- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Threads
- 5
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 748
- Location
- Alpharetta, GA
- Vehicle(s)
- '19 4Runner, '08 Civic, Waiting on a 2DR Badlands
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
2.7. Great torque and will be plenty fuel efficient.
Sponsored
Same here. Low end torque is what makes a good off roader.2.7. Great torque and will be plenty fuel efficient.
Whichever engine isn't the 2.3l.
"List reasons for your choice..." Well, this is going to upset 11.9% of you: Because I have already taken one of those Japanese lawn mower engines to the scrapyard at 100k miles when it spun a rod bearing for the second time and parts were unavailable due to demand from the insanely high failure rate. Researching the problem, it turns out that the average lifespan for the 2.3 is 50-60k miles which is consistent with what I saw. Here's the kicker; this was the non-turbo variant that makes less power under lower stress. The inherent block casting flaws have not been fixed, but several new flaws have been introduced which further reduce reliability.
The 2.3 is objectively the least reliable engine ever built by Ford Motor Company. To put the cherry on top of this turd sundae, I've seen the half-Mustang 2.3 engines on a dyno. There is little similarity between advertised power output and real-world output. My experiences with the disposable 2.3 have been enough to make me swear off ever having another, and almost enough to make me never buy a Ford again even after having owned a dozen or so other Ford vehicles that were relatively problem-free.
So it looks like if I buy the Bronco it'll be the 2.7 V6 unless Ford surprises us all and offers a diesel, or somehow shoehorns in the supercharged GT500 variant of the Coyote. That might happen, right? Right?
They're fine. The original 2.3 Duratec was in some Focuses and the Fusion. Those cars would fall apart around the 2.3 but it'd be fine. It's a Mazda MZR at heart, and the assertion of an "average" 60k mile lifespan is laughable.I thought the 2.3 Ecoboosts were some of the more reliable engines that Ford makes? No?
Nope, they're really hyped, but I'm not the only one who's been left on the side of the road by a low-mileage 2.3. The majority of them will eventually spin the #3 rod bearing, usually sooner rather than later. There are also issues with the block splitting between the #2 and #3 cylinders, especially on turbo applications where heat becomes a greater factor.
if I recall correctly, the 2.3 ecoboost has never been offered without a turbo. Ford did used to have another 2.3l inline 4 that was definitely not a great motor, but it has no relation to the new one besides displacement.I can't really comment on that as I don't have a ton of experience with the 2.7. For comparison, I have had the 2.3 non-turbo and the 5.0 at the same time and the mileage was within 1-2mpg of being the same. I'd expect that the 2.7 uses very slightly more fuel than the 2.3, but not enough for it to be a deciding factor in a car purchase.
I'm not saying this didn't happen to you. It's feasible.Whichever engine isn't the 2.3l.
"List reasons for your choice..." Well, this is going to upset 11.9% of you: Because I have already taken one of those Japanese lawn mower engines to the scrapyard at 100k miles when it spun a rod bearing for the second time and parts were unavailable due to demand from the insanely high failure rate. Researching the problem, it turns out that the average lifespan for the 2.3 is 50-60k miles which is consistent with what I saw. Here's the kicker; this was the non-turbo variant that makes less power under lower stress. The inherent block casting flaws have not been fixed, but several new flaws have been introduced which further reduce reliability.
The 2.3 is objectively the least reliable engine ever built by Ford Motor Company
Ford had the 2.3 Lima, which originated in the '70s and was used in the Mustang into the '90s.if I recall correctly, the 2.3 ecoboost has never been offered without a turbo. Ford did used to have another 2.3l inline 4 that was definitely not a great motor, but it has no relation to the new one besides displacement.