2.3 Shaping up to be the better Engine?

[Cbiggs]

If anyone is on the fence and gas mpg is a factor here is the pic evidence of a 5 hour plus a little final leg of a turkey trot to see family in SC. 1,400 miles round trip.

Sponsored

 

[jedmisten]

If anyone is on the fence and gas mpg is a factor here is the pic evidence of a 5 hour plus a little final leg of a turkey trot to see family in SC. 1,400 miles round trip.

2.3l or 2.7l? On my last round trip from CA to Nevada, I was anywhere from 17-18 mpg traveling at speeds anywhere from 70-90 with the 2.7l. If I stayed at the 70 mph, it would have likely been 18 mpg on the highway. We all need to realize that we are driving a truck, and you are not going to get sparkling gas mileage. I am happy with 17 mpg. Either engine is great. You do you and get what you want.

 

[Ronaldo]

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 picked the 2.7

1. The Bronco is a relatively heavy vehicle, the larger displacement will be a advantage.

2. 5 star can tune your 2.7 to add 100tq 100 hp, the 2.3 is 75 tq and 75 hp

3. The absolute best reason for the 2.7 is the dual injection system, direct injection and port injection. 2.3 DI only which has proven to cause long term buildup of carbon on the intake valves.

4. The plug in hybrid Bronco is coming. When I saw that the mileage on my 2.7 Sasquatch was 17 city/17 hyw and with California gas already at $5.00 I ordered a 42 mpg city hybrid maverick. I’m trying to pull off both. As a side note TFL truck drag raced both of these and the hybrid beat the bronco by more than a cars length!

 

[barracuda]

Had a 2.7 Manual been available I probably would’ve bought one but now I’m glad I didn’t. Mostly just happy to have saved the $ as the 2.3 engine is perfectly suited to the vehicle. I think in the long run they’ll both prove plenty reliable

 

[Cbiggs]

2.3l or 2.7l? On my last round trip from CA to Nevada, I was anywhere from 17-18 mpg traveling at speeds anywhere from 70-90 with the 2.7l. If I stayed at the 70 mph, it would have likely been 18 mpg on the highway. We all need to realize that we are driving a truck, and you are not going to get sparkling gas mileage. I am happy with 17 mpg. Either engine is great. You do you and get what you want.

2.7l. I was happy with it considering the terrain and wind.

 

[ProdigyJKU]

When Ford releases the 2.3 performance tune you're really going to love it even more. Tunes then the 2.3 into a beast.

I saw it posted somewhere that the Ford performance tune is supposed to be quite mild compared to the Ranger performance tune. Basically only half the increase the Ranger gets.

Btw, I believe the Mustang version of the 2.3 has a completely different turbo so it's like comparing apples to oranges.

And lets say the PEAK numbers of the 2.3 tune match the stock 2.7. That does NOT mean that the engines will feel or respond the same. The 2.7 will problably still make more usable torque down low, and be quicker to respond. Just because two engine have matching peak numbers does not mean that they will have the same torque curve.

I had a turbocharged 3.6 in my Wrangler, it could easily match the 392s power in the top half of the rpm range, but the V8 had wayyy more torque of idle and NO turbo lag.

 

[Roofus]

So far there are atleast 4 failed reportef on this forum.

Let's say that 10% of all Bronco owners are members of this forum.

Statistically that means there are likely 10 times amount of failed engines then what we see here.

That seems like a high percentage, considering the lack of miles on Bronco's in the wild so far. Don't forget that ~half the Broncos produced so far have the 2.3s.

I haven't heard of a single 2.3 failure yet.

"40" failed 2.7 engines out of the limited number currently on the road right now sounds quite significant to me.

All hypothetical ofcourse...

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…

 

[Rusty Sheckelford]

I saw it posted somewhere that the Ford performance tune is supposed to be quite mild compared to the Ranger performance tune. Basically only half the increase the Ranger gets.

Btw, I believe the Mustang version of the 2.3 has a completely different turbo so it's like comparing apples to oranges.

