2.3 Shaping up to be the better Engine?

[Roofus]

I doubt the 2.3 especially in the 2 door would be sluggish. Keep in mind also with a $500 tune the 2.3 is at the same power as the 2.7 actually a little more.

So a $500 tune on a 2.7 means the 2.3 is right back where it started?

Sponsored

 

[mpeugeot]

2.3L can get 694 hp. when tuned. Chip it run on 93 and maybe 350 but mpg will be lower. 2.3L is not limited like the 2.7l with twin turbos not twin scolled single turbo. Where the 2.7L is limited is 400 ft lbs of toque since the 10 r60 ( 600nm or say 420 ft lbs) Explorer 10 speed transmission. The 2.3L@310 torque can be turned to say 420 thats 110/310 say 30% more torque, whereas the 2.7L only 20 more ft lbs or 5%. Once 3 years is up chip it as see what improvement . Explorer turbo only had 350 hp due to 10r60 tranny.

Rule: air in air out= hp. I had Cayenne 450 hp/ ft lbs of torque. At 5500 lbs curb thats 5500/450= 13 lbs per hp. Now say 350 hp/ft lbs on say 4400 is 4400/350= 13 lbs per hp not bad. 5.8 sec 0-60 when chipped, maybe new exhaust too!

The 2.3 is NOT going to make 690 on that twin scroll turbo that it comes with stock, and if it does, then the pressure ratio will be ridiculously high and inefficient.

You know why the 4 cylinder uses a twin scroll turbo, don't you? It's to separate the pulses and to prevent reversion. The V6 doesn't need a twin scroll turbo because the two banks are physically separated from each other, they don't have to worry about reversion as much, and two turbos are essentially the same thing as a twin scroll except for the compressor wheel.

The rule isn't just air in = air out, but the air in and out at the lowest possible pressure ratio. Boost pressure is a measure of how much restriction is in the system and must be overcome to get a given amount of CFM through the system. PSI measures your pumping losses more than it does your ultimate power.

While any rational engineering analysis would suggest that the 2.3 is likely to be more reliable, it also is not likely to be more streetable that the 2.7 at any given HP, be less stressed than the 2.7 at any given peak torque value, and not likely to have a higher power ceiling than the 2.7 engine - assuming all other things are equal (like head flow and camshaft specifications). However, it all comes at the cost of reliability in terms of MTBF due to the additional complexity of the twin Turbo v6.

 

[The Driving Viking]

So a $500 tune on a 2.7 means the 2.3 is right back where it started?

So is this a penis measuring contest or are we talking about the 2.3 being a fine option for the Bronco? Especially for the people who want their Broncos sooner.

For the record there's 2.3s with more performance oriented tunes and bolt ons making over 600 horsepower.

If the the 2.7 is so amazing with 310hp and 415ft lbs of torque how would the 2.3 with just a $500 tune making 360hp and 390ft lbs not be? And for less money then the 2.7 costs.

 

[The Driving Viking]

You can doubt what you want I am telling you my driving back to back experience. I too promoted the 2.3 initially after I drove the Ranger, and I am not a power guy unlike a lot of people on the forum. Driving them in Sasquatch Badlands back to back was eye opening. Both were 4.7 gearing.

I am not talking about sports car. I am saying the engine does not feel good with a 6000 pounds Badlands Sasquatch. It’s trying a lot, nervous but not powerfull, the contrary of smooth. Not a pleasant experience

I don't care about a 6,000 pound 4 door Sasquatch. I'm talking about the 2.3 for the 2 door Bronco for me. And for $500 dollars a tune gives the 2.3 basically the same power as the 2.7 actually more power.

But regardless which Bronco after the cheap $500 warranty freindly tune giving you the same power of the 2.7 how then would you not be satisfied?? It would literally feel the same.

 

[mpeugeot]

So is this a penis measuring contest? YES.

For the record there's 2.3s with more performance oriented tunes and bolt ons making over 600 horsepower.

Sure, but what do you think that the 2.7 on E85 is capable of? There are 3.5's north of 1000 HP (which is pretty sick).

Seems like you can take any of the ecoboost engines, multiply the displacement by 3, and multiply x 100 to get appx HP.

2.3 x 3 = 6.9 = 690 HP <- apparently a thing.
3.5 x 3 = 11.5 = 1150 HP <- pretty much happened.
2.7 x 3 = 8.1 = 810 HP <- time will tell.

I know it would be trivial to make north of 500 ft/lbs of torque and 500 HP with the 2.7, all it would take is some slightly bigger turbos.

 

[Ig_bronco]

Just curious what people think about both the 2.3 and the 2.7 since the Broncos release out into the wild.

I have no first hand experience with driving either engine in the Bronco but I did own the 2.3 in my Ecoboost Mustang. In short it was great in the Mustang.

