Comparison: 2.3L Ecoboost vs the Legendary 271HP 289

[VAtruck]

Having cut my teeth on 60's muscle cars, I always assumed the Bronco's horsepower and torque were advertising fluff the engine produced at ridiculously high rpms. The 2.3L is rated at 300hp/325 foot pound torque- pretty close to the 271 HiPer 289 of Mustang fame (Shelby boosted that to 306). Curiosity got the best of me, so I downloaded the curves and scaled them for comparison. The 289 is on the top. I'm still in shock; you can just about lay them on top of each other:

Sponsored

 

[FourHorses]

It’s the little engine that could.

 

[Brian_B]

Folks here love to dog on the 2.3 - but I think that’s really just to justify the fact that they spent more on twin turbos that gives them 8 more horsepower.

I don’t have a 2.7 or much experience in one, but I do have a Coyote F150. The Coyote does have more in the low end, no denying that - but the 2.3 revs lightning quick and in the 3-4K rpm band is every bit as fierce

 

[Tricky Mike]

Folks here love to dog on the 2.3 - but I think that’s really just to justify the fact that they spent more on twin turbos that gives them 8 more horsepower.

I don’t have a 2.7 or much experience in one, but I do have a Coyote F150. The Coyote does have more in the low end, no denying that - but the 2.3 revs lightning quick and in the 3-4K rpm band is every bit as fierce

But muh 100 lb/ft...

Isn't that 289 rated under the old system? So head to head in the real world the 2.3 probably crushes it.

 

[CalvinT]

Back in the 1960 engines were usually rated for gross horsepower. The engine was tested on a test stand with no accessories, no exhaust system, optomized intake, timing, etc. The engines were tested under ideal conditions. Horsepower as installed in a vehicle was about 20-25% less.

Today engines are rated for net horsepower meaning all accessories attached with factory intake and exhaust systems.

There were some exceptions such as the 1968 Ford 428 Cobra Jet Mustang which was advertised at 335 HP to give it a better class for drag racing. It was closer to 410 by the rating methods of the time. The factory team made a shambles of the Super Stock class NHRA Winternationals that year. Stock, one could do 13.4 seconds in the quarter at 108 mph. The factory cars could do 11.5 at 120 mph.

 

[SHANUT]

Folks here love to dog on the 2.3 - but I think that’s really just to justify the fact that they spent more on twin turbos that gives them 8 more horsepower.

I don’t have a 2.7 or much experience in one, but I do have a Coyote F150. The Coyote does have more in the low end, no denying that - but the 2.3 revs lightning quick and in the 3-4K rpm band is every bit as fierce

We have F150s with all of the engines. They are all great engines. The 2.7 is the quickest of the three and the 3.5 is a towing monster, and the coyote sounds fantastic. However, either eco-boost blows away the coyote in every performance category, especially when towing. I’m never surprised by an eco-boost. We also have a couple of explorers and they are great drivers. Our 2021 XLT with a 2.3 feels just as quick as our 2025 platinum with a 3.0 for daily driving purposes. However, the 3.0 blows it away at full throttle.

With all that being said, even though the 2.7 out performs the 5.0, I would still get the coyote for the fantastic engine sound.

 

[Ducati1098]

Back in the 1960 engines were usually rated for gross horsepower. The engine was tested on a test stand with no accessories, no exhaust system, optomized intake, timing, etc. The engines were tested under ideal conditions. Horsepower as installed in a vehicle was about 20-25% less.

Today engines are rated for net horsepower meaning all accessories attached with factory intake and exhaust systems.

There were some exceptions such as the 1968 Ford 428 Cobra Jet Mustang which was advertised at 335 HP to give it a better class for drag racing. It was closer to 410 by the rating methods of the time. The factory team made a shambles of the Super Stock class NHRA Winternationals that year. Stock, one could do 13.4 seconds in the quarter at 108 mph. The factory cars could do 11.5 at 120 mph.

Factory hp/tq numbers are still rated at the engine today, not the wheels.

 

[indio22]

If the 2.7L had been offered with the manual trans, I probably would have got it, if the extra cost were not too high. But having said that, with two years of 2.3L ownership under the belt, I don't much dip far into the turbo. So 2.7L for my driving style would have been a waste of money. For more of a lead foot driver, towing a lot (or maybe high altitude?) the 2.7L could have more value.

 

[Q1svt]

The factory team made a shambles of the Super Stock class NHRA Winternationals that year. Stock, one could do 13.4 seconds in the quarter at 108 mph. The factory cars could do 11.5 at 120 mph.

lol. A motor designed by a Ford Dealership….

 

[Q1svt]

Factory hp/tq numbers are still rated at the engine today, not the wheels.

Ducati1098, do you know or could figure out the new 2.3l Rod Ratio? 289 was 1.79 and why she was fun at higher RPMs

 

[Ducati1098]

Ducati1098, do you know or could figure out the new 2.3l Rod Ratio? 289 was 1.79 and why she was fun at higher RPMs

Center to center rod length is 6.0709 in.
Stroke is 4.0157 in
So roughly 1.51

 

[Q1svt]

Folks here love to dog on the 2.3

The same as G2 bronco owners w/351 did to G1 owners 289/6 motors…. BUT on trails G1 go everywhere the G2 was stuck up to their axles…. Why because the G2’s &G6 are FAT / Heavy

 

[Q1svt]

Center to center rod length is 6.0709 in.
Stroke is 4.0157 in
So roughly 1.51

Thks… One reason she grunts down low

cons are not a con if that’s not what you want. Lol

 

[ATLien]

Having cut my teeth on 60's muscle cars, I always assumed the Bronco's horsepower and torque were advertising fluff the engine produced at ridiculously high rpms. The 2.3L is rated at 300hp/325 foot pound torque- pretty close to the 271 HiPer 289 of Mustang fame (Shelby boosted that to 306). Curiosity got the best of me, so I downloaded the curves and scaled them for comparison. The 289 is on the top. I'm still in shock; you can just about lay them on top of each other:

I had a 289 Mustang as my first car. Great motor. Loved that car.

Not too surprising that the 289 is outpowered by a modern 4 banger though. The 60's muscle & Pony cars were great performers for their times. They continued to compare favorably with other eras for decades too, but contemporary cars/engines started to catch up as early as the 1980s. The trend continued and today a well optioned Honda Accord could keep up with most of stock muscle cars from the 60's.

As others have mentioned, the way hp is measured DID change too. The same HiPo, 271hp 289, from 1965 would be rated quite a bit lower today.

Ever looked up the 0-60 times on your favorite muscle cars from the 60's? Most were in the 6-7 sec range with only a few of the very fastest getting into the 5's.

Still, I'd be happy to snatch up a deal on a 289 Mustang.

 

[zuke]

Not too surprising that the 289 is outpowered by a modern 4 banger though. The 60's muscle & Pony cars were great performers for their times. They continued to compare favorably with other eras for decades too, but contemporary cars/engines started to catch up as early as the 1980s. The trend continued and today a well optioned Honda Accord could keep up with most of stock muscle cars from the 60's.

Let's not forget how fat cars have gotten too though...

A 1968 Mustang with a 289 weighed right around 2800~2900lb... A current GT is about 3,800 lbs.

That's a lot more weight to haul around!

Sponsored