And lets say the PEAK numbers of the 2.3 tune match the stock 2.7. That does NOT mean that the engines will feel or respond the same. The 2.7 will problably still make more usable torque down low, and be quicker to respond. Just because two engine have matching peak numbers does not mean that they will have the same torque curve.

I had a turbocharged 3.6 in my Wrangler, it could easily match the 392s power in the top half of the rpm range, but the V8 had wayyy more torque of idle and NO turbo lag.

Wonder if Ford is scared the manual can't handle any more power than that? Nerfing the 2.3 tune and not offering the manual with the V6 seems to suggest the Transmission might be the weak link?

 

[The Driving Viking]

I saw it posted somewhere that the Ford performance tune is supposed to be quite mild compared to the Ranger performance tune. Basically only half the increase the Ranger gets.

Btw, I believe the Mustang version of the 2.3 has a completely different turbo so it's like comparing apples to oranges.

And lets say the PEAK numbers of the 2.3 tune match the stock 2.7. That does NOT mean that the engines will feel or respond the same. The 2.7 will problably still make more usable torque down low, and be quicker to respond. Just because two engine have matching peak numbers does not mean that they will have the same torque curve.

I had a turbocharged 3.6 in my Wrangler, it could easily match the 392s power in the top half of the rpm range, but the V8 had wayyy more torque of idle and NO turbo lag.

I have not seem anywhere stating it's going to be a more mild tune. Also the favt that the Bronco engine makes 300hp and 330 torque with 93 Octane gas tells be its not a different 2.3 or smaller turbo.

I have no doubt a Ford performance tune will net the 2.3 in the Bronco around 350hp or so and 390 ft lbs of torque give or take. And covered under warranty because believe it or not that is a mild tune for this engine.

 

[The Driving Viking]

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…

Ford may want to make 150k a year Broncos but it ain't happening anytime soon. And the 2.7 engine problem is a new development. So who knows how bad it is as of now. We'll know within a couple years how many 2.7s grenade. Until then buckle up. This entire Broncos release has been one gigantic sh$t show!! And it's rolling down hill fast.

 

[Bdockins]

I saw it posted somewhere that the Ford performance tune is supposed to be quite mild compared to the Ranger performance tune. Basically only half the increase the Ranger gets.

Btw, I believe the Mustang version of the 2.3 has a completely different turbo so it's like comparing apples to oranges.

And lets say the PEAK numbers of the 2.3 tune match the stock 2.7. That does NOT mean that the engines will feel or respond the same. The 2.7 will problably still make more usable torque down low, and be quicker to respond. Just because two engine have matching peak numbers does not mean that they will have the same torque curve.

I had a turbocharged 3.6 in my Wrangler, it could easily match the 392s power in the top half of the rpm range, but the V8 had wayyy more torque of idle and NO turbo lag.

..and that glorious sound, too.

 

[Fowler]

2020 Base 2 door 4cly. MT 7 , 1,600 miles . Runs great more power than I need. ran it 600 miles this last weekend 72 mph ,got 22-23 mpg on Highway.

 

[Techun]

Also the favt that the Bronco engine makes 300hp and 330 torque with 93 Octane gas tells be its not a different 2.3 or smaller turbo.

I don't follow this logic at all. So because they have similar power ratings they must be identical?

 

[BlazinGTO]

Wonder if Ford is scared the manual can't handle any more power than that? Nerfing the 2.3 tune and not offering the manual with the V6 seems to suggest the Transmission might be the weak link?

The 7 speed manual has a lower power rating than the 10 speed automatic. It's rated lower than the 2.7s torque output. So that's one reason the 2.7 doesn't get the manual.

The other reason I read about is that a whole new casting would be needed to match the bellhousing up to the 2.7. With the lower take rate of the manual, a separate casting plus needing to beef up the internals of the 7M was probably deemed not worth it by Ford.

 

[The Driving Viking]

I don't follow this logic at all. So because they have similar power ratings they must be identical?

Why would Ford make changes to a proven engine at this point? A completely different turbo would be a big deal and would open the question of reliability can of worms that I doubt they want to go down with a flagship vehicle like the Bronco.

Sponsored