2.3 Shaping up to be the better Engine?

[Beach_Bum]

I was given a mannequin to use with the 2.7 while the mach e was getting fixed and the dealership end up asking for it early back due to issues pushed down from higher about the 2.7 so there's definitely something not right with it

I've been looking in on a lot of demos looking for unique builds. Most demos were built with the 2.7L other than those demos with the manual. But looking at the tracker for problem 2.7L by @mpeugeot, there is common denominator of a batch of engines produced with bad valves. Most demos with the 2.7L were built at the end of June when the bad batch was distributed. When the in-service requirement is met (end of December/beginning of January), there is a potential of a large herd of Broncos with a ticking time bomb for an engine to blow. Ford might have recognized the common problem and has quietly instructed dealers to hold back the demos to correct the issues before they crap out on an unsuspecting new owner.

Sponsored

 

[Cbiggs]

All I can say after just driving the blue ridge mountains in beautiful West Virginia that I was glad to have the 2.7. I’m sure both engines will be great and if I could afford another one I’d order a 2dr. 7MT.
BUT I found myself looking for a microphone to drop at some of the peaks passing other vehicles. The 2.7 really gobbled it up.
lots of love for the Bronco on the roads.

 

[timstrong20]

All I can say after just driving the blue ridge mountains in beautiful West Virginia that I was glad to have the 2.7. I’m sure both engines will be great and if I could afford another one I’d order a 2dr. 7MT.
BUT I found myself looking for a microphone to drop at some of the peaks passing other vehicles. The 2.7 really gobbled it up.
lots of love for the Bronco on the roads.

2.7 and have no regrets

 

[The Driving Viking]

I'd rather push a 2.7L than drive a 2.3L!

That's the bigger is better East Coast mentality. I'm surprised you didn't go for the 392 Rubicon!

 

[BroncoDymond88]

Yes and no. I agree with you that if someone is buying a new car, an engine failure is unacceptable. But keep in mind that you’ve read about maybe 10 reports out of the thousands of engines on the roads now. And why should we assume that every bronco owner with a 2.3 and major problems would instantly report in on this forum? It’s just not enough data to draw such sweeping conclusions….not nearly enough yet.

Right, and you can't assume that without knowing the distribution of 2.7 users to 2.3 users on the forum, and how many of each have already been delivered. Plus, the 2.7 has been constrained all year.....

 

[21BL2DR]

I never considered the 2.3. I also never considered a manual. I am extremely happy with the performance of my 2.7. Accelerate from 25-80 on an interstate on-ramp and it will be apparent why it is the perfect power-plant. My 2 door is also non fatsquatch and I think that helps. (I test drove both). My 2 door with 33” tires has a definite acceleration advantage over a 4 door squatched rig. Less rotational weight and less body weight to get rolling. Also…….When I drove the 4 door sqatched 2.7 i thought it had plenty of power as well. All that really matters is that YOU are happy with YOUR choice.

 

[Parker]

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.

Glad to see someone is actually breaking in a new Bronco.

 

[AZshot]

I'd rather push a 2.7L than drive a 2.3L!

You may be sooner than people with 2.3s. Buy the 2.3 for long-term reliability and sufficient power off-roading. Buy the 2.7 to go fast on superhighways and resell before it has 60K miles.

 

[Roofus]

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.

My salesman told me that if you received a VIN and build date the parts for that build were accounted for and held and you were good to go. So I’m assuming if they are saying there are 2.7 shortages that applies to folks that don’t yet have a build date. But that’s definitely an assumption.

 

[broncosor]

I tried the 2.3 in the Ranger and Bronco, and the 2.7 in the F-150 and Bronco, all Bronco were Sasquatched. Really liked the 2.3 in the Ranger. Peppy and fun. Almost liked it more than the 2.7 in the F-150.

The test on the Broncos were a different story. Due to the much heavier weight, the 2.3 felt slugish and over working high reving with high noise. The 2.7 was smooth powerful and fantastic overall, quiet and smooth but power when you need it.

I initially ordered the 2.3 after my Ranger / F-150 test because I have a 180HP SUV and could not care less for power. But after driving the Broncos I changed the order to the 2.7. The 2.3 was underpowered but worst, it did not feel right and good like the 2.7.

A no brainer for me even if power is not what you are looking for.

 

[MWILD]

My salesman told me that if you received a VIN and build date the parts for that build were accounted for and held and you were good to go. So I’m assuming if they are saying there are 2.7 shortages that applies to folks that don’t yet have a build date. But that’s definitely an assumption.

That’s my understanding as well. I’ve been given an estimated build week and have a vin as well.

 

[Tricky Dick]

expert automotive journalists

Peed myself a bit there, thanks.

 

[The Driving Viking]

I tried the 2.3 in the Ranger and Bronco, and the 2.7 in the F-150 and Bronco, all Bronco were Sasquatched. Really liked the 2.3 in the Ranger. Peppy and fun. Almost liked it more than the 2.7 in the F-150.

The test on the Broncos were a different story. Due to the much heavier weight, the 2.3 felt slugish and over working high reving with high noise. The 2.7 was smooth powerful and fantastic overall, quiet and smooth but power when you need it.

I initially ordered the 2.3 after my Ranger / F-150 test because I have a 180HP SUV and could not care less for power. But after driving the Broncos I changed the order to the 2.7. The 2.3 was underpowered but worst, it did not feel right and good like the 2.7.

A no brainer for me even if power is not what you are looking for.

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. After that nobody can say it's sluggish.

Also I think most people are buying the Bronco knowing that it's not a Sports car.

Also gearing matters. The 4.7 gears in would be the best fit for the 2.3 and since I'm going Sasquatch that's what I would have.

 

[broncosor]

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. After that nobody can say it's sluggish.

Also I think most people are buying the Bronco knowing that it's not a Sports car.

Also gearing matters. The 4.7 gears in would be the best fit for the 2.3 and since I'm going Sasquatch that's what I would have.

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 5000 pounds Badlands Sasquatch. It’s trying a lot, nervous but not powerfull, the contrary of smooth. Not a pleasant experience

 

[Jer]

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, and no way I would be satisfied with the 2.3, at least on a badlands with sas. Love my 2.7. The 2.3 would have been settling for me.

Sponsored