2.3 and Sasquatch - Who's Doing It?

[DonM]

The title is primary question. The follow up I guess would be what is your major concern with this combination?

Here is mine....I have myself convinced that the 2.3 will be fine with up to 32's/33's with any of the available gearing choices, especially with the 4.27 and 4.46 options. I'm also convinced that Ford has run 2.3 pretty hard with the 35's, auto and the 4.7 gearing and hit their benchmarks. I mainly want it for the looks and the top off/doors off ability. It's not a race car and honestly will have limited use off-road. And I'm kinda guessing that is the market they are aiming for with this combination.

But for the cost of the 2.7 upgrade, for me, isn't a factor in the purchase. If i get the 2.3 and end up tuning it later, that's going to be around $1K and a premium gas hit!

Ugh.....what's everyone else thing?

Sponsored

 

[Zinn]

You’re going to want premium fuel either way. Any turbo-ed engine will appreciate the higher grade fuel (especially with Ford’s OEM tunes that adjust timings and increase horsepower based on knock). But _especially_ the 2.3L you’ll want 91 or ideally 93 octane to mitigate carbon buildup.

I have the 2.3L in my Ranger and there’s a big difference in power going from 87 to 93. This is without a tune.

Frankly I don’t think Sasquatch makes much sense with the 2.3L. It’s a fine engine for the Ranger, but I just don’t know how it would hold up to much heavier wheels and tires. I plan on either Black Diamond or Badlands with the 2.3L fwiw.

 

[BuckeyeinNV]

The title is primary question. The follow up I guess would be what is your major concern with this combination?

Here is mine....I have myself convinced that the 2.3 will be fine with up to 32's/33's with any of the available gearing choices, especially with the 4.27 and 4.46 options. I'm also convinced that Ford has run 2.3 pretty hard with the 35's, auto and the 4.7 gearing and hit their benchmarks. I mainly want it for the looks and the top off/doors off ability. It's not a race car and honestly will have limited use off-road. And I'm kinda guessing that is the market they are aiming for with this combination.

But for the cost of the 2.7 upgrade, for me, isn't a factor in the purchase. If i get the 2.3 and end up tuning it later, that's going to be around $1K and a premium gas hit!

Ugh.....what's everyone else thing?

I don't think Ford is gonna sell a lot of Squatched Broncos without the 2.7L. It's just too easy to throw on another 1900 bucks when you've already paid for the auto and Squatch package, whether it be pre-orders or dealer stock.

I personally would move down a trim before giving up the engine if it became a budgeting issue, and if there's no budgeting issue, there's no point in NOT getting the 2.7l. imo of course.

 

[DonM]

You’re going to want premium fuel either way. Any turbo-ed engine will appreciate the higher grade fuel (especially with Ford’s OEM tunes that adjust timings and increase horsepower based on knock). But _especially_ the 2.3L you’ll want 91 or ideally 93 octane to mitigate carbon buildup.

I have the 2.3L in my Ranger and there’s a big difference in power going from 87 to 93. This is without a tune.

Frankly I don’t think Sasquatch makes much sense with the 2.3L. It’s a fine engine for the Ranger, but I just don’t know how it would hold up to much heavier wheels and tires. I plan on either Black Diamond or Badlands with the 2.3L fwiw.

I'm currently thinking a Big Bend with the 4.27 E-Locker and Auto with the 2.3. I like the taller skinny tire look.

 

[DonM]

I don't think Ford is gonna sell a lot of Squatched Broncos without the 2.7L. It's just too easy to throw on another 1900 bucks when you've already paid for the auto and Squatch package, whether it be pre-orders or dealer stock.

I personally would move down a trim before giving up the engine if it became a budgeting issue, and if there's no budgeting issue, there's no point in NOT getting the 2.7l. imo of course.

This is why I waffle with the Big Bend and Auto and 4.27 E-Locker with the 2.3 or the Base with 2.7 and Sasquatch. I'm going with the 4 door so the Base might be the way to go.

 

[Haystack]

Going up to 32s on the base with the 2.3 auto with 3.73s probably won't be too bad. Seems like a lot of Rangers are running larger tires with this set up.

 

[The Driving Viking]

I might get the 2.3 with the Base and Sasquatch. I haven't fully decided. Going to the 2.7 does push me past my budget.

Also just a simple 93 Octane tune puts the 2.3 right at the 2.7s power level. And thats plenty for Off Roading.. Well see.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Engines much weaker than the 2.3EB have been turning 35's for decades... often without the luxury of 4.70's...

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Not I said the fly, dont wanna wait any longer for my car to be crotched

Always can go aftermarket down the line

 

[swampgoat]

2 door, 2.3, manual and SAS in a base was my original plan but I may change to BL with 2.3 and manual , NON-SAS, depending on how late the base SAS with a manual is projected to be at order time. Either way I'm going 2.3 and manual

 

[Chrism81]

Nope. It's the 2.7 for me. Rather just spend the little extra money for the more powerful engine. Rather have the bigger engine and not need it then to get the smaller engine and wish I had gotten the 2.7

 

[Randy92Fox]

Engines much weaker than the 2.3EB have been turning 35's for decades... often without the luxury of 4.70's...

This! The older Toyota pickups do it with 4 cylinders and barely 100 lb-ft. I'm going #mansquatch so my only option is 2.3 but if I were going auto I'd go 2.7 without hesitation because I like torque and the 2.7 makes a bit more stock and a lot more with a tune. 2.3 will have NO issues moving 35" tires.

 

[mrcx]

I'm going BL, MT, 2.3L, non-Sas.
My last Wrangler had 285hp/260 lb-ft and had no problem with 35's. So the 2.3L with 270hp/310 lb-ft) should be just fine.
I can always a tune down the road if I decide I want more power.

 

[edgeflyer]

Engines much weaker than the 2.3EB have been turning 35's for decades... often without the luxury of 4.70's...

With inferior metallurgy and oil.

 

[N2AK]

This! The older Toyota pickups do it with 4 cylinders and barely 100 lb-ft. I'm going #mansquatch so my only option is 2.3 but if I were going auto I'd go 2.7 without hesitation because I like torque and the 2.7 makes a bit more stock and a lot more with a tune. 2.3 will have NO issues moving 35" tires.

I totally agree with this, but of course everyone has their own expectation of performance. For me, I do not need the Bronco to be quick or peppy at a drag strip. It’s my escape to the off road world. Right now I have an ‘88 4runner with 35” tires, stock gears, 22re motor with the 4spd auto. Not an exciting combo for street driving but put that rig in 4x4 LO and it goes up a mountain so it does exactly what I want.

only ready I’m considering the 2.7L is due to the whole carbon build up/direct injection only thing with the 2.3. Hoping there is still a chance for 2.7 with a manual in the future.

Sponsored