Head Gasket Issues

[FLT HED]

Hello!

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. I’ve searched this forum and others extensively, so forgive me if this topic has already been covered and I missed it. I’m trying to gauge how prevalent head gasket failures are on the 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine. Is this a common occurrence or an isolated issue? To be clear, I have not had this problem, but recently I learned how troublesome the smaller 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine seems to be.

My daily driver is an entry-level 2017 EcoBoost fastback with the six-speed manual transmission and a Lightning Blue paint job (the BEST color). The car is 100% stock, has about 15,000 miles on it and has given me ZERO trouble since I bought it new nearly six years ago. My Mustang is smooth, quiet, unexpectedly fuel efficient and plenty quick for what I need. Still, I was considering the Ford Performance tune to wake things up a little, but now I’m not so sure.

In my research, I haven’t seen too many reports of EcoBoost Mustang head gasket failures, but far fewer of these cars have been built than Edges, Escapes and Fusions that came with the smaller 2.0-liter engine. The Mustang head gasket failures I’ve read about seem to stem from modifications.

FordTechMakuloco’s recent YouTube video is what really sent me down this path, and the more I’ve researched the head gasket issue, the angrier it’s made me, especially since my mom owns a 2017 Edge. How could Ford screw up something so basic -- and important? I’m irrationally upset about this problem that I haven’t even faced yet, !

If the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine is failing with such apparent regularity, how could a larger-displacement version with more power and torque ever hold together? The blocks, heads and gaskets are all the same between the 2.0- and 2.3-liter engines, right? An open-deck design with grooves cut between the cylinders seems like an exceptionally terrible idea in a boosted engine, especially in a performance application like the Mustang where people are going to turn up the wick.

Anyway, thanks for reading my longwinded post. I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!

Sponsored

 

[Coyote Chase]

Hello!

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. I’ve searched this forum and others extensively, so forgive me if this topic has already been covered and I missed it. I’m trying to gauge how prevalent head gasket failures are on the 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine. Is this a common occurrence or an isolated issue? To be clear, I have not had this problem, but recently I learned how troublesome the smaller 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine seems to be.

My daily driver is an entry-level 2017 EcoBoost fastback with the six-speed manual transmission and a Lightning Blue paint job (the BEST color). The car is 100% stock, has about 15,000 miles on it and has given me ZERO trouble since I bought it new nearly six years ago. My Mustang is smooth, quiet, unexpectedly fuel efficient and plenty quick for what I need. Still, I was considering the Ford Performance tune to wake things up a little, but now I’m not so sure.

In my research, I haven’t seen too many reports of EcoBoost Mustang head gasket failures, but far fewer of these cars have been built than Edges, Escapes and Fusions that came with the smaller 2.0-liter engine. The Mustang head gasket failures I’ve read about seem to stem from modifications.

FordTechMakuloco’s recent YouTube video is what really sent me down this path, and the more I’ve researched the head gasket issue, the angrier it’s made me, especially since my mom owns a 2017 Edge. How could Ford screw up something so basic -- and important? I’m irrationally upset about this problem that I haven’t even faced yet, !

If the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine is failing with such apparent regularity, how could a larger-displacement version with more power and torque ever hold together? The blocks, heads and gaskets are all the same between the 2.0- and 2.3-liter engines, right? An open-deck design with grooves cut between the cylinders seems like an exceptionally terrible idea in a boosted engine, especially in a performance application like the Mustang where people are going to turn up the wick.

Anyway, thanks for reading my longwinded post. I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!

Over at Mustang Ecoboost net, we dug into the issue and picked his video apart.
FordTechMakuloco’s made some good points, but he also failed to share some important information. I watch his videos all the time and I have to say he's without a doubt, a "Ford Repair Specialist"! But, I wouldn't say he's an "Ecoboost Performance Specialist". We have guys like Jessie Ringley of EMS (Owner, Builder, Racer), who have used the same exact engine block to build high horsepower performance motors.

 

[Radiation Joe]

I don't know how much help this will be, but my 2017 Ecoboost with Ford Performance tune ate a head gasket starting at around 48k miles. It didn't fail completely until around 72k miles. I had Blackstone oil analyses that indicated coolant in the oil from 48k miles. The tune went in around 32k miles. I didn't notice coolant loss until around 68k miles.

