2.3 or a 2.7

[not on the rug]

I was talking about all vehicles, but in the case of the Bronco the cheapest 2.3L you can get is $39,995 and the cheapest 2.7L is $47,940 which is 19.8% more. Obviously content varies, but it does tend to be that you need to buy a lot of useless doo dads to get a more powerful engine. With my wife's Bronco all she wanted was hard top, heated seats, and manual transmission. Obviously 2.7L wasn't an option with manual, but you can understand all the up content she would've been forced to pay for if she wanted a V6.

Who says the "doodads" are useless?

Sponsored

 

[MNBigfoot]

I was talking about all vehicles, but in the case of the Bronco the cheapest 2.3L you can get is $39,995 and the cheapest 2.7L is $47,940 which is 19.8% more. Obviously content varies, but it does tend to be that you need to buy a lot of useless doo dads to get a more powerful engine. With my wife's Bronco all she wanted was hard top, heated seats, and manual transmission. Obviously 2.7L wasn't an option with manual, but you can understand all the up content she would've been forced to pay for if she wanted a V6.

What a change, for MY23 it was a $1895 option on the BB.

 

[DALOLA]

With my wife's Bronco all she wanted was hard top, heated seats, and manual transmission.

Prop's to your wife for wanting the MT. You picked a good one! (..wife, I mean...)

 

[Marc L]

Who says the "doodads" are useless?

If you don't want that feature it is useless to you unless you get it for free, but guess what there is nothing in life that is free. It is impossible to build a vehicle that has exactly the features you want and no more.

 

[not on the rug]

If you don't want that feature it is useless to you unless you get it for free, but guess what there is nothing in life that is free. It is impossible to build a vehicle that has exactly the features you want and no more.

It's only useless if you don't use it. If it has the features, use them. Letting an option go to waste is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

My X5M had massage seats. I'd never buy a car intentionality with massage seats, but I absolutely used them on long road trips. Why not? I bought a car that had what I wanted. Instead of useless, I consider the other stuff a bonus. Try looking at the glass half-full

A 40k car is a cheapo these days anyway. The average price of an automobile sold in the US was over 50k last year. You could always buy used

 

[KreeHBronco]

1) also by going with the manual and 2.3L, I saved about $5K and by skipping the SAS package saved another similar amount. Used the savings to get the lux package mostly for 360 camera and leather seats for added adjustment (front of seat height).

 

[Tonka Bronka]

The cost is nominal. All cars have more power than they used to. That's not a selling point. Today's Toyota Camry TRD is nearly a second faster in a 0-60 than the 35 year old 5.0 mustangs people were raving about in the 80s. All the muscle cars of the late 60s and early 70s didn't have much muscle, and to quote Joe Rogan, driving them is like driving a rhinocerous on rollerskates.


Manuals are awesome, no doubt. There's no real cam phaser issue with the 2.7 except for the 2021s. The plastic oil pan is crap, but a few hundred dollar fix, so no biggie.

It isn't the HP jump that's the selling point, it's the nearly 100 lb ft of torque. and THAT is a huge difference.

Cost may not be an issue for you, but for some, including myself, it is.

 

[not on the rug]

Cost may not be an issue for you, but for some, including myself, it is.

The difference in payments between a 40k and 47k vehicle isn't that much. I'd never skip out on a feature I wanted to save a few bucks per month. TBH, this Bronco is my very first new car ever, and I'm leasing it bc I 1-got a fantastic deal and 2-am still concerned about Ford "quality."
I typically buy 2-3 year old cars with 30-40k miles on them because I can get them fully loaded and nicely broken in for a fraction of the cost of a new vehicle, I add an aftermarket bumper to bumper warranty (which I get at cost) and I enjoy the ride.
Anyway, wanting a 2.7 but getting a 2.3 to save a few bucks is silly. But a 2 year old 2.7 and get it cheap.

 

[Tonka Bronka]

The difference in payments between a 40k and 47k vehicle isn't that much. I'd never skip out on a feature I wanted to save a few bucks per month. TBH, this Bronco is my very first new car ever, and I'm leasing it bc I 1-got a fantastic deal and 2-am still concerned about Ford "quality."
I typically buy 2-3 year old cars with 30-40k miles on them because I can get them fully loaded and nicely broken in for a fraction of the cost of a new vehicle, I add an aftermarket bumper to bumper warranty (which I get at cost) and I enjoy the ride.
Anyway, wanting a 2.7 but getting a 2.3 to save a few bucks is silly. But a 2 year old 2.7 and get it cheap.

You know what they say about payment buyers. Dealers love payment buyers.

 

[not on the rug]

You know what they say about payment buyers. Dealers love payment buyers.

Dealers love dumb payment buyers. It's 2026. Shop around for banks/lenders. You'd be surprised what's out there. Once you tell them you don't need financing, it's a different game.

Problem on a new vehicle is that there isn't a ton of wiggle room these days. There is definitely some, but not the way it used to be.

