2.0 ecoboost longevity?

[Blake Willis Ehret]

Anyone have some longevity data on these engines? Ford is already replacing the 2.0 ecoboost as of the 2016 model I believe. I was just curious seeing as how my 2012 Ford edge has 117,000+ miles on it and was not sure how much I could get out of it. I have seen older models such as 2008 with an excess of 230,000 miles but these are not ecoboost engines. If I have the highest mileage on the forum I will begin keeping a more detailed account of any maintenance.

 

Best,

B

[lildisco]

Where are you getting your information from? The 2.0 Ecoboost has been & is going to be around for a while. My '16 has the 2.0 & it's also available on the '17 as well. As long as you do regular maintenance & use quality products, it should last for a while. An oil catch can is a way to prolong engine life & performance.

[akirby]

The 2.0L was recently modified but it's still used in Escape, MKX, Fusion, MKZ and Edge. All Ford engines are designed and tested to 150k miles - ecoboosts follow the same requirements as naturally aspirated engines.

[Blake Willis Ehret]

Where are you getting your information from? The 2.0 Ecoboost has been & is going to be around for a while. My '16 has the 2.0 & it's also available on the '17 as well. As long as you do regular maintenance & use quality products, it should last for a while. An oil catch can is a way to prolong engine life & performance.

While this is still a "2.0 ecoboost" they revamped quite a few things about it from my understanding. It's not the same design anymore. It's modified enough for them to change the name on it as well. It's now a "twin-scroll 2.0 ecoboost".

[lildisco]

The twin scroll technology is designed for better fuel economy & power, but it's not a completely different engine. The 2.0 block is in many different platforms, such as the Focus ST & Fusion & Escape.

[akirby]

Other than the twin scroll turbo I think they change the head cooling design which was a problem with the old engine. The rest is pretty much the same.

[freebird]

Ford engines are designed to go 150K miles? I guess I am just old school and too spoiled by a Toyota 3.4L engine with 296,000 miles with only leaky valve cover gaskets over its life. Purchasing a vehicle for the long-term is an idea of the past.

[Burrcold]

That Toyota 3.4L is also not a turbo engine. Ford designs with a minimum goal of 150k after which you could still have great longevity but you may need to replace a turbo or seals/gaskets. I also disagree that purchasing a vehicle for the long term is a thing of the past. Advancements in technology and overall quality can lead to vehicles with even more miles on them. The problem these days, is that more and more people don't want to keep cars that long. Technology gets old quick, safety advancements, etc. all make it very tempting to buy new.

[akirby]

Ford engines are designed to go 150K miles? I guess I am just old school and too spoiled by a Toyota 3.4L engine with 296,000 miles with only leaky valve cover gaskets over its life. Purchasing a vehicle for the long-term is an idea of the past.

 

150K is the minimum that they test for. There plenty of ecoboost engines over 150K.

[Blake Willis Ehret]

 

150K is the minimum that they test for. There plenty of ecoboost engines over 150K.

 

Any sources on engines over 150k with the 2.0 turbo?

 

Like I said, If I am the only one on the forum with almost 120k I'll start keeping more detailed information.

[akirby]

The 2.0L isn't as old. Higher mileage would be the 3.5L ecoboost engines in the Taurus/MKS/F150. The point is ecoboost engines are not more prone to failure or more short-lived than NA engines. They're designed to be turbo engines from the get-go just like turbo diesels that can easily go 300K.

[freebird]

Can you expect a 2.0 Ecoboost to go 300K without major repair expenses? How much would it cost for a turbo repair/replacement?

 

I guess I am still pissed that since I learned it costs $1800 for a water pump on the 3.5L in my Edge.

[Blake Willis Ehret]

$1800 for a water pump!? jesus someone please confirm with me that 1800 is absolutely crazy.

[akirby]

$1800 for a water pump!? jesus someone please confirm with me that 1800 is absolutely crazy.

It's not because the water pump is internal to the engine.

[macbwt]

Time will tell on the 2.0 and 2.7 as far as longevity and components. Just too early right now. Once some 2.0 and 2.7's start reaching 150-200K miles then the proof will be in the pudding as they say. The 3.5 NA has many in the 200K+ category now and doing well

[unca waldo]

Relatively speaking, an engine design for boosted applications will last as long a N/A engine, provided it's maintained religiously, using high quality components and lubricants. Going cheap, particularly on motor oil, it a great way to shorten the engine's life.

I'm old school, so whether the manual calls for it or not, I've always used premium grade, synthetic motor oils and filters. The synthetic oils are less prone to "coking" up the turbo. Another practice I've always followed is to idle the engine for approximately 30 seconds before shutting it off. That allows the turbo to spool down, while maintaining a flow of "cool" oil to the bearings. It may not be necessary, but it's cheap insurance.

Some might say it's a waste, but I use 91 octane fuel to prevent any chance of pre-ignition. Boosted engines are particularly prone to "knock" due to their high compression. You may not hear it, but pre-ignition will occur before the sensors in the engine retard timing, or whatever these engines do. The problem is, the damage caused by pre-ignition is cumulative, and if allowed to continue, WILL punch a hole in something... usually a piston... at some point. The use of higher octane fuel minimizes this issue.

