2.3 Shaping up to be the better Engine?

[The Driving Viking]

2.3 won’t make it up Parley’s? What the?? Dude, I would drive my old windows 1996 Bounder with a 240hp 460 up Parley’s. Pretty sure a 300hp Bronco will make it up there with no problem at all.

Alot of the 2.7 guys on this forum like to render the 2.3 as gutless to justify their purchase. I see it alot here. Most have never even driven the 2.3 They make up wild scenarios about how the 2.3 couldn't do this or that. Lol.

Don't believe everything you hear on a forum. Get out and drive one. I had the 2.3 Turbo in my Mustang and it was a beast especially when tuned. Yes the Bronco is heavier but it also is geared differently 4.7 and tuned for Off-roading which will make up for that.

I haven't driven the 2.3 in the Bronco yet but it's on my list of things to do within the next couple weeks. My dealer has a test vehicle in and I'm hoping it's the 2.3. It's a 4 door but if it performs well in that I know it will be even better in the 2 door.

Sponsored

 

[The Driving Viking]

Do you realize the weight difference between a 2 and 4 door is only approx. 200 lbs? It's not a big difference.

It's like a quarter of a second in a quarter mile.

If 200 lbs isn't a big difference then why do people rip out their back seats when drag racing? Also the 2.3 engine is lighter the the 2.7 as well. It all adds up.

All I'm saying is the 2.3 may be a good option for people ordering the 2 door that don't want to wait another year on their Bronco. That's all. I think both engines are a good option. I am concerned with the 2.7 having issues as if late though. And if they persist I'd rather have the more reliable engine. And that's a big IF they persist. Not saying they will.

 

[Bronck]

They will both break down…eventually

 

[4X4XFAR]

Interesting thread here in terms of capacity constraints with the 2.7

Towing capacity is only 3,500 lbs so it'll never be hauling around anything significant.

The Ford Motorsports tune makes a big difference in a Focus ST with the 2.0 engine so there will be a (clean, legal) way to add torque to the 2.3 if necessary

 

[GoTigersGoBronco]

Let’s be honest. There isn’t a huge delta in the performance of the 2.3 vs 2.7. I think many people could drive a 2.3 and not realize it’s a turbo 4.

I have a 2.7, but easily could have gone 2.3. The Ranger, Mustang, and Focus have the 2.3 and have no problems getting around.

 

[AZshot]

I never considered the 2.7 once I learned you couldn't get a manual. What I'm looking for is a "better engine" in terms of reliability, one. And two, better gas mileage. I'm getting a lighter Big Bend 4Dr, coming next week. I expect to get about 22-24MPG the way I drive.

But let's talk reliability of the 2.3. One turbo - better. Ford used forged 4240 steel for the crank and connecting rods. They have a metal oil pan, not plastic. It is deep sump, with baffles for steep angle off road driving. The entire engine is cast aluminum, not a hodgepodge of aluminum and iron that other engines have heat differential problems with. Oil sprays under the pistons to cool them better. Has a spin-on oil filter, not the cartridge of the other engine.

It's a proven design, used for years in about 10 different Fords since 2015. I wanted to have no engine worries with my experience with my Bronco. I keep my vehicles on average 15 years.

- Bronco 2.3 overview technical
https://tuningpro.co/the-most-common-ford-2-3l-ecoboost-engine-problems/ - outlook good

 

[Bronc-itis]

I ordered a 2dr BaseSquatch with 2.7. Think I’m gonna switch it to 2.3 and manual. See if that helps me get it any sooner. I don’t need 2.7 if a tuned 2.3 will be able push around my base.

 

[Big Diamond]

After reading this thread, I have this odd comparison to note.

I have a Bronco Sport Badlands that I'll be trading in when I get my Black Diamond.

The Sport Badlands has a 2.0 4 banger (The other Bronco Sports trims have a 1.5 3 cylinder).

I test drove the 2.3 Auto Badlands about a month ago. It felt sort of slightly sluggish compared to the Sport but still plenty powered for my needs. I'm guessing this is all due to weight?

I have a 2.7 on order and I have a VIN and Jan Build date. If I didn't have that, I would consider switching to the 2.3 to get the Bronco Faster. Can't wait to try a 2.7 as I haven't driven one of those yet.

 

[shimmy825]

I'm curious how many on this thread have driven both? It seemed like a huge difference to me. I have driven a 2.7 4dr, 2dr and a 2.3 4dr.

I have driven both. 2.7 in a badsquatch 4dr, 2.3 in a non squat h badlands 4dr. 2.3 was kind of a dog.

 

[uncledoodoo]

Not unless it's hiding 4 cylinders we didn't know about

 

[NC_Pinz]

I've driven a BL 2.3L manual non-Squatch and a Wildtrak with 2.7L. Both 4 doors. The 2.3L seemed like a solid engine. The manual is geared a little low, so it seemed to have plenty of power. Getting up to the speed limit on the highway took a bit longer. The 2.7L was pushing larger tires but was quicker to highway speed.

I think both will work well in both 4 and 2 door applications. If you want to insure you get your vehicle quicker, jump to the 2.3L and don't look back. You can always get a tune and see a nice boost in power. I've wanted the 2.7L and plan to stay the course. If my Day 2 reservation gets to March with no VIN then I may change my mind.

 

[johndeerefarmer]

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?

Nope, 2.7 is better all the way around. As heavy as the Bronco is, more is better even with the 10 speed and low rear gears
If you are a mall crawler get the 2.3.

 

[The Driving Viking]

Nope, 2.7 is better all the way around. As heavy as the Bronco is, more is better even with the 10 speed and low rear gears
If you are a mall crawler get the 2.3.

This is a joke right?

 

[AZshot]

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.

 

[mpeugeot]

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 quarter mile.

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 on 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.

9.3 second 1/4 mile? Gonna have to fact check that 1/4 mile time on the Tacoma. What was the trap speed? 145-150 MPH?

Sponsored