Is the 2.3 going to be the reliable offroad engine vs the 2.7?

[Bronco cat]

I own a 2021 f-150 4wd with the 2.7. Had a 2019 with the same set up. Great engine, good power and 0 issues. The ten speed has its quirks but overall no major problems with it either. With that said I order my bronco with the 2.3. I think people miss the point, when I first got into cars 300hp and 300 pound-feet was considered amazing. Now we are acting like that number is is wildly insufficient. Either motor will get this bad boy where it needs to go. I think non sas models will benefit from the 2.3 from a fuel mileage perspective and come on let’s be honest. Less than 50hp difference and 100 pound-feet of torque. This really doesn’t move the needle in my book

Sponsored

 

[mpeugeot]

On a related note, my wife's car has the Ford NA 3.5 and the water pump is behind the timing chain. When that goes it will virtually total the car, because repairs will meet or exceed it's value... this 3.5 is next in line to ruin my day. Hence inlines from here on.

I hear you... The only problem is that even though the 2011 F-150 I have has over 230k miles on it, there is actually very little wrong with it, cosmetically it looks good, has the heavy duty payload package (3k lbs payload and 11k towing capacity), and has a $3000 Tommylift installed on it.

So what are the chances of replacing that Truck in today's market with anything even remotely close to that capability without dropping a ton of cash (and potentially someone else's nightmare)? At $4k to replace the timing chain, it's a tough call. Alternatively, what's the value of selling a 2011 F-150 that needs $4k in repairs... right?

I am hoping that I get my Bronco, then I can just do it myself and save about $3k. I'm willing to do the labor provided I have another vehicle... Otherwise, I might have to put ol'yeller down.

 

[wbrainbow]

The only concern for longevity from either would be turbo replacements (if its even an issue) and the 2.3 WILL have carbon buildup in the intake system like every other direct injection engine ever made that didn't get port injection as well.

I’ll be installing a catch can right after delivery to eliminate all the crap building up on the intake valves.

 

[OX1]

The 2.7 EcoBoost is turbocharged, of course, with twin turbos attached to exhaust manifolds cast into its aluminum cylinder heads. Its architecture is different from Ford’s current line of 3.5-3.7 V6s, with square bore-stroke dimensions of 83 mm. The engine block--or at least its upper portion around the cylinder bores--is cast from compacted graphite iron (CGI).



Ford says the 2.7 EcoBoost is the first gasoline-fueled serial production engine with a CGI block. We can’t swear by that, but until now we’ve encountered CGI only in diesel or race engines. Compared to conventional cast iron, CGI provides substantially better tensile strength, 45 percent greater stiffness and twice the fatigue strength. It has more dimensional stability and better NVH damping qualities than aluminum, and while it’s heavier than aluminum, it’s much denser. CGI allows thinner castings and more compact dimensions, and it requires no bore liners. The 2.7’s main bearing caps are cast with the CGI block, then scored with a laser at specific angles and snapped off.



Then there’s the unusual design of the 2.7’s two-piece block. The CGI casting basically follows the angle of the cylinders down to the crank journals and caps. The skirt and lower crankcase is aluminum--trimming weight where strength is less an issue--and bolts to flanges on the CGI upper. Ford calls the aluminum section a ladder frame, because it connects the main-bearing caps in one continuous structure. Two bolts in the four-bolt mains attach the caps to the CGI portion. The other two go through the aluminum ladder and caps to the CGI block.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a1907731/ford-27-liter-ecoboost-v6-deep-dive/

 

[Mattwings]

So with the issues arising early from some members with the engine seizing and codes and such, do any of you all think we are going to find out that the 2.3 will be the more reliable engine for the more abusive Bronco owners?
The 2.3 has been around towing and hauling in the Ranger, as has the 2.7 in the F150. But the 2.7 is a smaller component motor given its cylinder count. We also have the MT to think about. It will most likely live longer with the offroaders than the 10spd, especially since C gear should save the clutch from the less skill full of us. I wish I could get the 2.7 but am going to be manual only so its a no go.

Anyone have thoughts on the future of these motors? Say 100,000 miles and many mud pits and trail rides later?