 

[FLT HED]

I don't know how much help this will be, but my 2017 Ecoboost with Ford Performance tune ate a head gasket starting at around 48k miles. It didn't fail completely until around 72k miles. I had Blackstone oil analyses that indicated coolant in the oil from 48k miles. The tune went in around 32k miles. I didn't notice coolant loss until around 68k miles.

Thanks for the response! I actually read a little about your car's head gasket failure while researching this topic before joining the forum. I'll definitely consider oil analysis in the future. This is something I want to keep on top of.

I have the tools, space and skills to replace my car's head gasket should it fail, but with proper care and maintenance this is something that, in my opinion, should never need service. How did you correct the head gasket failure in your car? Did you catch the issue early enough and just install a new gasket, did you have to resurface the head, buy a new long block?

Just thinking out loud, did Ford not test this engine design well enough? Were the wrong materials used? Are the tolerances too sloppy? I have so many questions, including, should I buy the Atlas Blue 2022 Mustang GT 6MT at a nearby dealership?

 

[ice445]

Its fairly common unfortunately. I have a friend locally that popped his 2018 at 52k with the stock tune. It's the same fundamental problem as the 2.0, the steam reliefs (little slits) between the cylinders give very little for the gasket to grab onto. But IMO the real cause is a combination of factors. The open deck design allows for more cylinder flex, and over time that can cause head gasket scrubbing and eventual failure. It's almost always cylinder #3 as well, with #2 usually following close behind. In my friends case the leak caused oil wash and cylinder scoring and scoring under the cam caps from metal debris.

I'm not sure if Ford redesigned the 2.3, I can't find any info on it unlike the 2.0. Probably not given the hp it needs to make for the platforms it's installed in.

 

[FLT HED]

Its fairly common unfortunately. I have a friend locally that popped his 2018 at 52k with the stock tune. It's the same fundamental problem as the 2.0, the steam reliefs (little slits) between the cylinders give very little for the gasket to grab onto. But IMO the real cause is a combination of factors. The open deck design allows for more cylinder flex, and over time that can cause head gasket scrubbing and eventual failure. It's almost always cylinder #3 as well, with #2 usually following close behind. In my friends case the leak caused oil wash and cylinder scoring and scoring under the cam caps from metal debris.

I'm not sure if Ford redesigned the 2.3, I can't find any info on it unlike the 2.0. Probably not given the hp it needs to make for the platforms it's installed in.

Man, that's not what I wanted to hear. Your friend's car is a year newer than mine and 52,000 miles is nothing; the thing's just getting broken in!

While researching this issue, I can see that the 2.0-liter block was redesigned with drilled passages between the cylinder bores instead of slits, but I haven't been able to find out if Ford did the same with the 2.3. Do we know if the blocks are the same? I would suspect they're nearly identical (maybe the mounting locations are different or something), with the 2.3's extra displacement coming from a longer stroke.

Regarding open-deck blocks, a powertrain engineer at GM once explained to me this design is more efficient. When the engine heats up, the bores expand more evenly since they're not as constrained. With less bore distortion, lower-tension piston rings can be used, which have a lot less friction. At least that's what I was told...

Short of getting a specially prepared block, does anything actually prevent this issue? Will ARP studs and a better aftermarket head gasket do any good?

 

[dbtgt]

should I buy the Atlas Blue 2022 Mustang GT 6MT at a nearby dealership?

Yes

 

[Radiation Joe]

Long block replacement at 74k miles

 

[Texstang]

I have a post on here about my head gasket from almost three years ago. I didn't notice any coolant loss until it started smoking on startup at 60k miles. I diagnosed it with a boroscope and mine was leaking into cylinder 4. I'd like to think that I caught it fairly early, but I don't have a used oil analysis to prove it. I had a Ford ESP and they authorized replacement of the head gasket and associated parts (TTY bolts, fluid, and vacuum pump). The notes from the tech mentioned that the failure was at the outer edge of cylinder 4, but I don't know if it was from the area between 3 & 4.

I think it's something to watch out for, but all of this is anecdotal from people who post their issues on forums/YouTube/etc. I'd be interested in hearing from a tech at a volume dealership who sees these cars on the regular. Most of what I've seen techs talk about is related to the 1.5. From what I've read about it, it's much less prevalent with these cars as it was for the Focus RS. It also seems less prevalent than with the 1.5, but that could be due to the higher number of those on the road. I'm not sure about the 2.0.

I don't know about the '18+ Mustangs, although they will have less mileage than the '15-17s.

