Why I switched to the 2.3L over the 2.7L...

[ColbyFromBama]

I don’t want to downplay people’s concerns but I would bet there is not another vehicle on this entire planet that has been scrutinized like this. What percent of people consider the torque rating in their transmission before purchasing?? We’re just looking for stuff to be outraged about at this point.

First off, nobody is outraged or complaining (besides you). This thread logically explains why I chose the 2.3L over the 2.7L. This is due to the torque rating of the 10R60. Yes, most car people research the transmission before purchasing. You don’t?

The transmission is called 10R60 because it’s rated at 600 Nm. 600 Nm translates to 443 pound-feet of torque, which is very close to the 415 pound-feet (563 Nm) of the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6. If you can’t see the problem with having a transmission with a torque limit so close to what the stock engine produces, then I can’t help you.

Sponsored

 

[Wanted33]

And what does this article have to do with not handling the power? It's all about the programming and shifting flaws that both the 60 & 80 have. I own the 10r80 in an F150 and let me tell you it's no shifting prize. Clunky, hangs shifts, surges and bucks, harsh shifts.

We have the first year 10 speed in my wife's Mustang, and you hit the nail on the head. Even after a re-flash (made it better) the tranny isn't near what it should. The slow changes, the torque converter slipping when locking up is crazy. Even in "sport" mode it gets just pain stupid sometimes. The 10 speed is the reason I bought an extended warranty on that car. With that said the 10 speed in my '20 Ranger is great. Smooth shifts getting up to speed, and crisp downshifts when needed, it just does the job as it should. Hopefully Ford has gotten all the ignorance out of these transmissions by now, and the Bronco will be good to go.

BTW Jay, the re-flash of the wife's transmission took the clunks, surges, and harsh shifts out of the tranny. That may be something to consider with yours if you want. It can't hurt, that's for sure.

 

[ColbyFromBama]

On the Ranger 2.3 ford tune they claim 60ft/lbs so ya would put it pretty damn close to the 2.7.

Correct, and that’s why the Ford Ranger gets the 10R80 transmission, not the 10R60 like the Bronco.

 

[MaverickMan]

Nobody said it’s going to explode immediately. We are saying that the 2.7 will wear out the 10R60 transmission way faster than the 2.3 will. That’s all.

Ford isn't going to put a transmission in the Bronco that you are going to explode off road. They've done proper durability testing. There's a reason why 10R60 was okayed for 2.7TT and the 7-speed manual was not.

My implication was that it will heat up and wear out at an ever accelerating rate... eventually as all autos do. Its just the nature of it. Also it wasnt the 7 speeds being okayed for the power obviously since the gear box is scaleable to 800Nm, its that the 2 engines have different bellhousing patterns and the added development cost for the take rate wasnt sensible for a first model year of a new transmission on a new vehicle. I personally thing getrag has plans to get one of these 7 speeds behind the 6.8 baby godzilla in a HD F150 of some sort. I know id love a regular cab long bed rubber floored 7spd 6.8na V8 4x4 F150 high boy. Maybe some bilsteins, and eventually a rear seat in the bed and a removable cap? FSB anyone? The availability of a FSB would give me the justifiability of a 2 door 2.3 basesquatch, MT of course.

 

[jay-rod427]

Correct, and that’s why the Ford Ranger gets the 10R80 transmission, not the 10R60 like the Bronco.

So what does that have to do with tuning the 2.3 in the bronco for more power and torque like you said you would?... I simply referenced the Ranger tune for the same engine and likely increases. You think Ford Performance will make the 2.3 tune in the bronco have less increases so they don't blow the "weak" transmission?

 

[jsharpe]

So if all the 21 MY builds have transmission issues maybe they will make a change for my MY 22.

Got to find some reason for waiting so long to get mine.

 

[Bronco21fan]

The 2.7 is an extremely powerful engine. The twin turbos really add an incredible amount of torque. Unfortunately, I think the 2.7 has too much torque for the 10R60 transmission the Bronco is getting. In fact, the 10R60 transmission only has a torque rating slightly above what the stock 2.7 puts out. Which means if you get the 2.7, you’ll have a lot of wear and tear on your Bronco transmission, especially if you add a tune.

I’m more worried about the longevity of my Bronco, than immediate power. And I don’t feel like upgrading my transmission. So I’m sticking with the 2.3L. And I’ll add a tune later. I’ve driven both engines, and you can barely tell the difference unless you’re on a steep hill.

If Ford offered the 10R80 transmission in the Bronco, I’d without a doubt upgrade to the 2.7. Even the Ranger comes standard with the 10R80, that allows for more torque than the Bronco.

 

[jay-rod427]

We have the first year 10 speed in my wife's Mustang, and you hit the nail on the head. Even after a re-flash (made it better) the tranny isn't near what it should. The slow changes, the torque converter slipping when locking up is crazy. Even in "sport" mode it gets just pain stupid sometimes. The 10 speed is the reason I bought an extended warranty on that car. With that said the 10 speed in my '20 Ranger is great. Smooth shifts getting up to speed, and crisp downshifts when needed, it just does the job as it should. Hopefully Ford has gotten all the ignorance out of these transmissions by now, and the Bronco will be good to go.

BTW Jay, the re-flash of the wife's transmission took the clunks, surges, and harsh shifts out of the tranny. That may be something to consider with yours if you want. It can't hurt, that's for sure.

