I know the actual diffence. but how do each one of them actually look, I know what the 2.3l looks like as I have one in my 05 3 hatch, but I Just had the engine replaced after 6k miles and am paranoid and want to make sure they did not put in a 2.0l LOL

 

.3 liters.

 

http://web2.airmail.net/theman/protegefaq/

Down at the bottom it has the spec numbers for both, dont know about looks. But you will be able to tell the differance, the 2.3 has a noticable amount of extra power

Oh and just out curriousity. . . why is it that you had to have the engine replaced after only 6k miles

 

As far as I know the outside diff. are the taillights(red on 2.0 and clear on 2.3), front grill(2.3 looks a lot better), fog lights(not present on 2.0), and I believe 2.0 comes with 15" whereas 2.3 with 16"and17".

 

I think he means the actual engine.

 

Thanks alot guys... Well to answer Phals question on why the engine was replaced, here is your answer, I just reloacted from Virginia back home to California and drove a total of 3400 miles. I had around 2800 miles on it when I left really low miles I bought it in August 05..... Anyways I am not sure the exact reason all I know is that I had no problems at all driving out here, averaged about 80 Mph and got an average of 33 MPG, I got to my wifes parents house and was there for a couple of days, one night I got the jones for Jack in the box since I had not had it for like 4 years, so around 12:30 am I left the crib with my brother in law and warmed the car like normal for about 5 minutes, I left and drove about 2 miles maybe and then TACK TICK TACK TICK noise really loud and very mechanical.... I drove it back to the house and tried to isolate the problem loud not normal tapping at idle and incresingly louder and dangerous sounding with higher revs, I checked the oil and nothing man, I mean bone dry, no leaks anywhere, I did check the oil before I left virginia, I actually got my 3k miles service the day before I left, so I think the mazda dealership F'd up bad, so to make a long story short, the dealer replaced the engine due to a "severe engine knock" said I messed up the rods and some bearings of some sort, also said they replaced the intake Mani and some other stuff, though I cannot tell becuase everything alread lloked brand new as it was..... But anyways, Everything is all good now, the car is running great and I am doing the break in period all over again..... And yes I did mean the actual engine, I was just looking for some member pics of their 2.0l and 2.3l.....once again thanks for everyones help

Sean

 

Sean,
I tried to attach pics from my 2006 2.3 but the files are too large (350kb) and the forum can only handle attachments smaller than 200kb.
Let me know your e-mail and I will send you the pics directly.
Regards
Marty

 

you can downsize the pics when you upload them to cardomain, i cant the dealership tried to pin the blame in you...typical, the difference i see between the 2.0 and 2.3 is the 2.0 has red taillight background while the 2.3 has a black one with a chrome ring around the brake lights, the 2.3 comes with fog lights while the 2.0 does not (i think the headlights alone are not enough) the 2.0 and 2.3 have a different plastic layout in the engine bay, the 2.3 is faster (duh), the gauges are in the same position but the background is different between them, also the lighting in the guages are different, im drawing a blank on the console layout cuz i just had some blue wave, both come with audio controls in the steering wheel, dont know how different they handle....the 2.3 comes with its own 2.3 badge on the sides, thats all i can think of now.

 

Wouldn't you be able to tell by comparing the old engine to the new one? If it looks the same, and feels the same, I have a feeling it's the same.

I bet the 2.3 has a lot more torque down low... (2.3 is just an overstroked 2.0? Maybe not... I know they are different engines) And it would be something you could feel in your pants.

 

exterior wise, the engine's appear very similar...as far as I know the only mechanical difference on the 2 engines is the stroke, and I believe the 2.0L has no variable timing system.....as previously stated though, you would feel the difference in your rear-end after stepping on the gas....even thought the hp difference is only 10, the car would be NOTICEABLY slower if the gave you a 2.0L...also the ecu would not operate it properly..so unless they did a ecu and harness swap too, you got the correct engine

 

My girlfriend has a 2004 3 with the 2.0, and I have a 2006 with the 2.3.

Power aside, the most notible difference is NVH. The 2 is thrashier toward redline, noticably buzzier being revved. In fact, it sounds rather too much like my Grandmother's 1991 Ford Tempo.

The 2.3 is much more refined, and for a 4, not too bad sounding...

 

*****, thats the only difference