2.3 vs 2.7 compromise

[MrJoe]

So I've been giving the 2.3L vs 2.7L engine a lot of thought and I think that I may have come up with a way in which the 2.7 may wind up actually being cheaper, and yes, this is me totally trying to justify the bigger engine to myself. Let's say, just for the sake of simplicity that I'm going to drive the Bronco for 100k miles. Also for the sake of simplicity, let's say that the truck is going to be SAS, so the comparable MPGs would be 18 (2.3) vs 17 (2.7).

Yes, I know I could run regular in either of them, but just for these purposes let's say that I want some degree of extra power beyond what the 2.3 gets on regular. If I went ahead and ran premium on the 2.3 in order to get the full specs vs regular on the 2.7 where I'd still get 315 hp/410 torque which is plenty. In my area right now, regular is $2.99 and premium is $3.94. So here's how that lands over 100k miles (obviously gas prices will vary here, but again just for simplicity's sake).

Cost to drive 2.3 SAS 100k miles with premium fuel at $3.94/gal and 18 MPG = $21,889.
Cost to drive 2.7 SAS 100k miles with regular fuel at $2.99/gal and 17 MPG = $17,588
Delta between the 2 = $4,301
Cost to add 2.7 to build = $1,895
Long term savings = $2,406

Thanks for patronizing me on my quest to justify my decisions to myself.

I like all the numbers... Haven't got a clue what you're talking about, but the numbers are cool.

Sponsored

 

[timhood]

Genuinely curious for anyone who has a vehicle that has different power outputs based on octane ratings; can you actually tell the difference?

I tried premium for higher output on my vehicle, but couldn't notice the difference. It would be very tricky to notice seat-of-the-pants, and anyone that says that they filled up with premium after regular and "immediately noticed the difference" is experiencing the placebo effect. Why?

1. When you fill up with premium after regular, you will end up with a mix in your tank, depending on how much regular was left in-tank when you filled up. For the average person, 20-25% remaining is not atypical.
2. The fuel in your fuel lines is still regular until premium makes its way through to the engine.

So, at best, you'd really want to fill up with premium twice and compare performance on that second fill-up with performance two tanks ago, which is going to be subject to memory and perception unless you do performance timing.

 

[stm378]

un-justifiable math on your dream scenario .
do a tune job on 2.3 for 4-700 get an extra 50hp ( like you say just for simplicity numbers ) and figure the same amount $gas money per gal. x 100k and you will be way ahead with 2.3 with a very zippy engine .
my 2cents and I want change back

LOL...I did consider tuning the 2.3, but in that scenario you're stuck on premium forever, so you'd still be in the higher ultimate gas cost for premium vs regular (albeit much more fun than the stock 2.3 with that tune).

 

[MN_OuterBanks]

Here’s my philosophy. 2.7=more power/more fun and it’s what I want. DONE.

 

[IDyeti]

Long term savings = $2,406

Or in Bronco6g currency that's a savings of 141.9469 Domino's Large Hawaiian pizzas (using Michigan taxes and pickup)

 

[qwaves]

More math fun.
You, (in the future), at a stoplight in your 2.3 Badlands 4 door at 17.2 lbs per horsepower.
Adjacent lane holds a rental basic Toyota Camry at 16.5 lbs per horsepower.
Light changes.

 

[Gamecock]

So I've been giving the 2.3L vs 2.7L engine a lot of thought and I think that I may have come up with a way in which the 2.7 may wind up actually being cheaper, and yes, this is me totally trying to justify the bigger engine to myself. Let's say, just for the sake of simplicity that I'm going to drive the Bronco for 100k miles. Also for the sake of simplicity, let's say that the truck is going to be SAS, so the comparable MPGs would be 18 (2.3) vs 17 (2.7).

