2.3 versus 2.7

[DrewBronc21]

An automatic Bronco was a non starter for me so 2.3 7Mt it is. I wouldn’t buy a Bronco unless it was a manual and Don’t care how much slower it is. Will probably do a Ford or other tune when available but the 2.3 is plenty peppy

Sponsored

 

[BTomorama]

People forget that the 2.3 comes with the deficient vacuum assist brakes. Aren’t they worried about stopping? How about losing one pedal drive?

Having driven my 2.3L and had to brake hard.... No I'm not worried.

Although it's good to see the forum speculation = reality effect is working strong!

 

[flip]

My next BL will have the 2.3. Nothing wrong with 2.7 but for what my real world driving consists of, 2.3 makes more sense.

 

[DogHauler]

Always buy the optional engine, buyer's remorse is real and dangerous.

 

[MayhemMike]

Have driven both, and own the 2.3. Both are fine. I wish there was a V8 option. ( Any chance I get to stick the V8 wish in a post I will do it lol)

 

[DogHauler]

Have driven both, and own the 2.3. Both are fine. I wish there was a V8 option. ( Any chance I get to stick the V8 wish in a post I will do it lol)

I've never had any wastegate problems on my 5.0L

 

[Jawbox]

One thing I never realized until I came here is how many people expect a Bronco to be able to do burnouts. The 2.3 is a perfect engine for a highly capable four wheel drive vehicle.

 

[MnLakeBum]

Hp and torque are adequate on both engines but it’s often what you have been accustomed to. I can feel the extra 28% torque of the 2.7 but it still feels weaker that the Ford Lion diesel in our ‘18 Range Rover that has 443 ft/lbs at 1,700 rpm. I’d love it if Ford would offer that engine in the Bronco but the environmental sentiment driving politics in the U.S. now makes that unlikely. I think they even discontinued it for 2022 in the F150.

FWIW I’m averaging 15.5 mpg with my Bronco and 28.5mpg over 63k miles in our Rover that weighs 5,000 pounds and is only slightly more aerodynamic. The Rover will average 14+ mpg pulling my 6,300 pound boat/trailer, lol.

I’ve never regretted upgrading to more torque/hp with any vehicle or boat that I’ve owned. For me, $1,900 more for the 2.7L is a bargain especially running 35’s.

 

[MnLakeBum]

One thing I never realized until I came here is how many people expect a Bronco to be able to do burnouts. The 2.3 is a perfect engine for a highly capable four wheel drive vehicle.

Lol, exactly. For the first decade of my career I was required to drive anemic dodge Caravans for my company car. Talk about not being excited to get into your vehicle each day and at the time I was averaging 40,000 miles each year. In 2009 my company gave me the option of of a Ford Edge with the 4 cylinder Ecoboost and it felt like I had switched to a sports car.

The last 5 years I’ve been driving a Tesla Model S that does 0-60 in 3.1 seconds and either Bronco engine feels slow, but that’s ok, it’s not a sports sedan with 690hp.

 

[Jawbox]

Hp and torque are adequate on both engines but it’s often what you have been accustomed to. I can feel the extra 28% torque of the 2.7 but it still feels weaker that the Ford Lion diesel in our ‘18 Range Rover that has 443 ft/lbs at 1,700 rpm. I’d love it if Ford would offer that engine in the Bronco but the environmental sentiment driving politics in the U.S. now makes that unlikely. I think they even discontinued it for 2022 in the F150.

FWIW I’m averaging 15.5 mpg with my Bronco and 28.5mpg over 63k miles in our Rover that weighs 5,000 pounds and is only slightly more aerodynamic. The Rover will average 14+ mpg pulling my 6,300 pound boat/trailer, lol.

I’ve never regretted upgrading to more torque/hp with any vehicle or boat that I’ve owned. For me, $1,900 more for the 2.7L is a bargain especially running 35’s.

Turning bigger tires and towing are cases where I'd consider the 2.7. Passing going up a hill with an extra 3000lbs and 35" tires is thing.

 

[wrbix]

Always buy the optional engine, buyer's remorse is real and dangerous.

Always buy the manual transmission……yada, yada, yada.

To each his own.

 

[MnLakeBum]

Turning bigger tires and towing are cases where I'd consider the 2.7. Passing going up a hill with an extra 3000lbs and 35" tires is thing.

Yep and where you live matters as well. It’s very flat here in the land of 10,000 Lakes but if I still lived in NorCal where every week I was going from 800 ft elevation to over 7,000 ft elevation just 70 miles from my house, the 2.7L would be a need and not a want.

 

[KPLOBX]

People forget that the 2.3 comes with the deficient vacuum assist brakes. Aren’t they worried about stopping? How about losing one pedal drive?

Yep I’ve driven both. 2.3 definitely is mushy. 2.7 feels and brakes perfectly.

 

[Jawbox]

Yep I’ve driven both. 2.3 definitely is mushy. 2.7 feels and brakes perfectly.

2.3 and my brakes are perfectly fine, exactly what I expect for this type and size of vehicle.

 

[PWillette]

I'm pushing 35s w/ the 2.3 and 4.70 gears...all I'll ever need on or off road. Gearing for the 2.3 is key.

Sponsored