Cannot decide Titanium 2.0T vs Titanium 3.5L

[t0lkman]

Cannot decide Titanium 2.0T vs Titanium 3.5L,

 

Which one more reliable engine?

 

[Dingo]

They're about equally reliable.

[t0lkman]

so if the dealer has 3.5L go with it?

 

have anybody driven 2.0T and 3.5L? any difference in driving?

[akirby]

The 2.0T has a lot of torque right off the line but runs out of steam at high RPM. 3.5L is more even from what I remember. Both are good and most people wouldn't notice any difference.

[davidceder]

I drove both and fund what I thought I would. The 2.0 feels a bit faster off the line but the 3.5 really kicks in once you get the REVs up. For me the 3.5 would be more fun to drive on the highways. I like fun so I would have gotten the 3.5 but deiced to get a Sport instead. I did feel the 2.0 had enough power to do whatever I needed it to do I live up at 5000 feet and a round trip to Phoenix is a total of 8000 feet of climbing. On the test drive I went down 2000 feet and it had plenty of power to get back up. Why don't you take them both for a drive. I would do them one right after the other. I really do like that mileage with the 2.0 and you have paddle shifters and sport mode. How are you going to drive the car most of the time. For me I either go 3 miles (small town) or 200 miles on a trip to the valley. I hardly ever do anything in between. It's all relative to they way YOU think the car drives.....Good luck.

[t0lkman]

David, thanks for detailed reply.

 

Have you found 3.5L more noisy during your test drive?

[Rudo8198]

I liked the 2.0 so much I didn't even test drive the V6. It has plenty of power and the V6 costs $650 more. Easy choice for me.

[freebird]

If you buy vehicles for the long term I would not go with the Spanish 2L engine. The turbo maintenance/repair would scare me away.

[Harvey Hanson]

I currently have 3.5, it sounds nice and is pretty fast when rev'd enough which I like, fuel economy is poor but that might be the way I drive it!

 

I have read reviews saying the 2l runs out of power a bit early up the rev range and has to be struggles up hills.

 

If they were both same price with gas being so low price wise I would say go with the 3.5, BUT it's a lot more $$ so depends on how you drive...

Edited February 5, 2016 by Harvey Hanson

[davidceder]

I didn't pay attention to the noise level, sorry. If you do mostly city driving I would imagine the 2L would be fine. Hill climbing and highways the 3.5. Sometime during your ownership gas will be back to $3.00+ dollars a gallon. Too many choices, wouldn't you say? I did the same thinking between the Titanium and Sport. I also had to consider the stiffer ride of the sport and than 20 or 21 inch wheels which would effect the ride. All this stuff kept me occupied for a long time. My big point was Sync 3. I passed on a 2015 hoping Sync 3 would be in the 2016 and of course it was.

 

Let us know what you decide and there are plenty of driving reviews on you tube. Watch Alex on Autos, he does a great review of the entire car.

[akirby]

If you buy vehicles for the long term I would not go with the Spanish 2L engine. The turbo maintenance/repair would scare me away.

 

All U.S. vehicles get their 2.0L ecoboost engines from Ohio, not Spain. There is no turbo maintnenance and I have yet to hear of a turbo failure on any ecoboost engine and the 3.5L has been around since 2009 including F150s. These are not the turbos of the 1980s - they're very durable.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

There have been quite a few turbo-related failures on the 3.5L engines, but how much of it was due to improper maintenance, IDK. The EB engines are Direct Injected, and as such, there's even more crap in circulation in the PCV system. This eventually finds its' way onto the turbo blades and cokes them up. Under extreme stress, some of the units out there don't get enough oil flow to keep the turbos running smoothly, or the oil line seals may leak. VERY important to use the correct engine oil weight and filter. The Motorcraft filter is one of the best in the biz. The oil can be improved upon, but please please please don't change the oil weight from that recommended. If you do, make sure you research the oil properties properly, and then assume the risk.

