2.3 vs 2.7 compromise

[BroncMe]

Sponsored

 

[Brianstrange]

Not sure what he's towing weight wise, what you list above is massively over what Bronco's chassis could handle. So, again, apples to oranges. Bronco does not need the 2.7 to tow it's meager 3,500 max load.

My '19 Ranger (Scab, 4x4) has hauled a 5K# trailer with 1,500# in the bed with >350 lbs of human plus more gear across the rockies without issue.

I've done the same trip with the same gear in a F350 Super Duty Dually and, yes, the F350 absolutely did it "faster" and without the driver to have any comprehension or understanding what they are doing.

However, the Ranger did just fine and there's no reason to go larger than Ranger for this annual trek (F350 was rented for the '18 pilgrimage before we took delivery of Ranger in '19).

The ability to look further than 50' ahead and understand weight in motion should be basic minimum skills whenever you've got a load capable of crushing everyone in your vehicle, plus others, to death.

3500 lb Jay Feather, weekend gear and food. It’s not about the chassis as much as it is the power.

 

[BroncoJay]

Why would anyone choose the 2.3L engine? Just get a Polaris. You can easily tow it behind your F-150.

That was brilliantly stupid comment....
But thanks for playin’

 

[BroncoJay]

I ordered the BL with the 2.7, just because I wanted the bigger motor for the long haul but the 2.3 is no slouch...

The people mocking it are misinformed or just plain ignorant..

Hell the 2.3 puts out more HP than my V6 Tacoma..

 

[ilbastarge]

Genuinely curious for anyone who has a vehicle that has different power outputs based on octane ratings; can you actually tell the difference?

Absolutely could on an N/A 390 with a mild cam.

 

[TransporterG]

I ordered the BL with the 2.7, just because I wanted the bigger motor for the long haul but the 2.3 is no slouch...

The people mocking it are misinformed or just plain ignorant..

Hell the 2.3 puts out more HP than my V6 Tacoma..

Hahaha. Cognitive dissonance! I've been there. You can always change your order, no issue.

 

[jjack50]

yet they changed the designed tough guy.

They added port injection because there are efficiency advantages to having port injection at some power/rev ranges and some for direct injection at other power/rev ranges. With both you cover all bases.

 

[BroncoJay]

Hahaha. Cognitive dissonance! I've been there. You can always change your order, no issue.

Huh?
Apparently you don’t read so well eh?
I ordered my rig with the 2.7, but I think the 2.3 is a good engine...

Once again thanks for playin’- next.

 

[Raptor911]

They added port injection because there are efficiency advantages to having port injection at some power/rev ranges and some for direct injection at other power/rev ranges. With both you cover all bases.

 

[69 Mach I]

Nobody ever says "man, I wish my car had less power". If someone is in a position to not compromise then don't settle for anything.

Well said

 

[Werkedperformance]

I love you. Great video. I got some new bits in there.

 

[Hoofnmouth]

So I've been giving the 2.3L vs 2.7L engine a lot of thought and I think that I may have come up with a way in which the 2.7 may wind up actually being cheaper, and yes, this is me totally trying to justify the bigger engine to myself. Let's say, just for the sake of simplicity that I'm going to drive the Bronco for 100k miles. Also for the sake of simplicity, let's say that the truck is going to be SAS, so the comparable MPGs would be 18 (2.3) vs 17 (2.7).

Yes, I know I could run regular in either of them, but just for these purposes let's say that I want some degree of extra power beyond what the 2.3 gets on regular. If I went ahead and ran premium on the 2.3 in order to get the full specs vs regular on the 2.7 where I'd still get 315 hp/410 torque which is plenty. In my area right now, regular is $2.99 and premium is $3.94. So here's how that lands over 100k miles (obviously gas prices will vary here, but again just for simplicity's sake).

Cost to drive 2.3 SAS 100k miles with premium fuel at $3.94/gal and 18 MPG = $21,889.
Cost to drive 2.7 SAS 100k miles with regular fuel at $2.99/gal and 17 MPG = $17,588
Delta between the 2 = $4,301
Cost to add 2.7 to build = $1,895
Long term savings = $2,406

Thanks for patronizing me on my quest to justify my decisions to myself.

No way those 2 turbos are goin to last 100,000 miles .

 

[Wide Open Roads]

This argument goes well past potato shaped when you're comparing engines with a total difference of LESS THAN 25 cubic inches. (2.3 ltr = 140 cubic inches. 2.7 ltr = 164 cubic inches)

The 7.2 ltr FE in my Thunderbird displaces 439 cubic inches. The 2.3 in Ranger will thoroughly destroy it all over town, especially on the race to a gas station.

The 235 cubic inch (3.8 ltr) in my '51 Fleetline topped 100 hp when new. (Single barrel carb FTMFW!)

Viable replacements for displacement here in 2021:

1. tuning
2. forced induction
3. direct injection
4. strong tailwind
5. better arguments than "there's no replacement for displacement"
6. Bronco with 2.3 comes with a manual transmission, this should end all arguments
7. fuel injection
8. proper gearing
9. Ditching anything with a torque converter

Every time I hear someone say “there’s no replacement for displacement” I reply with “technology”

 

[mpeugeot]

yet they changed the designed tough guy.

Yes, because if they are always idling and pulling a vacuum, guess where all that bypassed oil vapor ends up collecting, smart guy.

 

[mpeugeot]

No way those 2 turbos are goin to last 100,000 miles .

When I get back to my place tomorrow or Sunday, I will show you what Turbo manifolds and cartridges with 225k look like. I think that you will be shocked. I replaced my manifolds when I developed a slight exhaust leak after 225k miles and since I was going all the way in there I decided to order a pair of new cartridges as preventative maintenance (because I thought they would be trashed too), but I was incredibly surprised and wrong. They looked amazing.

Sponsored