2.3 Shaping up to be the better Engine?

[PWillette]

My prediction: the manual transmission Broncos will last for 250,000 miles without any maintenance to their clutch or drivetrain, if driven by someone with the faintest inkling of an understanding of how to shift. Corollary prediction: 17% of owners with a 10 speed manual automatic will need repairs within 75,000 miles. 34% will need repairs within 150,000 miles. Mark my words. I'll be back in 10 years to check in. (MT owner)

Subscribed

Sponsored

 

[bigblueboing]

Not true. You can get the auto on the 2.3L or 2.7L. You can only get the manual on the 2.3L.

Kids, don’t do drugs.

 

[SoCalDawg]

I expect I'll enjoy driving my manual 2.3 a lot. It has more horsepower than my 5.4 V8 in my old F-150. I towed a 3 horse trailer with 3 1000 lb mules in it, in the mountains. I think it is 260 horsepower. Been driving it 20 years. Before that we drove a 1995 4runner for about 10 years. It had about 160 HP if I recall. Yes, it was slow over steep western mountain passes. But we never complained, it was a very capable 4WD and adventure/camping vehicle. My daughter drove a 2007 Tacoma for 6 years, including on fast high plains highways in the winter in Wyoming. Yes, it was gutless, and she just upgraded to a Rav4 with 269 HP. She says it has all the power she dreamed of. The Tacoma was a 9.3 sec 0-60.

I just put it in perspective. Until the past 10 years, if you had 250 HP you were doing good. Many old muscle cars and sports cars of my youth had very slow 0-60 times. We all did fine and didn't say a 77 Trans Am was "kind of a dog" or that a 300 HP Bronco was. Because we weren't raised on 300 HP Camrys and 400 HP monster trucks. The young generation drives like a bat outta hell, and the pileups and fatality's on our highways prove it's too much power for most immature drivers. I get passed all the time by F250s or Rams going 90 MPH and passing Corvettes and such. It's idiotic and deadly to be wanting that much speed. Look at all the road rage. Look at all the headlights and evil grills in your rear-view, flying up behind you every day, unless you go 15 MPH OVER the speed limit. Bullying everyone to get out of their damn way. Look at the a&&holes passing me and my family on double-yellow line country roads. All because they "need" over 300 HP and under 6 second 0-60 times. They are a menace to society, and they can smugly say everyone else is a "mall crawler" or "too old" but they're the ones killing people. 20 years ago my commute might have a highway crash once every 6 months. Today, it's daily. Every rush hour, there are roll overs, rage pileups and the like. Because everyone is going 80 MPH and trying to play NASCAR in 5-6 vehicle trains, drafting on each other. One feint by that high school driver and they all wipe out in Daytona fashion, usually with a few fatalities. EVERY WEEK. Slow down. Live with less power.

This post hits home with me and I agree. I grew up around car restorations and modding. I still remember my dad putting an LT1 engine (350/350) in a 1982 step side truck for fun. At my request he later put a hot 454 in it.. that thing would boil BF ATs at speed. Most of these cars were well under 400 HP I think. After moving out I 'switched' to mainly driving Toyotas truck and SUVs.. none known for their power. While I do enjoy the grunt of a NA V8 I get that those just are not the future for mpg/efficiency. My current GX is 300 HP and 330 lb. ft. Is it fast? Nope. Will it do what I want on and off road in regards to power? Absolutely. When I was 16 if I had asked my dad to build me a 300 HP machine.. well, he may have.. but he might shouldn't have. Back then a 12 second 1/4 street car was quick.. Years later I remember moving to Atlanta after college and hearing traffic reports of cars being flipped and thinking.. HOW TF does someone flip a car? I have done some crazy driving but never come close to flipping on a public road!!.. but today we see it everywhere. We just had a kid lose control of a car on Sunset in LA. I watched the video and someone forgot to teach this kid the rule.. you can have grip for turning.. you can have grip for stopping... but you can't have both. The power that is in cars that 'normal' people drive today is crazy. I will be teaching my kids what I was taught... defensive driving.. how to handle a skid.. what to do and not do when you blow a tire.. all the fun stuff.

Fast forward and the 2.3 in the Bronco has more HP and torque than my GX at about the same weight. My ONLY concern with the 2.3 is how it will handle mountains in CA, UT and some other western states. From what I have read, it seems it will handle them just fine. I would love to hear feedback in this regard from those who have the 2.3. I just went and test drove the Bronco (2.7) and TBH.. the sound of a turbo in a Bronco messed withy mind more than the power.. I could get over it though. As is stands, I am sitting back and just watching the reports, good and bad. I want a Bronco so bad but not in a real hurry. Part of me wants to just go super base with the Sas and part of me wants to go WT. I know I would have fun with the MT and the 2.3 though. Cheers!

 

[CM53119]

I personally will only get the 2.3 due to the manual transmission option. otherwise I wouldve just kept my F150 or gotten an Explorer ST, to be honest. Main reason i wanted the Bronco is 1. Off-roading, 2. for the manual.

 

[bkfit]

I like my 2.7 especially liked zip tying the radiator hose away from the Pully, Enjoyed verifying Torque specs on the battery cables and fuse box (although I believe that to be a read across on the 2.3 aswell.) 680 miles No issues like the low end TORQUE. Im happy with my choice.