I admit that I have an advantage. My cousin is a sales and marketing consultant in the auto industry and he knows tons of people all across the country. When I figure out what I'm looking for, he either makes a call or gives me the GM's cell number and I make the deal myself. I get amazing prices on everything and bumper to bumper warranties for cost (well, $1 over cost). He taught me a ton about the industry though and I've helped a bunch of friends get great deals on vehicles over the years.

 

[broncobase1]

It's amazing you can still get a twin turbo V6 anywhere under $120K while turbo 4s are everywhere.

2.7 with FP ProCal is far superior to the 4 cyl. I did have an HPP Mustang convertible with 2.3 and loved it would have loved it more with the smooth 2.7 TT.

" 2.7 with FP ProCal is far superior to the 4 cyl. '
Sure you can get more power from the 2.7, but being "superior" isn't just about power. Not everyone is concerned about 0 - 60 times, or tuning the engine. I don't like the fact the 2.7 has a wet belt. Yeah I know its supposed to go 100 or 200K miles, I still don't like it. When it starts to deteriorate the rubber particles destroy the engine. The 2.3L has great power and doesn't have a wet belt.

 

[Tonka Bronka]

Dealers love dumb payment buyers. It's 2026. Shop around for banks/lenders. You'd be surprised what's out there. Once you tell them you don't need financing, it's a different game.

Problem on a new vehicle is that there isn't a ton of wiggle room these days. There is definitely some, but not the way it used to be.

I admit that I have an advantage. My cousin is a sales and marketing consultant in the auto industry and he knows tons of people all across the country. When I figure out what I'm looking for, he either makes a call or gives me the GM's cell number and I make the deal myself. I get amazing prices on everything and bumper to bumper warranties for cost (well, $1 over cost). He taught me a ton about the industry though and I've helped a bunch of friends get great deals on vehicles over the years.

I understand. You know what you're doing. I did pretty good too. I was in on week 2 of reservations. 200,000 ahead of me already! I couldn't believe it. I thought there wouldn't be any hurry. Ended up at SAC in WV at 1K under invoice, delivered in early July 21! I jumped way ahead of people due to the 2.3 MT, soft top. No tow, deleted it and got a build date almost immediately! Great deal, great rig so far.

 

[23OBX2.7]

" 2.7 with FP ProCal is far superior to the 4 cyl. '
Sure you can get more power from the 2.7, but being "superior" isn't just about power. Not everyone is concerned about 0 - 60 times, or tuning the engine. I don't like the fact the 2.7 has a wet belt. Yeah I know its supposed to go 100 or 200K miles, I still don't like it. When it starts to deteriorate the rubber particles destroy the engine. The 2.3L has great power and doesn't have a wet belt.

Very remote risk compared to 2.3 dumping copious amounts of fuel into crank case (can be minimized with $600 in catch cans) and endless head gasket fails resulting in write-off motors .....that's why builders use the 2.0.

I did enjoy the HPP 2.3 AT10 in my Mustang great off the line torque and the 2.3 Bronco had a great feel. The strengthened block and various other parts was nice but had to empty a few table spoons out of only a dirty side catch every 3000 miles when did synthetic oil change.

 

[broncobase1]

Very remote risk compared to 2.3 dumping copious amounts of fuel into crank case (can be minimized with $600 in catch cans) and endless head gasket fails resulting in write-off motors .....that's why builders use the 2.0.

I did enjoy the HPP 2.3 AT10 in my Mustang great off the line torque and the 2.3 Bronco had a great feel. The strengthened block and various other parts was nice but had to empty a few table spoons out of only a dirty side catch every 3000 miles when did synthetic oil change.

Who said the 2.3 dumps copious amounts of fuel into the crank case? Most of the time when you read about fuel in the crank case its not the 2.3, but one of the TT V6. I change my oil at 5000 which is about once a year and have no detectible fuel in the crank case. This is with stop & go city driving. You are living in the dark ages, the head gasket issue was 10 years ago and mostly on the Focus ST. As for the 2.0 vs 2.3, if builders only use the 2.0 why are there so many performance parts available for the 2.3? Makes no sense. The 2.3 is designed to handle more power and torque than the 2.0. There is a good video on YT explaining the differences, from a guy obviously knowledgeable on Ford engines. The 2.7L is obviously the best choice for power with or without tuning. Its a great engine, but why does Ford have to do crap like use a wet belt? The 2.3L has the advantage of less complexity. It has half the heads, cam shafts, turbos, catalytic converters and other parts vs the V6. Bottom line there are pros & cons to either engine, and not everything is about power.

 

[Ducati1098]

Who said the 2.3 dumps copious amounts of fuel into the crank case? Most of the time when you read about fuel in the crank case its not the 2.3, but one of the TT V6.

All direct injection engines are more susceptible to fuel dilution. Some engines worse than others.

Sponsored