 

It is very important with these engines to follow mfr's recommendations, even more so than with their naturally aspirated counterparts. I do believe they are way more reliable than turbos of yore, owing primarily to their being oil AND water-cooled, so no post-shutdown blues. Keep an eye on the PCV system, and the carbon-related issues should be minimal.

[akirby]

Was that on the F150s or the sedans/cuvs? I didn't know about those.

[cab2g]

I've driven both, I liked the 2.0T better because it pulled harder during normal driving. I don't know how much aggressive passing I'd do on the highway at high RPMs so I can't really compare the 3.5L in that aspect. I normally just hit cruise control and leave it at that. 0-60 on the 2.0L was more impressive in my opinion than the 3.5L, which just felt "slower" from the pure seat of the pants acceleration feel.

[akirby]

It doesn't slow down at higher RPM - it just kinda levels out (on my Fusion that is) instead of continuing to pull harder. And the newer 2.0LEB may be different.

 

The higher torque off the line more than makes up for that IMO.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

I keep closer tabs on the transverse-engined vehicles, so I guess you could say for sedans/cuvs. The F150s have different/bigger turbos, their main issue was the intercooler was cooling TOO much and the condensate getting sucked into the engine. The transverse crowd, meanwhile, wants an intercooler that cools MORE. Go figure.

Was that on the F150s or the sedans/cuvs? I didn't know about those.

Edited February 5, 2016 by WWWPerfA_ZN0W

[grumzy]

I love the acceleration on the 2.0l, much better torque.... top end... well I never actually go flat out so I couldn't tell you.

If I'm overtaking on the highway I do like the kick when the boost comes on, but other people say they don't like the lag. I think you get used to it.

 

Having now had a turbo, I don't think Id go back to a regular but everyone is different.

[davidceder]

I didn't think the 3.5L in the Edge was a Turbo as stated above? Was it a Turbo in the F-150?

[Waldo]

I didn't think the 3.5L in the Edge was a Turbo as stated above? Was it a Turbo in the F-150?

They are referring to the turbo 3.5 used in the Explorer, Taurus SHO and F150.

[akirby]

I didn't think the 3.5L in the Edge was a Turbo as stated above? Was it a Turbo in the F-150?

 

Yes, as Waldo stated. I was using that as a reference for durability because the 3.5L Ecoboost twin turbo has been in use since 2009 and has a much longer history than the 2.0L EB.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

x2 on what Waldo and akirby said. The 3.5 TT EB has been around since at least the 2010 MY, while the 3.5L naturally aspirated engine has been around since at least the 2007 MY (for multiple model lines, not just Edge/MKX). In the F150, the 3.5 TT EB was introduced in the 2010 MY, so there's a running joke that the other model lines (Taurus, MKS, Flex; Explorer got it in the 2013 MY) were used as a "shakedown cruise" for the F150 (Ford's biggest seller). Of course the engines are not exactly the same anyway

[All Hat No Cattle]

 

In the F150, the 3.5 TT EB was introduced in the 2010 MY,

Just for the sake of accuracy , my 2010 Lariat was the last year for the 5.4. In 2011 the 3.5 Eco and the 5.0 NA were introduced into the F-150.

 

So, yes, the 3.5 Eco was put into service in late 2010, but not in the 2010 trucks.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

You are right sir, forgive the typo!

[CND_EDGE]

I test drove a 3.5 Edge and found it to be a bit of a dog. I was expecting way more acceleration and highway passing power from this big engine.

 

 

The 2.0 L that we settled on has much more torque and "low end" off the line power. Remember with a turbo charged engine all the 275 foot pounds of torque starts at 3000 rpm and continues all the way up to redline. There is no power "drop off".

 

I have an Escape with the older version of the 2.0 L engine and it too has tons of low end torque. Passing on the highway is a breeze as well. Going up hills is also not a problem. There are members on the Ford Escape forum that have over 170,000 miles on their Ecoboost engines without any issues.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

Unless the Edge has suddenly gotten really heavy, the 3.5 should not be a "dog" by any means. But it is very likely that there is some calibration issue that is yet to be fixed or perhaps the computer protecting itself? The 3.5 is also now in the shadow of the forced induction twins, in corporate-speak.