Is the 2.0 litre engine "better" than the 2.3 litre?

[sudz]

Now before all you GT's jump down my throat:

When I say "better" i mean more reliable and long living.

I'm noticing that there are much fewer blown engine threads for the 2.0 litres. Is this simply because there are more 2.3 litres?

I've also read a lot of 2.3 litres burning oil. Not so much with the 2.0 litre. (again, ratio of 2.0's to 2.3's?

Overall, I'm OK with my 2.0 litre, but i have to make adecision if I drive it till it dies, or pawn it off the second i'm done paying for it.

I have 1 year left until it's paid off. I'm guessing I'll have 155k on it by then (31,000km a year average)

Do people typically get 200,000km with a 2litre? 250,000km? I know its luck of the draw, and how well I treat my car.

She's rust proofed every other year, Oilchanges every 8000km at QEW, and I repair as needed. I never start and drive away immedately, and she's parked indoors (underground)

Does anyone know if there is a rate of warranty for 2.0 vs 2.3 engine issues?

Basically, Calculating my ROI...

If It can get to 215,000km without more than $1200 in repair costs, I would be better off keeping it.

[shu5892001]

I have read from M3F that the 2.0 engine is more mod friendly and more reliable. When going turbo or all motor built...

[Proudfoot]

I could put a turbo charger on my 2.0?
How much would that run me?

[Proudfoot]

Power to the 2.0s! With my SRI, I can somwhat imagine, what driving a 2.3 might be like.

[sudz]

LOL, SRI doesn't get you near the 2.3litre
Torque band is much more broad, gearing (6 speed) completely different.

But yes, From what I've seen, the 2.0 seems to have less problems. Does anyone have any hard facts? Maybe a dealer? Warranty Claims per/1000 cars?

[Elusivellama]

^ ? Thought only the Gen 1 MS3s came with 6 speed, the regular 3s all had 5 speed MT or autos.

[Zuluwun]

^ ? Thought only the Gen 1 MS3s came with 6 speed, the regular 3s all had 5 speed MT or autos.

me too, I have 5 speed MT (2007). However, I think I read that the gearing is different between the 2.3 and 2.0 engines. I think we need a dealer to chime in about reliability though

[zmz3]

Now before all you GT's jump down my throat:

When I say "better" i mean more reliable and long living.

I'm noticing that there are much fewer blown engine threads for the 2.0 litres. Is this simply because there are more 2.3 litres?

I've also read a lot of 2.3 litres burning oil. Not so much with the 2.0 litre. (again, ratio of 2.0's to 2.3's?

Overall, I'm OK with my 2.0 litre, but i have to make adecision if I drive it till it dies, or pawn it off the second i'm done paying for it.

I have 1 year left until it's paid off. I'm guessing I'll have 155k on it by then (31,000km a year average)

Do people typically get 200,000km with a 2litre? 250,000km? I know its luck of the draw, and how well I treat my car.

She's rust proofed every other year, Oilchanges every 8000km at QEW, and I repair as needed. I never start and drive away immedately, and she's parked indoors (underground)

Does anyone know if there is a rate of warranty for 2.0 vs 2.3 engine issues?

Basically, Calculating my ROI...

If It can get to 215,000km without more than $1200 in repair costs, I would be better off keeping it.

As far as improving or maintaining reliability, perhaps consider doing oil changes every 5000km? especially that you are above 100,000km.

[RedRaptor]

Interesting thread and quite possibly true. I hardly hear anyone complain about their 2.0L blowing up (might be we are on a Mazda3 forum where most own the higher end trims).

As for changing your oil before the recommended service interval. Its your money but I think its a complete waste of money especially on an eco-box Mazda3.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

no hard data to back up my statements but, the main reason for the 2.3L engine blowing was oil starvation caused by any one of:

1) earlier (2004-2005) models had a thinner plastic oil filter cap (when compared to later years). it fatigued/broke easily, especially when tightened improperly, leaking oil.

2) the balance shaft used to counteract the vibrations in a "big" 4 cylinder like the 2.3L. the bulk of this component was under cylinder #3 ....if the oil level is low, with the balance shaft in the way, cylinder 3 could spin a bearing

those are the 2 things that the 2.3L has that the 2.0L doesn't ....doesn't necessarily make the 2.0L better, just that the 2.3L required a little more due diligence in ownership (i.e. checking the oil level often between changes) that most owners don't put the time and effort towards doing so.

[carbon3]

All 2004-2009 2.3 n/a manuel engines are 5 speed. I use to have a 2.0 and put 170 000 km in just 4 years, zero issues but you never know.
I do not know if this is true or not but I was told the 2.3 was a ford designed motor as the 2.0 was a Mazda. Who knows, But I doubt it

[taz4432]

The 2.3L is just a 'stroker' version of the 2.0L if I recall correctly. Same block and head, different crank, rods and pistons.

See MajesticBlue's post for the rest of what I was going to say. I've already had the bearing for my 3rd cylinder rod spin once...hopefully never again!

Balance shaft delete kits are cheap...but you'll feel extra vibes (usually) if you get rid of them.