I think there was actually an initial version of the TSB or possibly the FSA for the 1.5 Ecoboost that involved recalibration of the PCM that mentioned "improved cooling". I'd be interested to know what that involved. Maybe different settings for the fan temp trigger or something else.

 

[Ecto1]

I bought my '15 EB with the intention of modding it for more power. Based on on-line info posted regarding tunes, turbo upgrades, bolt-ons, etc I was convinced that I could up the power in the neighborhood of 100HP without worrying about durability. After I bought the car and started laying out my plan I discovered that pursuing more power with the stock engine was a very BAD idea. I stumbled over more than a few engine failures likely resulting from churning out more power. I've since abandoned my plan to mod the EB. I'm now on the lookout for the 'right' 15-'17 GT. I don't expect the engine/head gasket to fail while leaving the car completely stock but ... who knows? There have been a few premature head gasket failures even on basic stock EBs. No idea why.

You might want to check out this thread regarding EB head gasket/detonation failures. Maybe it's valid, maybe not. You'll have to judge for yourself.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/ecobust-analysis.180912/

 

[FLT HED]

I have a post on here about my head gasket from almost three years ago. I didn't notice any coolant loss until it started smoking on startup at 60k miles. I diagnosed it with a boroscope and mine was leaking into cylinder 4. I'd like to think that I caught it fairly early, but I don't have a used oil analysis to prove it. I had a Ford ESP and they authorized replacement of the head gasket and associated parts (TTY bolts, fluid, and vacuum pump). The notes from the tech mentioned that the failure was at the outer edge of cylinder 4, but I don't know if it was from the area between 3 & 4.

I think it's something to watch out for, but all of this is anecdotal from people who post their issues on forums/YouTube/etc. I'd be interested in hearing from a tech at a volume dealership who sees these cars on the regular. Most of what I've seen techs talk about is related to the 1.5. From what I've read about it, it's much less prevalent with these cars as it was for the Focus RS. It also seems less prevalent than with the 1.5, but that could be due to the higher number of those on the road. I'm not sure about the 2.0.

I don't know about the '18+ Mustangs, although they will have less mileage than the '15-17s.

I think there was actually an initial version of the TSB or possibly the FSA for the 1.5 Ecoboost that involved recalibration of the PCM that mentioned "improved cooling". I'd be interested to know what that involved. Maybe different settings for the fan temp trigger or something else.

Interesting that cylinder four failed in your car's engine. It seems two and three are the usual culprits. And yes, you're absolutely right, nearly everything about this head gasket issue that we watch on YouTube or read online is anecdotal, plus forums can really amplify the perception of problems. I'd love to hear a technician's or company insider's take on the EcoBoost head gasket issue. What's the real story?

What I've seen is that the 2.0-liter engine used in the Edge, Escape and other vehicles seems more problem prone than the 2.3, though many, many more vehicles have been sold with the smaller EcoBoost four-cylinder than the "big block" unit found in the Mustang. Since they both have an open-deck block, I'd be shocked if the failure rate weren't very similar, especially since the 2.3 puts out more horsepower and torque, and is ostensibly more stressed.

I bought my '15 EB with the intention of modding it for more power. Based on on-line info posted regarding tunes, turbo upgrades, bolt-ons, etc I was convinced that I could up the power in the neighborhood of 100HP without worrying about durability. After I bought the car and started laying out my plan I discovered that pursuing more power with the stock engine was a very BAD idea. I stumbled over more than a few engine failures likely resulting from churning out more power. I've since abandoned my plan to mod the EB. I'm now on the lookout for the 'right' 15-'17 GT. I don't expect the engine/head gasket to fail while leaving the car completely stock but ... who knows? There have been a few premature head gasket failures even on basic stock EBs. No idea why.

You might want to check out this thread regarding EB head gasket/detonation failures. Maybe it's valid, maybe not. You'll have to judge for yourself.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/ecobust-analysis.180912/

Yes, I saw that video! Some of what the guy says makes sense, other points I disagree with, though it's telling YouTube comments are turned off... Fundamentally, I think the open-deck configuration is a piss-poor choice for a performance car. And I get it, the EcoBoost engine is the base, low-cost offering. I would never expect to make 800 horsepower or whatever on the stock block and internals, but head gasket failures at low miles with well-maintained vehicles is just stupid. This should not be an issue if you're maintaining the engine and not running crazy amounts of boost. In its factory configuration, it seems this engine doesn't have a lot of room left for adding performance.

