Any details please- 2.3L V6 in Galaxy ??

[sprinter1050]

Hi all Fordie types. Do any of you chaps have any knowledge as to flaws or issues to look out for on this engine please?

I may be looking to buy an 02/3 Galaxy & rather than opt for the almost obvious 1.9 diseasel, which I find a bit boring, I'd rather look at the V6. I would prefer the 2.8 but don't think I want to spend in that sort of range.
Any comments welcome.

[neiljohnson]

2.3 is a 4 pot engine very similar to what you will find in the late Escort rs2000.
Its not a bad engine but underpowered tbh & can suffer timing chain failure.

2.8 is a vr6 engine from vw its a fantastic unit with lots of torque and good fun in the galaxy. Down side is fuel consumption is horrific & when they go wrong (which it will) its very expensive to repair.

[Podie]

I had a 2.3 as a pool car once when I worked at Ford. Went from Head Office to Bristol in it. Even at motorway cruise it's fuel consumption was worse than my 4.5 Chimaera...

[sprinter1050]

Thanks for replies so far (& correcting my misunderstanding about it being a V6 -DOH !)

I may have to re-think & consider the 1.9 diesel which I believe comes in a 110 bhp guise ??

Edited by sprinter1050 on Tuesday 16th March 11:29

[stevep944]

We have a 1.9 TDci in our Galaxy; pretty pokey really for the size of car and gives 40+ mpg all day long.

[V]

sprinter1050 said:

I may have to re-think & consider the 1.9 diesel which I believe comes in a 110 bhp guise ??

They did a 130 and 150 1.9 TDCi in the 00-06 facelift Galaxy. Probably worth hunting down rather than going with the 110 which is a tad underpowered.

[Dimski]

Would that be the 2.3 16v engine also in the Scorpio?

Longer stroke version of the RS2000 engine?

Did cosworth have something to do with the development of this engine? IIRC, something to do with the balancing shafts. A smooth engine, if a little underpowered for use in the Galaxy. I'm sure I remember something along those lines from my RS Escorts book by Graham Robson...

[Aizletree]

Our family bus is an '98 2.8 V6 galaxy. You're all right about the fuel consumption, on a long motorway journey with no traffic the best instant mpg ever recorded was 26.0
Around town it struggles to break over 18

Being 4 wheel drive it is an absolute hoot to drive, especially in the snow , and can suprise alot of people at the lights. The noise also gets heads turning and the look on faces when they see it is from a MPV is always priceless.

[stevep944]

Aizletree said:

Being 4 wheel drive it is an absolute hoot to drive

Really? Thought galaxys were front wheel drive only? How do all the seats fit on the flat floor with the transmission tunnel?

[V]

stevep944 said:

Aizletree said:

Being 4 wheel drive it is an absolute hoot to drive

Really? Thought galaxys were front wheel drive only? How do all the seats fit on the flat floor with the transmission tunnel?

They did make a 4WD version of them.. reviw of the Sharan 4Motion V6 here - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-drivi...

[Dimski]

V said:

stevep944 said:

Aizletree said:

Being 4 wheel drive it is an absolute hoot to drive

Really? Thought galaxys were front wheel drive only? How do all the seats fit on the flat floor with the transmission tunnel?

They did make a 4WD version of them.. reviw of the Sharan 4Motion V6 here - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-drivi...

Was the 2.8 Engine the VAG unit too?

[V]

All the engines were made by VAG apart from the 2.3, but Ford slapped there own logo on them all in the Galaxy.

Edited by V on Sunday 21st March 18:30

[Johnnytheboy]

Dimski said:

Would that be the 2.3 16v engine also in the Scorpio?

Longer stroke version of the RS2000 engine?

Did cosworth have something to do with the development of this engine? IIRC, something to do with the balancing shafts. A smooth engine, if a little underpowered for use in the Galaxy. I'm sure I remember something along those lines from my RS Escorts book by Graham Robson...

You get a prize for namechecking my old man! I'll try and remember to ask him when I see him next.

[Dimski]

Johnnytheboy said:

Dimski said:

Would that be the 2.3 16v engine also in the Scorpio?

Longer stroke version of the RS2000 engine?

Did cosworth have something to do with the development of this engine? IIRC, something to do with the balancing shafts. A smooth engine, if a little underpowered for use in the Galaxy. I'm sure I remember something along those lines from my RS Escorts book by Graham Robson...

You get a prize for namechecking my old man! I'll try and remember to ask him when I see him next.

Then also thank him for a cracking book!

One of my favourites.

[catso]

As said the 2.3L is a four cylinder, it has good low-down/midrange torque and pulls quite well even in a big car like a Galaxy, even when loaded with 6/7 people.

We've got one and I did initially look at the 2.8 which goes very well but drinks petrol at an alarming rate, all things considered I thought the 2.3 was the best 'compromise' between the (slow & rattly) diesel and the thirsty V6.

Wife's getting a new car in a few weeks so the Galaxy (2001, 2.3 Ghia) will be for sale soon if you're interested...

[sprinter1050]

Catso you have mail

[Johnnytheboy]

Dimski said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Dimski said:

Would that be the 2.3 16v engine also in the Scorpio?

Longer stroke version of the RS2000 engine?

Did cosworth have something to do with the development of this engine? IIRC, something to do with the balancing shafts. A smooth engine, if a little underpowered for use in the Galaxy. I'm sure I remember something along those lines from my RS Escorts book by Graham Robson...

You get a prize for namechecking my old man! I'll try and remember to ask him when I see him next.

Then also thank him for a cracking book!

One of my favourites.

Here we go then, he just emailed me:

Graham Robson said:

When Ford wanted to increase the size of that particular 2-litre engine to 2.3-litres, they found that they could do it, but that it needed balancer shafts to make it smooth enough.
Cosworth got the job of packaging something in without spending a fortune of Ford's money.
Most conventional methods would be to place counter-rotating balancer shafts ( you need two ....) in the side of the cylinder block, which would mean new castings. Cosworth, thinking laterally as ever, decided to put them under the crankshaft, in the sump, where they added just a little to the depth of the sump, but could do the job at very minor cost. Memory tells me that the shafts were driven by chain from gear wheels on the nose of the crankshaft
I don't think that this tweak was ever applied to other Ford private cars which used the 2-litre version of that engine, by the way..

[rb5230]

Podie said:

I had a 2.3 as a pool car once when I worked at Ford. Went from Head Office to Bristol in it. Even at motorway cruise it's fuel consumption was worse than my 4.5 Chimaera...

really? ours does 30mpg even at 215,000 miles.

since we have owned it from new in 2000 i think i can comment on this one.

in that time it has only ever had, 2 water pumps, 1 alternator belt, about 4 or 5 sets of discs and pads, track rod ends, a few oil changes and filters etc and only 1 large bill which was the cam-chain tensioners at about 170k miles which cost £800. it now needs an electric window switch or regulator.

it is still on the original gearbox/engine/clutch/suspension.

it is now 10 years old, i really can not imagine the diesel (or any other engined one for that matter) one being as reliable although it would be more frugal. it really has been an amazing workhorse.