- First Name
- Jim
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2018
- Threads
- 20
- Messages
- 4,050
- Reaction score
- 9,240
- Location
- Down south in Dixie
- Vehicle(s)
- 2018 Mustang GT, 2019 Wrangler, 2020 Ranger
- Your Bronco Model
- Outer Banks
- Thread starter
- #91
That's good perspective Craig. Reading all of the helpful info in this thread has me thinking I'll be fine with the 2.3L. I have one in my Ranger, but had in my mind the increased weight of the Bronco would change the performance of the engine. One of the things that had me in the quandary was the 2011 F-150 SuperCrew with the 3.7L NA that I owned for 2 years. The engine was awful for that size truck, and the mpg's never got close to advertised. Enter the 2013 F-150 SCREW with the 5.0L that performed much better, and actually got better mpg's. With help from the answers here I now know that I was comparing apples to oranges dealing with these ecoboost engines. Owning a Jeep JL I did go over to the Jeep forum as suggested, and perused the 2.0L post. I found the owners of those are extremely happy with that engine which has nearly the same specs of the 2.3L, and moving a heavier vehicle around. My Bronco will never tow, or rock crawl. Light off road trails, road trips, and some daily driving is what it will be used for mostly. And, as stated by others if I feel the need for more power/torque there's always the Ford Performance tune just waiting for me at the dealer. Lord knows I hope I don't start overthinking this thing again. I surely would like to settle in on the build of my Bronco, and just give the info to Granger when they call.Like the OP I have the same question 2.3 vs 2.7 and read all posts here and in other threads:
Below is a simple list of reasons for one over the other if I summarized what I read correctly - I am not a tech when it comes to motors, in my youth I swapped V8 motors out and have done clutch jobs etc...when things were simpler. Never been involved with tunes or turbos.
The 2.7 for the money seems like a no brainer if you have the money. That being said, the 2.3 may be the better choice if the 2.7 capabilities are never to be really utilized.
I think the OP is looking at this issue with the following mindset for the sake of this exercise.
Money is not an issue and not concerned about 2.7 increased HP for general motoring.
OP is more interested in if the 2.3 is the better choice than than the 2.7 when performance vs $$ is doped out.
2.3 & 2.7 Pro & Con list as I read it
2.7 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.7 more stock HP & torque is better
Pro No direct injection issues
Pro 2.7 tried & true in the F150
Pro 2.7 block is made out of better alloy
Pro 2.7 "thought" to more likely to have better longevity - no proof
Pro 2.7 with 10spd auto tranny is good match
Pro 2.7 more HP is always better - better to have it in case you need it
Con 1895. more $
Con takes up more room in the bay and harder to work on
Con 2 turbo's to care for and more complicated = more possible problems
Con 1-2 MPG less
2.3 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.3 1895. less expensive
Pro 2.3 is only choice for standard transmission
Pro 2.3 has enough horsepower
Pro 2.3 can get tuned for additional HP simply & cheaply
Pro 2.3 gets better MPG (not sure if true when a tune is done)
Pro 2.3 plenty of power - can haul 7500 trailer & 1000lb payload in Ranger no problem
Pro 2.3 offer more engine bay room for mods
Con 2.3 has a less attractive torque curve
Con 2.3 with tune requires 93 octane - cost = price of 2.7 upgrade in 10+- years
Con 2.3 has DI causing valve build up issue (problem eliminated with catch can - cost = ?)
Con 2.3 "thought is" the longevity will be less than 2.7 - no proof
You never can take the element chance out of the equation so there are unknowns that may pop up over the life of both. I say go with your gut!
Sponsored