Anyway, does anyone know if the 2.3-liter blocks used in the Explorer and Ranger are better than what the Mustang came with? I read that the Ranger's is based on the Focus RS engine and has holes drilled between the cylinders instead of those ridiculous slits cut in the deck.

Another random question, do we have any idea why Ford invested boatloads of money to manufacture multiple versions of 2.0-/2.3-liter EcoBoost block? The earlier, closed-deck version makes perfect sense, and apparently is the best to use in high-performance builds, so why jettison that design to introduce an inferior open-deck version of the block? They spent more money to make a worse product, right? This makes no sense, ESPECIALLY in an application like the Mustang where people are going to want to tweak and tune.

 

[Ecto1]

Anyway, does anyone know if the 2.3-liter blocks used in the Explorer and Ranger are better than what the Mustang came with? I read that the Ranger's is based on the Focus RS engine and has holes drilled between the cylinders instead of those ridiculous slits cut in the deck.

I assumed that the 2.3L in the other Ford offerings was the same engine as the 'stang. Wasn't aware that there were multiple versions of the 2.3.

What I have found is that performance shops that push 500+ HP from the EB 'stangs start with a 2.0L from the focus (I believe it's the focus) and bore it out to 2.3 and put the 2.3L head on it. The 2.0 is claimed to be a closed deck block which is one of the reasons they use it. If there are various 2.3L EBs to choose from the others might not be compatible with the engine/trans mounts in the 'stang chassis and/or the ECU, among other components, that make the 2.0L focus engine the sole option for pursuing more power in the EB 'stang.

Given the costs and risks involved I believe that a comparable GT is the better alternative. A gentlemen I met trying to sell his '18 EB with a 'built' 2.0 engine, NX2 turbo, & meth injection making in the neighborhood of 500 wHP recommended the GT as the better path as well. He ended up with a built 2.0L after his hot rodded 2.3 went bust. Head gasket failure/detonation similar to that depicted in the video referenced in post #10 above.

Just food for thought.

 

[Buldawg76]

The 2.0L and 2.3L motors are the same bore size, the 2.3L has a stroked crank to add the .3L displacement. The 2.0L block builders use is a Focus/Fusion ST block and is a semi closed deck block. I believe the 2020+ blocks from the edge/escape have the cross drilled steam holes between cylinders versus the slits of the 2.3Ls but could be wrong.

BD

 

[ice445]

Man, that's not what I wanted to hear. Your friend's car is a year newer than mine and 52,000 miles is nothing; the thing's just getting broken in!

While researching this issue, I can see that the 2.0-liter block was redesigned with drilled passages between the cylinder bores instead of slits, but I haven't been able to find out if Ford did the same with the 2.3. Do we know if the blocks are the same? I would suspect they're nearly identical (maybe the mounting locations are different or something), with the 2.3's extra displacement coming from a longer stroke.

Regarding open-deck blocks, a powertrain engineer at GM once explained to me this design is more efficient. When the engine heats up, the bores expand more evenly since they're not as constrained. With less bore distortion, lower-tension piston rings can be used, which have a lot less friction. At least that's what I was told...

Short of getting a specially prepared block, does anything actually prevent this issue? Will ARP studs and a better aftermarket head gasket do any good?

Open deck is great until you're trying to make a ton of horsepower for the displacement, which the 2.3L does. 310HP out of 2.3L is quite a lot. You need a lot of cooling to manage this, which is part of the appeal of an open deck design. But Ford just didn't get it quite right in my opinion.

In reality this type of stuff has been happening since the beginning of internal combustion. Someone gets greedy, and the design doesn't end up holding up over time. I'm still unsure if all EB will eventually succumb to this issue, or if it's more of a manufacturing tolerance issue that's exacerbated by the ragged edge design...

 

[FLT HED]

Open deck is great until you're trying to make a ton of horsepower for the displacement, which the 2.3L does. 310HP out of 2.3L is quite a lot. You need a lot of cooling to manage this, which is part of the appeal of an open deck design. But Ford just didn't get it quite right in my opinion.

Yes, 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet from 2.3 liters is good. Aside from the sickly exhaust note, I love how smooth and efficient this EcoBoost engine is, plus, I appreciate that Ford tuned it for low-end and midrange torque, which makes it feel like a much larger engine and gives you plenty of scoot for cutting through traffic... I just wish the damn head gaskets didn't fail so much!

Speaking of which, I put new head gaskets on my V8-powered Ford over the summer. It's got the same firing order as a Coyote, though it makes nowhere near as much power or torque.

Sponsored