Ya buddy it's been in and re-flashed a couple times... They've also re-flashed and cleared the trans adapt for a "surging" that feels like a vibration when towing. I've owned a lot of Fords, but this current F150 has me less than impressed.

 

[ColbyFromBama]

So what does that have to do with tuning the 2.3 in the bronco for more power and torque like you said you would?... I simply referenced the Ranger tune for the same engine and likely increases. You think Ford Performance will make the 2.3 tune in the bronco have less increases so they don't blow the "weak" transmission?

No matter which tune I get on the 2.3, it’s going to stay under 375lbs torque. That’s the point.

 

[jay-rod427]

No matter which tune I get on the 2.3, it’s going to stay under 375lbs torque. That’s the point.

375 or 400 miniscule difference 7% difference isn't really relevant.

A devils advocate to this silly argument. The lesser powered stock 2.3 will downshift more often over it's life, and therefore more wear and tear and heat. IJS.

 

[Wanted33]

Ya buddy it's been in and re-flashed a couple times... They've also re-flashed and cleared the trans adapt for a "surging" that feels like a vibration when towing. I've owned a lot of Fords, but this current F150 has me less than impressed.

Oh man, that's not good. I do understand how something like that can sour a person on a vehicle. Since the Mustang is her car, and she's fine with the transmission, I'm good also. I don't drive it much, and when I do I just don't think about the stupid way it works.

 

[john houseman]

First off, nobody is outraged or complaining (besides you). This thread logically explains why I chose the 2.3L over the 2.7L. This is due to the torque rating of the 10R60. Yes, most car people research the transmission before purchasing. You don’t?

You’re obviously having trouble understanding the logic, so I’ll simplify it for you...

The transmission is called 10R60 because it’s rated at 600 Nm. 600 Nm translates to 443 pound-feet of torque, which is very close to the 415 pound-feet (563 Nm) of the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6. If you can’t see the problem with having a transmission with a torque limit so close to what the stock engine produces, then I can’t help you.

My 2013 F-150 is rated to tow 9,000 lbs. I have towed in excess of 12,000 quite a few times. No engine, transmission, or suspension problems. They intentionally make these ratings at a comfortable number, and OEM regularly under rate true performance of their equipment.....

 

[ColbyFromBama]

375 or 400 miniscule difference 7% difference isn't really relevant.

A devils advocate to this silly argument. The lesser powered stock 2.3 will downshift more often over it's life, and therefore more wear and tear and heat. IJS.

That’s a possibility too. I guess we’ll just have to see! Hopefully, we’ll all have nice warranties, so this won’t even be an issue.

 

[jay-rod427]

My 2013 F-150 is rated to tow 9,000 lbs. I have towed in excess of 12,000 quite a few times. No engine, transmission, or suspension problems. They intentionally make these ratings at a comfortable number, and OEM regularly under rate true performance of their equipment.....

Couple weekends ago I was towing about 10K in my f150. It's "rated" for 12,500 or something like that. Pulled onto the highway and told my buddy let's see if something blows up.

0-85mph, slight uphill, into the wind, 10K behind, decent bit of cargo in the truck. 100% WOT the whole time. She politely asked me please sir gimme some more. LOL.

 

[Nickp]

First off, nobody is outraged or complaining (besides you). This thread logically explains why I chose the 2.3L over the 2.7L. This is due to the torque rating of the 10R60. Yes, most car people research the transmission before purchasing. You don’t?

You’re obviously having trouble understanding the logic, so I’ll simplify it for you...

The transmission is called 10R60 because it’s rated at 600 Nm. 600 Nm translates to 443 pound-feet of torque, which is very close to the 415 pound-feet (563 Nm) of the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6. If you can’t see the problem with having a transmission with a torque limit so close to what the stock engine produces, then I can’t help you.

Let’s compare the 10R60 with 2.7 to the *Gold standard* in this segment, the 392 Wrangler with the 8HP75. We’re going to use percentages because IMO that is a more accurate way to go about things.

470 Torque in the Wrangler with a transmission that has a torque rating of 553 Ft-Lbs puts the wrangler at 85% capacity.

415 Torque in the Bronco with a transmission that has a torque rating of 443 Ft-LBS puts it at 94% capacity.

Does that seem high? Sure. But when you realize that:

1. The 392 has WAY more horsepower which also puts a ton of strain on the transmission. The 392 has less favorable differential gearing which puts more strain on the driveline. And the 392 is designed to be launched on the street repeatedly which is about as hard as it gets for an off road vehicle.

2. The 10R60 is in use in the Explorer ST which has the EXACT same torque as the 2.7 Bronco, but also higher horsepower, tows more, is heavier, and also has less favorable differential gearing. Like the 392, the engineers have designed the ST to to withstand repeated 0-60 launches on the street which is about the toughest thing you can do to a transmission other than tow.

The transmission in the Bronco is living a pretty easy life unless you’re just beating the absolute piss out of it.

If I was this worried about transmission problems I’d get a cooler and be done with it. Heat is what really kills em, and that really doesn’t have much to do with the torque output but more how it’s used. If you’re constantly maxed out towing with your Bronco through hills in the summer, yeah maybe I’d be a bit concerned. But for 99% of use cases the 10r60 will be just fine.

Sponsored