Almost identical longevity and reliability. One or two reports on a hyper forced enthusiast Fords forum has little to do with actual performance or experience. I have had and have both in my current family stable.

 

[cowman]

I’ll be installing a catch can right after delivery to eliminate all the crap building up on the intake valves.

Early 1st gen 2.7 EcoBoost 2015 2017 engines run into some problems with carbon deposits and oil pan leaks. Ford was quick to fix both issues as they updated the oil pan and added port injection on later engines. Otherwise, ignition parts were the only other thing we could even think to write about. They’re not true issues but do highlight an important fact – turbo engines can be a little more demanding on maintenance

 

[Tricky Dick]

I’ll be installing a catch can right after delivery to eliminate all the crap building up on the intake valves.

Also consider an aftermarket PCV baffle. Radium has one I'm looking at for $99.

Btw Radium also has a kit to add port injection to Focus and Mustang 2.3s, no Ranger or Bronco support yet.

 

[OX1]

I own a 2021 f-150 4wd with the 2.7. Had a 2019 with the same set up. Great engine, good power and 0 issues. The ten speed has its quirks but overall no major problems with it either. With that said I order my bronco with the 2.3. I think people miss the point, when I first got into cars 300hp and 300 pound-feet was considered amazing. Now we are acting like that number is is wildly insufficient. Either motor will get this bad boy where it needs to go. I think non sas models will benefit from the 2.3 from a fuel mileage perspective and come on let’s be honest. Less than 50hp difference and 100 pound-feet of torque. This really doesn’t move the needle in my book

When you first got into cars then, a 35" tire was a huge upgrade, now it is stock.

 

[flatlander40]

Wonder if Post COVID engines in general will be slightly less reliable for a little while for all the same reasons everybody else in manufacturing is struggling

 

[rdass623]

If you've had previous 2.3 experience you'll know how easy a turbo job is on them to. Great access.


On a related note, my wife's car has the Ford NA 3.5 and the water pump is behind the timing chain. When that goes it will virtually total the car, because repairs will meet or exceed it's value. I'm pretty sour on Ford's OHC V engines because of the timing chains. The 4.0L SOHC and the 4.6L 3V have both been nightmares for me and this 3.5 is next in line to ruin my day. Hence inlines from here on.

my pervious experience with the 2.3L ford turbo was in a 1980 mustang gt turbo... is seriously doubt there will be many similarities. i hear the new one has fuel injection versus a motorcraft 2v carburetor. but i think i will be able to figure this one out...

 

[1st4rd]

The only Broncos with problems right now have the 2.7L engine. Coincidence?

Shhhh!!!! Don’t say that out loud!!

 

[RedHotFuzz]

I'm still wishing we'd get a good-old-fashioned V8 in the Bronco. People love to explain that smaller-displacement turbo engines give you better power efficiency and better performance at altitude. Then I see the test results showing the Bronco doing worse in both regards than the 5.7 HEMI in my Durango and I wonder what exactly the payoff is to these uber-complex dual-turbo engines that look like a bowl of spaghetti under the hood and will certainly give the owner some expensive repairs down the road.

 

[indio22]

My vehicle history. No issues with manual transmissions vs three auto transmissions needing repair (two of them Fords). So, I'm going manual on Bronco, which requires 2.3L. (Bronco is heavy - so I'd go V6 if I could.)

Auto transmissions these days are "sealed for life". What is "life"? To make it through warranty phase? For people who hang onto vehicles like grim death, what does the long term future hold for these complicated and very expensive to fix auto transmissions?

On the flip side, the Bronco manual trans is new, we have no service history to go on. Maybe I'll be crying 8 years from now with manual trans issues, lol. Roll the dice!

 

[Tricky Dick]

Auto transmissions these days are "sealed for life". What is "life"?

The 10R is too? Ugh I didn't think they could repeat the mistake of the 6R. Although I was looking at the 6R in our Explorer just yesterday and saw a place where the dipstick would go and it was capped, it seems like you could add one.

 

[NotApplicable]

The 10R is too? Ugh I didn't think they could repeat the mistake of the 6R. Although I was looking at the 6R in our Explorer just yesterday and saw a place where the dipstick would go and it was capped, it seems like you could add one.

The manual says to change the automatic transmission fluid at 150k miles

Sponsored