2.3 Shaping up to be the better Engine?

SnowBronco

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
2,821
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
Ranger
Bronco
Badlands
Well I have over 5000 miles on my 2.3 manual. It hasn't done me wrong and has zero problem doing anything I've thrown at it. It's been getting close to 21 mpg since new. It is a dog tho. It's not "fast" by any stretch. People using the word "adequate" is a correct one word summary. It's not going to do much more than this word implies. This is my third 2.3 I. Three different vehicles. In the Ranger and Mustang it was awesome, and quick. In the Bronco, due to it being over 5000lbs, adequate. Lol That being said, my fleet manager called me today and said my 2.7 badlands had now been produced. So I'll soon have one to compare. As for people saying the 0-60 times are close.... .5 seconds on a zero to sixty is not that close. By the time you hit the 1320ft... It's a bus. A noticeable bus.... Lol 😬🙃
Advertisement

 

Lucchese

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2021
Messages
180
Reaction score
689
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
'90 4Runner, + bikes
Bronco
Black Diamond
Clubs
 
. . . 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 . . .

Monday changed my build to go with 2.3L - along w some other changes to reduce bells & whistles -

2.3 has double the horse-power of what I've been driving -
 

Techun

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
441
Reaction score
1,151
Location
Pa
Vehicle(s)
Fiesta st
Bronco
Black Diamond
Maybe I'll change my tune if my 2.7 grenades, but I like my 2.7. I wouldn't trade it for the smaller, less powerful motor that doesn't get better mpg in this heavy pig.
 

Hossfire

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ken
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
160
Reaction score
202
Location
Richmond, VA
Vehicle(s)
'06 Jeep Commander
Bronco
Wildtrak
Clubs
 
Based on some quick calcs off the Ford website, the automatic transmission adds 20 lbs vs. the manual and the 2.7 adds 170 lbs vs. the 2.3. This is less than 5% of the vehicle weight. The 2.7 provides about 10% boost in horsepower and over 20% increase in torque. The gas mileage hit is about 10% with the bigger engine.

The real questions is whether you prefer manual vs. auto and performance vs. MPG and a lower price tag.
 

Oneand0

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mario
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
240
Reaction score
589
Location
South Lake Tahoe, Ca
Vehicle(s)
Ford Explorer
Bronco
Badlands
All I can say is 2.3 auto, sasquatch has no shortage of oomph in my book. I have been taking it pretty easy on the throttle for break in, and it gets around just fine. It's not a sports car, but it is quicker than my last several vehicles, so there's that.
Great to hear! I’m definitely more than happy with my 2.3, Badlands 4dr with 33”s, and will put some 35”s on it with a lift, when it’s time to replace tires.
 
OP
OP
BroncoMan13

BroncoMan13

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jason
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,091
Reaction score
2,374
Location
Pennsylvania
Vehicle(s)
2018 Harley Davidson RKS
Bronco
Base
Well I have over 5000 miles on my 2.3 manual. It hasn't done me wrong and has zero problem doing anything I've thrown at it. It's been getting close to 21 mpg since new. It is a dog tho. It's not "fast" by any stretch. People using the word "adequate" is a correct one word summary. It's not going to do much more than this word implies. This is my third 2.3 I. Three different vehicles. In the Ranger and Mustang it was awesome, and quick. In the Bronco, due to it being over 5000lbs, adequate. Lol That being said, my fleet manager called me today and said my 2.7 badlands had now been produced. So I'll soon have one to compare. As for people saying the 0-60 times are close.... .5 seconds on a zero to sixty is not that close. By the time you hit the 1320ft... It's a bus. A noticeable bus.... Lol 😬🙃
I feel like .5 is nothing in an offroad vehicle that will never see that drag strip. 7.0 sec 0 to 60 compared to 7.5 is wash. Now compare that to the 4.2 sec in the 392 Wrangler. Now that's a difference.
 

Beach_Bum

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ken
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
2,857
Reaction score
8,688
Location
St. Augustine, FL
Vehicle(s)
2003 Jeep Liberty Limited
Bronco
Outer Banks
Clubs
 
I think people are comparing this 2.7 with the years of quality it has had in the Ford f 150. You really can't. It's a slightly different configuration and what ever issues they are having now is no doubt because of the pandemic and a 3rd party supplier. This is a new development. It's definitely worrisome. At least least me it is anyway.
People keep throwing around the false equivocation that it is the same engine in the F150 when it isn't. It is a different configuration. Also, the line workers at Dearborn and Kansas City have experience where as the line workers at MAP have the most experience with the 2.3L instead of the 2.7L. Has that lack of experience led to the coolant hose not being pulled away from the pulley initially? Maybe. But there is a learning curve with the 2.7 at MAP.

I felt the 2.3L was a safer choice for a first year vehicle. MAP has been stuffing it in the Ranger for years. It is lighter which is critical in an already heavy vehicle. People get hung up on the 4 cylinder, but it's not like a 4-banger from 20 years ago. It produces more torque and horsepower than my Jeep's v6.
 

BroncoOKV

Outer Banks
New Member
First Name
Shawna
Joined
Oct 28, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
5
Location
Vancouver Canada
Vehicle(s)
Explorer
Bronco
Outer Banks
Clubs
 
Nope the 2.7 is definitely now a constraint. Mike just confirmed this on Twitter yesterday and recommended the 2.3 to speed things up! Sorry to bare the bad news but that's reality.

Screenshot_20211125-184441_Twitter.jpg
I wonder what this means for people like me that have a build date for end of January with a 2.7 or is this just about getting scheduled down the road
 

F2F

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
95
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Wrangler Altitude 2.0L Turbo
Bronco
Big Bend
Clubs
 
I wonder what this means for people like me that have a build date for end of January with a 2.7 or is this just about getting scheduled down the road
I’m in the same boat, but I think we’re safe. New Bronco orders are the ones that are limited to the 2.3L.
 

SilverBullets

Outer Banks
Active Member
First Name
Brady
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
41
Reaction score
89
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2014 Porsche Cayman S
Bronco
Outer Banks
Ive driven the 2.3 a couple time and I have a 2.7… the 2.3 is fine but not great. It feels peppy but under powered. It feels similar to like the VW Tiguan with the 2.0t. A suv with a motor from a golf. It’s fine but once you get into mountains or passing at speed it feels weak. Peppy but underpowered.
 

Tricky Dick

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Dick
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
6,409
Location
PNW
Vehicle(s)
87 Suzuki Samurai, 03 Ford F250
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 
I know it has more torque. But if it weights a lot more then the 2.3 and the real world performance is similar does it matter that it has more torque on paper?
The weight difference isn't enough to negate the extra torque.

That said, I never considered the 2.7 for a second. I hoped for a 2.3 before the engine choices were even announced. It's a fantastic engine.
 
Advertisement

 
Zone Offroad
Advertisement
Top