Debating on 2.3 vs 2.7 engine?

[Karl_in_Chicago]

There's no replacement for displacement.

So you are saying both engine options are a massive fail?

Sponsored

 

[Brian_B]

If you throw the Performance Tune at the 2.3, you are very nearly at what the stock 2.7 hp/tq are in the first place, at a few hundred pounds less curb weight.

That said - I've driven both, there isn't that much difference between the two just driving around, apart from one sounds like a sewing machine and the other sounds like a car engine. (Although all the 2024's now have ESE so even that has changed)

I got the 2.3 because I wanted a manual and that's all there is. I admit if I had my pick, I would have chose the 2.7, but I will say I don't regret ~only~ having the 2.3 - it's a fun little engine, especially with the tune.

 

[MNBigfoot]

Unpopular opinion grounded in engineering:

If you are not doing any real off-roading: Skip sasquatch. Go with the 2.3. You are buying thousands of dollars of off-roading equipment you don't need and will likely never use. Order the locking rear differential to get 4.27 gears. Ditch the stock tires and put a set of 285/70 17's on it (33"). Maybe even throw a 1" lift (e.g., Bilstein 5100's) and you will be at sasquatch ride height. You will save thousands, still have awesome off-road potential, and have better automotive performance (acceleration, braking and mileage.)

You are losing the advanced transfer case but run winter tires in the winter and you won't miss it.

This is good advice now, since they removed the Base Sasquatch. In the first couple years, you could pick up the Base Sas for cheaper than the BD with the weaker components, cheap shocks and worse gearing. I'm not one for adding trinkets like spending $800 on different headlights or mudflaps, however for how reasonable the upgraded engine was priced it was a no-brainer, special considering how many guys who bought the 4 bangers then added the performance kit (which forces them into premium gas).

 

[MayhemMike]

Drove both and came away with ordering the 2.3. Plenty of power plus you save almost $2K and get a steel oil pan and a real oil plug. Just my two cents. You will enjoy whichever you select.

 

[RHeinz]

The oil filter on the 2.7L is the easiest to access of any car I have ever owned.

No doubt a design flaw….

 

[HighVelocity]

Plenty of power plus you save almost $2K

Over $4k in savings when ordered with the proper transmission!

It just came down to the fact that I hate V6's and wanted a manual tranny, so the 2.3 was the obvious choice, given that no I6 or V8 is offered.

 

[Bronco Lane]

There's no replacement for displacement.

That used to be true until turbos started being used

 

[brkdncr]

Isn’t the 2.3l direct injection only? If so, at some point it will need a valve job way before the port+direct injection 2.7. Especially if the turbo starts to release oil into the intake like every turbo ever does.

 

[JDHRNC]

I had a 22 Everglades, and I’ve had a few Wildtraks. Both engines are great but I do find the 2.3 a little wheezy (even after the Ford Performance tune), I currently run a Wildtrak (that also has the Ford Performance tune) and am much happier with the V6. The only reason I would buy a 2.3 is to get a manual. For a 4 cylinder that 2.3 is a great engine, I find power delivery to be smoother with the twin turbo setup on the 2.7. Just my 2 cents.

 

[BigBendBW]

Ordered my Outer Banks last month with an estimated build date of 4/30/24. Original order was with 2.3l engine but now having second thoughts for the 2.7 engine. I ordered the Sasquatch package and hard top as well, which I definitely want. Called the dealer today 4/8, they can't change my order and here are my options:
1. Stick with what I have, less peppier engine but should receive in 2 months
2. Get the 2.7 engine but new order starts and won't get for another 4 months (miss the summer when I need it for my family)
3. Dealer does have an Outer Banks in stock with the 2.7 engine, my color, sasquatch package but only has the soft top. I can pick up car now but hard top will be like $5K more down the load with no real estimate on delivery.

I'm sure I'm overthinking this but is the 2.3l engine enough? Any help would be appreciated. This is a gift for my wife who has another SUV. So this is just an extra car for fun, daily driver not real off roading

I had the 2.3 in my Basesquatch with the Ford Performance tune and it was great. But, I did get the 2.7 in my HE so I don’t think you can go wrong with either. 2.3 does get better gas mileage.

 

[Vex]

Have the 2.7 and found it sluggish in the lower gears. Added sport mode on the 2 door badlands and find the power much more responsive. If I would have elected to go 2.3, I would have gone manual to get the 4.7 out of the box.

 

[Bronco Lane]

Drove both and came away with ordering the 2.3. Plenty of power plus you save almost $2K and get a steel oil pan and a real oil plug. Just my two cents. You will enjoy whichever you select.

The 2.7 has a wet belt driving the oil pump , what advantage did the consumer gain going from a chain to a belt ?

 

[Fordified1]

The 2.3 has plenty of power and has proven to be a little more reliable than the 2.7.
Get your Bronco quick as you can!

 

[stickshifthappy]

As you can't get the manual transmission with the 2.7 liter, my choice was clear, and I'm still happy as hell w/ the 2.3 turbo charged engine in my 2 door Badlands.

 

[Fordified1]

Yep, the 2.3 will cost money long term, then considering all the problems with that Chinese transmission, and with the auto being superior for off-roading, I'm glad I didn't skimp on the important stuff.

I have a 2015 2.3 ecoboost Mustang with almost 100k miles. No problems so far, but I use full synthetic oil and change it at 5k. And only one turbo to reseal or replace some day instead of 2, if that ever happens.

But the cam phaser issues on the 2.7 is what scares me away, since the valve dropping issue has been cured.

Sponsored