DIY maintenance

[Sidewalk]

Anyone like doing ALL your own work? How are you finding the engine? I just totalled my car with 170,000 miles, everything was done by me. I'm shopping around while waiting for a settlement, the Bronco is on my short list (manual transmission is my requirement).

I know the engine has been around a while, I'm trying to talk myself out of a used Focus RS

 

[MikeG]

Kind of wondering that myself, as the 2.3 EB seems like it will be all we will ever get in the new Ranger in this country. How much of a nuisance is it to have to work around the turbo plumbing?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

How are you finding the engine?

There is a hood release on the left side at the bottom of the dash. Then there is a latch thru a slot in the grille off center. Open the hood and thar she be!

 

[Sidewalk]

There is a hood release on the left side at the bottom of the dash. Then there is a latch thru a slot in the grille off center. Open the hood and thar she be!

That's probably about as helpful as a salesman would be

 

[MikeG]

I've had salesmen that weren't even that knowledgeable.....

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Initial impressions just looking at the Ranger 2.3 are pretty good. I like that the exhaust manifold is cast into the head. Intake is just slapped on the side like a Model T. Spark plugs/coils are in a row down the middle of the valve cover. There is a flap in the DS inner fender for oil filter access which is less than ideal but not a huge deal.

We are getting a Bronco and I am strongly leaning towards a 2.3 over the available 2.7 for those reasons.

Change the oil often, use good oil and consider a PVC catchcan if you do a lot of city driving and they do pretty good.

 

[19Walt93]

I have a 2016 Escape with a 2.o Ecoboost that I bought new, decent power, great gas mileage and no problems in 42,000/ 4 1/2 years. The 2.3 is the same engine family and I would buy one in a minute. I had changed the oil 3 times when the IOLM- Intelligent(more like ignorant) Oil Life Monitor light came on at 10,400 miles. Ignore the light, change the oil at least twice a year using good stuff and run the wheels off it.

 

[Sidewalk]

My little Fiesta was a model for reliability and ease of maintenance. Hardest job I did was the timing belt, which with the couple required special tools (that were cheap), it was still a job that was easy to do in a driveway, and something I could do on the side of the road if I had to.

170,000 miles and the only failure were shocks at about 100k (but, is that a failure?) and the turn signal switch started getting finicky at 150k.

 

[19Walt93]

My little Fiesta was a model for reliability and ease of maintenance. Hardest job I did was the timing belt, which with the couple required special tools (that were cheap), it was still a job that was easy to do in a driveway, and something I could do on the side of the road if I had to.

170,000 miles and the only failure were shocks at about 100k (but, is that a failure?) and the turn signal switch started getting finicky at 150k.

It got hit that hard, the doors still open and you're alive. I'd say you won already.

 

[Sidewalk]

That car saved my life.

 

[adsm08]

We are getting a Bronco and I am strongly leaning towards a 2.3 over the available 2.7 for those reasons.

Stay far away from the 2.7L. New ones are being built with an oil pump drive belt. Older ones that are replaced are being retrofitted with the same stupidity over the chain-driven ones they originally had.

My little Fiesta was a model for reliability and ease of maintenance. Hardest job I did was the timing belt, which with the couple required special tools (that were cheap), it was still a job that was easy to do in a driveway, and something I could do on the side of the road if I had to.

170,000 miles and the only failure were shocks at about 100k (but, is that a failure?) and the turn signal switch started getting finicky at 150k.

If you had to do that timing belt on the side of the road you might as well just walk home without even trying. The 1.6 is an interference engine.

 

[Sidewalk]

It was hyperbole demonstrating how easy the car was to work on.

 

[sgtsandman]

So far, I've haven't had to do a lot to it.

Oil changes aren't that bad. Getting at the oil filter is a little bit of an inconvenience but not horrible and you don't have to remove the tire as originally reported. It makes it easier but it isn't a requirement.

Removing the skid plates aren't bad either. Some thought went into to them. Loosen the middle set of bolts that hold the front skid plate and skid plate for the oil pan and remove the back bolts for the oil pan skid plate. The oil pan skid plate slides right out from under the front skid plate.

The brakes aren't anything special. The fronts are like anything you've seen before pretty much. The back brakes are a little funky since there is a cable operated lever arm to engage the pistons for the parking brake. The only hang up, but it is a design other vehicles use, is the rotating piston for the rear brakes. Tools are easy enough to get for that and aren't overly expensive. Otherwise the brakes aren't bad to work on. Just a little different from what I'm used to.

Overall engine access in the truck? Again, I haven't done much but it looks like it's no better or worse to work on than my 2011 with the 4.0 SOHC. Some things will be easy to get at and others will be a pain. I've worked on worse and I've worked on better. Considering the extra plumbing with the turbo in there, it isn't bad, or at least it doesn't appear to be.

 

[wildbill23c]

I've had salesmen that weren't even that knowledgeable.....

When I bought my 08 Toyota Tundra I was telling the salesman all the vehicle specifications, engine options, transmissions, etc. I knew far more than their salemen did, pretty pathetic, but I guess pretty common.

I thought I read somewhere recently the 2.3L Ecoboost in the Ranger, and other vehicles is actually the same 2.3L 4 cylinder that's been in the Rangers since the 90's. Is that true, that they just added turbos, and a few more electronic control systems to an already proven engine? If that's the case what are the major failure points that are being seen? I've heard turbo failures are pretty common, and cause engine damage as a result, true/false? Sorry I'm not a turbo person so I have no idea.

I think I'd go with a more base model Ranger in 2 door configuration for the longer bed, don't have any need to haul anyone around, and if I did I have an 08 Explorer for that purpose. So now I've really been trying to do homework on the current Rangers and the new Bronco which by the sounds of it I won't be able to see or drive one until maybe late 2022, or 2023 because of the huge number they've already sold.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I thought I read somewhere recently the 2.3L Ecoboost in the Ranger, and other vehicles is actually the same 2.3L 4 cylinder that's been in the Rangers since the 90's. Is that true, that they just added turbos, and a few more electronic control systems to an already proven engine? If that's the case what are the major failure points that are being seen? I've heard turbo failures are pretty common, and cause engine damage as a result, true/false? Sorry I'm not a turbo person so I have no idea.

It is based on the 2.3 Duratec that first graced the Ranger in the 00's.

They changed stuff, I don't know what exactly but it isn't just a turbo kit on a old 2.3.

AFAIK PCV carbon buildup on the valves is the only real common issue with the Ranger 2.3. It is somewhat drivecycle dependant too, in my area (lots of highway driving) it is pretty much unheard of.

The earlier varients like in a Focus had headgasket issues but they fixed that before the Ranger came out (Ranger uses a different block and I think head too)