Prior to owning this Edge, I'd had a turbocharged Buick GN... and though I drove it like I stole it, I never had any problems related to the engine. I know the GN was "old" technology, but how I maintained it still holds true today.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

All great points

[junehhan]

The 2.7 was an all new design made from the ground up. I would wager that this is a motor that should outlast the turbos easily considering that it was originally designed for truck duty in the F150. Other than the oil pan leakage that affected some early 2.7's, it appears to be a very solid and reliable motor so far. Hopefully we will get some data as more 2.7's rack up miles as to carbon buildup on the intake side of the plumbing. The 3.5's do experience significant carbon buildup, but I do not recall if anyone has encountered any actual drivability problems.

 

Driving your car like you stole it or performing the infamous Italian tune-up can actually be beneficial so long as you are not totally abusing the drivetrain. There appears to be correlation between hard worked engines and less carbon building up. As for the turbos, there is really no need to idle them before shutting the engine down unless you have been really flogging it hard. They are water cooled pretty well.

[enigma-2]

From what's been discussed here, installing a catch can on these engines would seem to be beneficial. It doesn't appear to be a correlation between how hard you drive it and the carbon buildup. As the valves are not being washed by the gas spray there will be buildup. Driving harder will only cause more blowby, which in turn allows more oil and blowby to be drawn into the intake causing more buildup on the back of the valves and valve seats.

 

As for using 91 octane, it would seem realistic to believe that Ford Engineering thoroughly tested this engine under all circumstances and found it acceptable.

 

By reducing the knock, the computer may attempt to lean the mixture in an attempt to reach a point where the knock can be sensed.

 

Years ago, Ford used to produce a magazine entitled Ford Times. I remember reading an article one month where they discussed the reasons you should NOT use higher octane gas. They (Ford Engineering) wants the engine to knock so the computer can measure it and compensate properly. Otherwise it will go lean attempting to compensate and the engine runs hot.

[unca waldo]

I agree about adding a catch can, though on a turbocharged motor, it's a bit more complicated than installing one on a N/A engine... you've got a pressurized intake tract as opposed to one drawing a vacuum. The Direct Fuel Injection MAY aid in economy, but creates a whole host of other issues, like carbon build-up on the valves and such.

I'll admit, I'm not well versed on these heavily computer controlled engines, however I find it hard to wrap my mind around a manufacturer WANTING to induce pre-ignition, just so it can be measured and alter the engine parameters in order to compensate, to stop what it induced to begin with! What exactly would be the point?

[enigma-2]

FordTechMakuloco has a good video on how to install on a Ford turbocharged engine.

 

As I understand it, the sensor's detect the knock and adjust the timing (and in modern engines, other systems) to run the engine as lean as possible. The computer needs a knock to set determine where the mixture is set, but maintains it so that it doesn't cause engine damage.

[akirby]

I'll admit, I'm not well versed on these heavily computer controlled engines, however I find it hard to wrap my mind around a manufacturer WANTING to induce pre-ignition, just so it can be measured and alter the engine parameters in order to compensate, to stop what it induced to begin with! What exactly would be the point?

 

Because the more you advance the timing, the more power and better mpg you get. So they advance the timing until it starts to knock, then backs off a little. This allows you to get better performance and fuel economy on 91 or 93 octane while still being able to run ok on 87.

[lildisco]

Here's a link to the Catch Can install that I did on my 2.0 Ecoboost, Post #21 is the actual install pictures.

http://www.fordedgeforum.com/topic/22063-oil-catch-can-on-the-20l-ecoboost/page-1

 

Here's what it caught after around 400 miles with the Catch Can installed:

Just a few miles over 400 since catch can was installed & decided to drain the can to see what was caught. I will admit that I spilled a little bit getting out from underneath the car, but still a decent amount for the mileage. We don't really beat on it & we mainly drive city/country roads with very little highway. Also have used full synthetic oil since around 2,000 miles.

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by lildisco

[junehhan]

Alan is exactly right. I remember back in the old days when Ford actually recommended against running a higher octane fuel than originally needed as it could create drivability problems. That is no longer the case with most of Ford's lineup. Ford has been using an engine timing strategy since about 2008/2009 in most of their engines that constantly seeks for a higher octane fuel. This is very similar to how Porsche calibrates their engines in that independent enthusiasts were able to determine on their Porsches that performance gains were seen till you hit about 98 octane fuel. I suspect that Ford does not use as aggressive of a strategy, but remember that Ford rates nearly all of their engines on premium fuel now which indicates that the octane seeking strategy is in play.

 

Recently on the Edge Sport front, a couple of the guys running the Livernois 93 octane tunes on their Sports were able to pick up decent performance gains by running 101 octane race fuel. It made for a 0.2-0.3 second increase in the 1/4 mile.

[unca waldo]

So, if I understand it correctly, Ford engineers designed into the system, a set-up that advances timing to the point pre-ignition becomes a factor, then uses that information to set the engine parameters. As a result, the engine computer will compensate for lower octane by backing down the "base" timing, right.

If that is the case, wouldn't it hold true that by using the higher octane fuels, the computer will set the "base" timing at a more advanced state and "listen", then compensate when it detects knock? If true, the engine computer is allowing the motor to run with more advance, producing more power and better economy... or am I missing something?

Edited March 16, 2017 by unca waldo