Long term reliability of the 2.3

[paval3]

Nothing is the same on the newer 2.3 ecoboost engine and the older Pinto engine, completely different.

My first new car was a 1974 Ford Mustang II with the 4 cyl. 2.3 engine. What a dud. Was a cute car, but really lacked any ooomph when you pressed the pedal and really minded that going up long hills. I remember having the cam shaft replaced twice in the 5 years I owned it. I think first time was under warranty, then second time I had to pay. In today's dollars, would probably be about a $1500 repair. So when I was looking at trucks and my brother mentioned I should check out the Ford Ranger, I remember saying, "Yuk, it has a 2.3 engine and that dog of a Mustang I had had a 2.3". He then explained the difference so I went to drive one... and bought it!

Article I found. I think the little bit of the praise they gave that Mustang II wasn't even deserved.

Was the Pinto-Based Ford Mustang II So Terrible After All? The truth about the Mustang everyone loves to hate.

This looks just like the one I had, same color, same trim and interior (I didn't have a sunroof though):

https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/11/2020/07/1974_Ford_MustangII.jpg?fit=around|875:492

Sponsored

 

[9zero1790]

The 2.3 may have a long future ahead of it. Especially in boats. Most folks that didn't wanna pay up for v8 power got the 4.3 v6. It's good engine and will make the power the ecoboost does. But it's heavier etc. The 2.3 punches above it's weight. As long as the turbo holds together anyway lol

 

[Langwilliams]

My first new car was a 1974 Ford Mustang II with the 4 cyl. 2.3 engine. What a dud. Was a cute car, but really lacked any ooomph when you pressed the pedal and really minded that going up long hills. I remember having the cam shaft replaced twice in the 5 years I owned it. I think first time was under warranty, then second time I had to pay. In today's dollars, would probably be about a $1500 repair. So when I was looking at trucks and my brother mentioned I should check out the Ford Ranger, I remember saying, "Yuk, it has a 2.3 engine and that dog of a Mustang I had had a 2.3". He then explained the difference so I went to drive one... and bought it!

Article I found. I think the little bit of the praise they gave that Mustang II wasn't even deserved.

Was the Pinto-Based Ford Mustang II So Terrible After All? The truth about the Mustang everyone loves to hate.

This looks just like the one I had, same color, same trim and interior (I didn't have a sunroof though):

https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/11/2020/07/1974_Ford_MustangII.jpg?fit=around|875:492

My first car was a '74 Mustang II. This was in '82 when I turned 16. I ran something over an lost oil an had to put a used motor in it. I went through a starter or two an a timing belt but it was mostly reliable, just lame. I had a '79 Mustang Cobra II with the turbo 2.3 an it wasn't a whole lot better. From what I've read the SVO mustangs with the turbo charged fuel injected 2.3's were crap, the Merkur's were plagued with problems too.

 

[Dieseldean1]

Any known, wide spread problems with this engine? I’ve heard and read about the gas in oil, but not sure if it’s a small number of problems. And what causes it?

Is the 2.3 in the Ranger the same exact engine that’s in the Explorer and mustang?

Im just curious about the strength and durability of the block and if it’s capable of handling a life of towing in the Rangers?

I’m trying to find out as much information on the 2.3. From what I’ve read it’s a semi open block, and it’s basically the same as the 2.0 ecoboost, but the 2.0 ecoboost is closed block and is said to be more robust?

Also, why hasn’t Ford gone with dual injection with this engine, like every engine in the F150?

Any information is appreciated.

If you treat it like a small displacement 4 cyl, and do routine maintenance, it will be fine.
The fuel in the oil is due to direct injection. 4500-5000 mile intervals for oil changes is a good start. Don’t go by the “oil life” info- you’ll ruin your engine.
I have 53k on mine, and no problems.
I use Kirkland full synthetic oil , and K&N oil filters.

 

[9zero1790]

If you treat it like a small displacement 4 cyl, and do routine maintenance, it will be fine.
The fuel in the oil is due to direct injection. 4500-5000 mile intervals for oil changes is a good start. Don’t go by the “oil life” info- you’ll ruin your engine.
I have 53k on mine, and no problems.
I use Kirkland full synthetic oil , and K&N oil filters.

i guessing the kirkland brand is likely a big name brand put in the costco bottle. warren oil, ashland oil , etc. ive heard its good stuff.

 

[Dieseldean1]

i guessing the kirkland brand is likely a big name brand put in the costco bottle. warren oil, ashland oil , etc. ive heard its good stuff.

It’s on par with AmsOil.

 

[Mkonecsni]

My first new car was a 1974 Ford Mustang II with the 4 cyl. 2.3 engine. What a dud. Was a cute car, but really lacked any ooomph when you pressed the pedal and really minded that going up long hills. I remember having the cam shaft replaced twice in the 5 years I owned it. I think first time was under warranty, then second time I had to pay. In today's dollars, would probably be about a $1500 repair. So when I was looking at trucks and my brother mentioned I should check out the Ford Ranger, I remember saying, "Yuk, it has a 2.3 engine and that dog of a Mustang I had had a 2.3". He then explained the difference so I went to drive one... and bought it!

Article I found. I think the little bit of the praise they gave that Mustang II wasn't even deserved.

Was the Pinto-Based Ford Mustang II So Terrible After All? The truth about the Mustang everyone loves to hate.

This looks just like the one I had, same color, same trim and interior (I didn't have a sunroof though):

https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/11/2020/07/1974_Ford_MustangII.jpg?fit=around|875:492

I had 1974 Mustang II as well with the 2.3l engine. It served me well and had no issues with the 2.3, other than the fact it didn't have much power.

 

[Mkonecsni]

My first car was a '74 Mustang II. This was in '82 when I turned 16. I ran something over an lost oil an had to put a used motor in it. I went through a starter or two an a timing belt but it was mostly reliable, just lame. I had a '79 Mustang Cobra II with the turbo 2.3 an it wasn't a whole lot better. From what I've read the SVO mustangs with the turbo charged fuel injected 2.3's were crap, the Merkur's were plagued with problems too.

Ya, thank God this is a completely different engine, only similarly is the displacement.

Sponsored