So I ask this for a couple of reasons. It's seems in a lot of You tube reviews both the 2.3 and the 2.7 get similar 0 to 60 times when testing acceleration. Of course the 2.7 is a little faster but not by much. The reason being even though the 2.7 is more powerful it also weights more which negates the power advantage and makes the front end heavier. So it makes sense.

Another reason I ask is because for some still waiting for their Broncos order to be filled it seems the 2.7 is a major constraint and is the hold up. Switch to the 2.3 and boom your order will be filled faster and your Bronco will get built.

The biggest and most important reason I ask this is because of the recent issues with the 2.7s dieing. I don't know if this is because of the pandemic and Ford had to switch to a different 3rd party supplier for critical parts or what but it seems it's definitely a thing. Plenty of people on this very forum had their 2.7 engines fail. Reliability is pretty dam important when it comes to your engine.

I should note that my Bronco reservation and order is for the 2.7 as of now so I'm not cheerleadering the 2.3 or biased.

So with all this in mind is the 2.3 shaping up to be the better choice for the Bronco?

I got 3200 miles with my 2.7 no issues.

 

[KEM IA]

Man this post is still going on!

 

[The Driving Viking]

Sure, but what do you think that the 2.7 on E85 is capable of? There are 3.5's north of 1000 HP (which is pretty sick).

Seems like you can take any of the ecoboost engines, multiply the displacement by 3, and multiply x 100 to get appx HP.

2.3 x 3 = 6.9 = 690 HP <- apparently a thing.
3.5 x 3 = 11.5 = 1150 HP <- pretty much happened.
2.7 x 3 = 8.1 = 810 HP <- time will tell.

I know it would be trivial to make north of 500 ft/lbs of torque and 500 HP with the 2.7, all it would take is some slightly bigger turbos.

All the Ecoboost engines are capable of massive power over stock. Every single one of them. They are all amazing.

My point is with this thread if the 2.7 is currently having temporary problems that Ford needs to figure out and is also a constraint when ordering and trying to get your Bronco in a timely matter would it be smart to go with the 2.3? You get your Broncos faster and with a mild cheap tune from Ford performance covered under warranty you get the same power as the 2.7 if not more for $500 and you still save money.

We only live once and could be dead tomorrow. No reason to wait another year or more for an extra 300cc s when you can go with the 2.3 and get your Bronco now.

I'm only thinking out loud. I have a 2.7 ordered and trying to decide what to do.

 

[Roofus]

So is this a penis measuring contest or are we talking about the 2.3 being a fine option for the Bronco?

Do whatever you want to do dawg. Have fun! Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Winkydee]

I'm interested in actually going with the factory tune for the 2.3L.

Anyone got a link to that?

 

[Capt steve]

I have 2600 miles on my big bend 4 door with the 2.3. I love it. Plenty of go and 22+ mpg. I owned a 150 with the 2.7 and never had a problem in 78k miles. If you want more pickup you can go to premium gas. It makes a difference but imhop it’s not worth the extra $.30-40 cents a gallon. The mileage with either grade is about the same. Ford says if you take the 2.3 off-road a lot you may want t use the premium but my setup is all I need. i Am very pleased with the 2.3/and if I ordered another bronco I’d have the 2.3. I did drive one with the 2.7 so I can compare them.

 

[Carl Sagan]

I own 2 Fords with the 2.7L TT engine, 2017 Fusion Sport and a 2020 Ford Edge ST. I drag race both at the drag strip and 0 issues with either motor. Premium fuel and full synthetic oil in both. It is a great/proven engine and that’s what is going in my bronco. I also prefer the dual injection setup for the top of the valves in the bronco so I don’t have the carbon build up.

 

[ProdigyJKU]

Before picking up my Bronco I had a ~500hp Wrangler with a 3.6T. Coming from that, I though I would be bored with the 2.3 in my Bronco. However I can say I'm quite content with my 4dr BD 2.3 MT after putting a little over 3000 miles on it. Surprisingly "zippy" and fun to drive, don't regret not going with the 2.7 one bit. The 7sp/2.3 combo is a blast to beat on around town. I have 34s and the 4.46. The gearing is quite a bit taller that I'm used to, I would have prefered the 4.7 or a tad more.

The rpms are only around 2.3k @ 80 in 6th. With the horrible aerodynamics, 6th typically requires around 4-5lbs of boost to maintain 80, while 5th is generally at 0-1psi. I think highway milage would actually increase a bit with highway gearing. If it allowed it to run 6th without any boost being used.

I think it's funny that people think that 2.7 torque is "required" for offroading. That's what 4Low is for, 2.3 is plenty with all that gearing.

Wranglers did fine offroad for decades with a lethargic 4cyl. That's exactly what the 2sp transfercase is for.

Excessive torque output when crawling typically leads to higher rate of drivetrain failure out on the trail.

Sponsored