Yes, I know I could run regular in either of them, but just for these purposes let's say that I want some degree of extra power beyond what the 2.3 gets on regular. If I went ahead and ran premium on the 2.3 in order to get the full specs vs regular on the 2.7 where I'd still get 315 hp/410 torque which is plenty. In my area right now, regular is $2.99 and premium is $3.94. So here's how that lands over 100k miles (obviously gas prices will vary here, but again just for simplicity's sake).

Cost to drive 2.3 SAS 100k miles with premium fuel at $3.94/gal and 18 MPG = $21,889.
Cost to drive 2.7 SAS 100k miles with regular fuel at $2.99/gal and 17 MPG = $17,588
Delta between the 2 = $4,301
Cost to add 2.7 to build = $1,895
Long term savings = $2,406

Thanks for patronizing me on my quest to justify my decisions to myself.

Sure. Pay the higher price and tell yourself it's cheaper....whatever it takes for you man, but the 2.7 is the right call if you're getting an auto.

 

[Bud2020]

You can't put a $ figure on regret

That ranks right up there with 'Buy once, cry once'.

 

[VelocityBrew]

This is how the conversation about motors went in my household ...

Me - "I am undecided on what motor would be best. I thought the Ranger I rented for a week was more than adequate for a 4 cylinder."

My fiancé - "I'm not undecided."

Me - "Which one are you leaning towards?"

My fiancé - "2.7 duh! Bigger is always better"

Me -

 

[Compta38]

Nobody ever says "man, I wish my car had less power". If someone is in a position to not compromise then don't settle for anything.

 

[Economisto]

2.7, more power either way and you keep your choice of reg or premium gas. 2.3 if youre not happy, you need a tune with required premium and still wont reach the same torque numbers. MPG will be essentially the same either way

 

[VelocityBrew]

LOL...I did consider tuning the 2.3, but in that scenario you're stuck on premium forever, so you'd still be in the higher ultimate gas cost for premium vs regular (albeit much more fun than the stock 2.3 with that tune).

Not necessarily, a tuner with off the shelf maps would allow you to switch as needed.

Plus the 2.3 sounds better IMO, still not getting one just sounds better

 

[Theherofails]

You'll drive the 2.7L much gentler when compared to the 2.3L. The 2.3L is powerful once the turbo spools up, but you'll end up mashing the accelerator quite often to get yourself moving and that just kills your MPG. If you have a feather light foot, you may get the advertised MPG for the 2.3L. I sure the heck do not in the Ranger Tremor.

With that said, the 2.3L is a crazy powerful engine for its size. You really feel the torque once that turbo kicks in. I think the 2.7L will probably average closer to listed MPG.

 

[stm378]

More math fun.
You, (in the future), at a stoplight in your 2.3 Badlands 4 door at 17.2 lbs per horsepower.
Adjacent lane holds a rental basic Toyota Camry at 16.5 lbs per horsepower.
Light changes.

I feel like the answer is C. turn hard left and just drive over the Camry's hood.

 

[Drex]

Genuinely curious for anyone who has a vehicle that has different power outputs based on octane ratings; can you actually tell the difference?

generally speaking torque outputs will be within a few percent of each other regardless of the fuel used (in a vehicle that will adjust). The perceived acceleration will be the same in normal driving. In real life, the only time you will see a difference is in the top 1/3 of the tachometer. That means you only get the additional power if you are hammering it full throttle or close to it. Think about how many miles you go at full throttle vs. normal driving. It is a vanishingly small percentage of time. (You accelerate at full chat getting on the highway and then set the cruise control for 150 miles of steady state velocity. I am not going to bother paying an extra $0.70 a gallon for all 150 miles driven for the slight (maybe a tenth or two faster to 60 MPH) for the tiny amount of time it takes to merge on a highway (and if I am cutting it so close that 1/5th of a second is the difference between merging safely and having a wreck, I should have my license revoked). That would work out to be about $6 in extra cost for 1/5 of a second time savings.

Unless you live your life a quarter-mile at a time, no rational person would run premium unless it is for emotional reasons, which is super, you do you, nobody cares.

Sponsored