Jump to content

2.0 ECOBOOST vs 3.5 Standard Engine


Recommended Posts

I think it is a wash as far as reliability, engine wise. Transmissions are a different tale. The 6F50/55 that comes mated to the 3.5 is a world more reliable than the 6F35 that comes with the 2.0. As far as fuel mileage, it really really depends on driving habits and available fuel quality if the 2.0 will indeed do better than the 3.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a wash as far as reliability, engine wise. Transmissions are a different tale. The 6F50/55 that comes mated to the 3.5 is a world more reliable than the 6F35 that comes with the 2.0. As far as fuel mileage, it really really depends on driving habits and available fuel quality if the 2.0 will indeed do better than the 3.5.

Thanks for the info. I think we'll choose the standard 3.5 ...especially after your comment about the trans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
3 hours ago, twintornados said:

2.0L Ecoboost didn't come in the Explorer...the 2.3L EB motor did...the 2.0L EB was in the Edge

 

The 2.0 certainly did come in the 5th gen Explorer.  Ford later updated it to the 2.3 in the 2016 refresh.

 

Ps- it was a dog in the Explorer.

 

Screenshot_20200223-184236_Chrome.jpg

Edited by blwnsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 92merc said:

There have been no major issues with the 2.3EB.  Not in the Stang, not in the Ranger, not in the MKC/Corsair, not in the Focus RS.  Mechanic is just lazy not doing his research...

 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-maintenance/a14510137/ford-focus-rs-head-gasket-issues/

 

Admittedly, nowhere near the extent of the 1.5/1.6/2.0 problems.

 

HRG

Edited by HotRunrGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2020 at 1:00 AM, edshropshire said:

I was told by my mechanic to stay away from Ecoboost Explorers. Not sure if this is good advise.

 

Yes sir. Your mechanic definitely gave you good advice for 2011-2015 Explorers with the 2.0L Ecoboost. This is the first gen 2.0L Ecoboost engine without twin scroll turbo. It's very laggy and has poor real world fuel economy. The 2012 Explorer 2.0L Motor Trend tested had a 0-60 mph time of 9.2 seconds (slowest in its class) and got less than 20 mpg in mixed driving.

 

The 2.3L Ecoboost in 2016 and newer Explorers is much better. It has twin scroll turbo. One thing to keep in mind is that the 2.3L like all Ecoboost 4-cylinder engines sounds buzzy when revved.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

Well, there ya go...when you describe it as a "dog" in the Explorer...personal experience or internet buzz?

 

Underpowered for its weight.  From being on the Explorer forum since the 5th gen came out. 

 

Every single person complained about it.. could never move out of it's own way.  There were never complaints about reliability or city driving.  But highway speeds and attempting to get it moving to pass was miserable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, blwnsmoke said:

 

Underpowered for its weight.  From being on the Explorer forum since the 5th gen came out. 

 

Every single person complained about it.. could never move out of it's own way.  There were never complaints about reliability or city driving.  But highway speeds and attempting to get it moving to pass was miserable.

 

I wouldn't know about all that since I am not on that forum...but, I did look at a 2017 with the 2.3L EB motor and I thought it drove nicely...not a rocket, mind you, but it would step out just fine. I decided against it since I didn't like the fact that it did not have a moonroof and the headliner was black and it looked like you were staring into space...lol. Had a BAMR in my 2011 MKX and loved it. Not quite as big in the 2017 MKC, but still nice...and my MKC has a 2.3L EB and she moves out quite nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

I wouldn't know about all that since I am not on that forum...but, I did look at a 2017 with the 2.3L EB motor and I thought it drove nicely...not a rocket, mind you, but it would step out just fine. I decided against it since I didn't like the fact that it did not have a moonroof and the headliner was black and it looked like you were staring into space...lol. Had a BAMR in my 2011 MKX and loved it. Not quite as big in the 2017 MKC, but still nice...and my MKC has a 2.3L EB and she moves out quite nicely.

The 2.3 is a great motor.  That's what ford should have put in it fro. The start.  Has more pep and power then the NA3.5 which was also a dog unless you high revved it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, blwnsmoke said:

The 2.3 is a great motor.  That's what ford should have put in it fro. The start.  Has more pep and power then the NA3.5 which was also a dog unless you high revved it.


How do you put the 2.3L in the 2011 Explorer when it wasn’t created until 2015?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...