Have a 2.3 aswell prefer the 2.7...

 

[mpeugeot]

Well it is reported that the manual and 10 spd 10r60 transmission can only handle 420 ft lbs of torque so you 5 Star tune of 2.7L may add 100 ft# to 400 ft# ?????
But the Ford Powerpack or 5Stsr tune add 75ft# to 315-325(93) well within the 10r60 420ft#. Remember it is lbs/ torque gets you going. A 4500 lb base with 2.3L tuned say 11.5 lbs/ft# A 2.0L BMW 325 is around 12. Good for me had 7 BMW but now RRS or 911S And they dont have 400ft#s!

Lastly base on the weight charts my base will be around GVWR 5980. Well as a CPA the magic number is 6000 and if used in business IRS give you big tax deductions. Why do you think Jeep has the Grand Wagoneer @$80k. Uncle Sam gives over a $40k write off @30% thats $12K net cost after taxes say $65k the price of a First Edition!

That's certainly not the reality of the situation.

 

[Winkydee]

Well it is reported that the manual and 10 spd 10r60 transmission can only handle 420 ft lbs of torque so you 5 Star tune of 2.7L may add 100 ft# to 400 ft# ?????
But the Ford Powerpack or 5Stsr tune add 75ft# to 315-325(93) well within the 10r60 420ft#. Remember it is lbs/ torque gets you going. A 4500 lb base with 2.3L tuned say 11.5 lbs/ft# A 2.0L BMW 325 is around 12. Good for me had 7 BMW but now RRS or 911S And they dont have 400ft#s!

Lastly base on the weight charts my base will be around GVWR 5980. Well as a CPA the magic number is 6000 and if used in business IRS give you big tax deductions. Why do you think Jeep has the Grand Wagoneer @$80k. Uncle Sam gives over a $40k write off @30% thats $12K net cost after taxes say $65k the price of a First Edition!

I've been thinking that same thing about the transmission for some time. Glad I went manual, and Badlands, no regrets. I feel like I have everything I need to satisfy future mods, likely a tune.

It's gonna be here on Thursday!! Woohoo!

I don't really follow the rest of what you were saying there though, lol.

 

[milbums]

Base, Sasquatch, 2.3, manual on order. Coming from a 5,000 lb 4runner, 5 speed with 150hp I will have no problems with the 2.3. Drove a 2 door 2.3 manual and 4door 2.7 auto (both Sasquatch) and though the 2.7 was probably faster, I really couldn't tell much of a difference from the manual. Also I just can't give up my manual transmission.

 

[navi]

Honestly not trying to be a dick, but that estimate is way too high. There’s no chance this forum hosts 10% of Bronco owners and there’s no chance the 2.7 is seeing more than a 1-3% failure rate. If it was, there would be articles galore about it and Ford would have issued a recall or fixed the issue and quietly replaced/fixed trucks already out the door. That news would have likely made it back here in our niche community but not be very public. The risk of having customers avoid purchase in year 1 of this truck because 1 in 10 motors were grenading would be a PR nightmare that could possibly destroy brand reputation.

The counter argument is of course that I myself was a victim of the German lottery with the V8 M3 rod bearing issue that kaput a $24k motor and BMW has fought that suit in court for a decade. So it does happen that car companies will try to hide stuff like this. But the difference is that was a car that sold 15,000-20,000 units a year versus a truck that Ford would like to sell 120-150k units a year. 5-7,000 failed engines a year is an unmitigated disaster. If this is really happening, the failure rate is probably in the neighborhood of 1-3% and most will get a free new engine under warranty or a recall notice issued by mail direct to the owner. My .02…

yeah, the 2.7 are 70% of the builds on here at least.
There are lots of folks throwing around random stats.

https://bronco6g.com/forum/threads/📊-submitted-bronco-orders-tracking-list-stats.11453/

 

[ProdigyJKU]

There is nothing going on with the 2.7, it's all just coincidence!

 

[Tricky Dick]

Looks like nearly all 2.3s are running around trouble free. I love mine, I've never once felt I needed more.

 

[mpeugeot]

Looks like nearly all 2.3s are running around trouble free. I love mine, I've never once felt I needed more.

Yes, but the brakes... Not so much. Reliability going faster is good, but reliability in the ability to stop seems to be a little more important.

 

[Tricky Dick]

Yes, but the brakes... Not so much. Reliability going faster is good, but reliability in the ability to stop seems to be a little more important.

I haven't seen a lot of brake talk in a while either. What have you seen?

 

[Mr. Nice]

I haven't seen a lot of brake talk in a while either. What have you seen?

There’s a lot of bad press on the 2.3’s brakes. They are a carry over from the Rangers. Their vacuum assisted system is known for long stopping distances, mushy pedal, poor modulation along with design failure issues. Here’s just one from Car and Driver.

“And not only was its 193-foot stop from 70 mph the longest here, but the pedal feel was genuinely frightening. It sank through a couple of inches with no resistance or response and then grabbed with an immediacy that frequently had our heads bobbing.”

And another.

“Also, it's a good thing L.A. traffic isn't moving well today, because stopping from 70 mph requires a lengthy 217 feet.”

Sponsored