometer every day. Then, weaving in and out of traffic, or stop and go situations wouldn't matter at all.
For me, the decision was very easy to make.

Lastly, there is no way I could listen to that buzz from a four cylinder in a new Explorer for more than five minutes.

 

[Napalm]

I thought the 2.3L eco mill was as quite as the 3.5 TiVCT motor. I didn't even notice the turbo noise until I was in the valley of semi-trucks.

Put it another way - had there been no choice and I was getting the 2.3L eco mill as the basic motor. I would have still bought my explorer.

I'd like to see that 2.7L 6 mill as an option but that's apparently going to be the high end option for the EDGE, Fusion and ? cars. while a new 3.5L 6 mill is going to replace the current job.

I look forward to see what that turns into. I suspect it's a rather significantly detuned, de contented mill that's currently being tested in the Ford GT.

 

[Tuscany]

I thought the 2.3L eco mill was as quite as the 3.5 TiVCT motor. I didn't even notice the turbo noise until I was in the valley of semi-trucks.

Put it another way - had there been no choice and I was getting the 2.3L eco mill as the basic motor. I would have still bought my explorer.

I'd like to see that 2.7L 6 mill as an option but that's apparently going to be the high end option for the EDGE, Fusion and ? cars. while a new 3.5L 6 mill is going to replace the current job.

I look forward to see what that turns into. I suspect it's a rather significantly detuned, de contented mill that's currently being tested in the Ford GT.

I never heard the turbo on the 2.3L at all.
The Compounds in my Powerstroke are silent. Heck, the last engine I had that you could hear a whistle was way back on my 1999 Powerstroke 7.3L.

Modern impeller technology makes them basically silent on passenger vehicles.
The noise I was hating was from the sound of a typical four cylinder engine. IMO, just not my cup of tea in a nice ride like the new Explorer.
All fours sound the same, and if someone has to listen to something other than a V-8, I guess a V-6 plays a much more acceptable tune.

 

[Napalm]

anyone have a good pic of the full power curves for both engines.

Again I bet they are closer than people realize.

 

[Tuscany]

Welcome to the Forum.:wavey:
If it's torque you want then I don't think there is much choice here. The 2.3L Ecoboost has it. Now I don't know if there is any noticeable difference between the FWD or the AWD setup. If there is, I would guess the AWD would be better since any front wheel slippage would automatically engage the rear wheels.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2.7L Ecoboost introduced into the Explorer lineup before long.

Peter

After driving them, there is NO chance I would buy the 2.3l.
It may have more torque on the dyno, but it doesn't translate to the road when accelerating in stop and go traffic. It suffers from the usual lag and the horrid whine of a sewing machine sounding 4 banger.

 

[Sixonemale]

There's no replacement for displacement.

Could not have said been better or more concise. Adding complex items to small engine to increase power will cause more maintenance headaches down the road. I've owned one of the first generation 2.3L turbos and with meticulous maintenance the turbo failed like clockwork at every 50,000 mile interval. I'm sure they've improved, but once bitten, twice shy.

 

[613GT500]

Could not have said been better or more concise. Adding complex items to small engine to increase power will cause more maintenance headaches down the road. I've owned one of the first generation 2.3L turbos and with meticulous maintenance the turbo failed like clockwork at every 50,000 mile interval. I'm sure they've improved, but once bitten, twice shy.

I wished Ford stayed with the tried and true v8.
This is my first FI vehicle and the only reason I chose the Sport was for the power (already have a RX350 with an NA 3.5 v6).
These new CAFE guidelines are moronic at best, as we the buyers never cared for fuel economy when buying these type of vehicles.

 

[Tuscany]

I wished Ford stayed with the tried and true v8.
This is my first FI vehicle and the only reason I chose the Sport was for the power (already have a RX350 with an NA 3.5 v6).
These new CAFE guidelines are moronic at best, as we the buyers never cared for fuel economy when buying these type of vehicles.

The V-8 is gone because it isn't viable in this size SUV.
Too heavy, too much size, and not highway fuel efficient.

The small turbo options are way too small. The 2.0L and the 2.2 EB are a joke IMO. The 3.5L turbo is simply designed for performance enthusiasts like myself, but isn't any more fuel efficient than a V-8.

Hopefully, the 2.7L EB will become the logical choice for Ford to use in the Explorer, and should be an option for the Limited right now..

 

[peterk9]

The V-8 is gone because it isn't viable in this size SUV.
Too heavy, too much size, and not highway fuel efficient.

The small turbo options are way too small. The 2.0L and the 2.2 EB are a joke IMO. The 3.5L turbo is simply designed for performance enthusiasts like myself, but isn't any more fuel efficient than a V-8.

Hopefully, the 2.7L EB will become the logical choice for Ford to use in the Explorer, and should be an option for the Limited right now..

While I agree with you to some degree on the "performance enthusiasts" part I doubt that too many families are buying a fully loaded Platinum for that purpose. I also would like to see the 2.7 Ecoboost as an option for the Limited and Platinum trim levels. As for the V8,

Peter

 

[Tuscany]

While I agree with you to some degree on the "performance enthusiasts" part I doubt that too many families are buying a fully loaded Platinum for that purpose. I also would like to see the 2.7 Ecoboost as an option for the Limited and Platinum trim levels. As for the V8,

Peter

I think we can agree that the platinum level is simply an "all options in" build.
I know the 3.5L EB isn't exactly a "hot rod", but it is the most power we can buy for this model.

I wish the 3.5L EB was a stand alone option, because I would order it in my upcoming Limited.

 

[Napalm]

all that power at full spool is too much without the AWD system behind it. IMO.

now would it be nice to have an stripper model explorer with cloth and minimal content with the 3.5 mill and AWD as an option package. Sure it would. but they'd sell what, 30 of them?

I used to have these arguments with guys in GM land. I mean the car I really want - I can't get now. Because marketing has to come in and make up the package or trim levels for each price point. Making the specific option setups really it's that difficult for production planning. It's a minor hassle to get too far off the reservation - but we make the base cars today with most of the holes, pockets, wire routings (hell in some cases we put the wires there anyway) and the like. so differences are more minimal than you'd think. Overall.

I sort of wish I had lived in the days of the CPO cars.

 

[Napalm]

The V-8 is gone because it isn't viable in this size SUV.
Too heavy, too much size, and not highway fuel efficient.

The small turbo options are way too small. The 2.0L and the 2.2 EB are a joke IMO. The 3.5L turbo is simply designed for performance enthusiasts like myself, but isn't any more fuel efficient than a V-8.

Hopefully, the 2.7L EB will become the logical choice for Ford to use in the Explorer, and should be an option for the Limited right now..

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.