2.3 vs 2.7 compromise

[Old Guy]

Or you could realize that you will not notice the difference between either motor in your intended activities, and bigger engine talk is somewhat archaic in this day and age.

It cannot carry much payload
It cannot tow much
It wont handle well at speed (compared to car)
There is no place to drive fast
Stomping on the gas 0-40 as its the only place to stomp on the gas is kind of goofy

So I usually fail to see the point of the larger motor. Big truck that hauls and tows yes, this rig?

Oh wait you wanted agreement on your justification. Math looks good!!!!!!

Sponsored

 

[Raptor911]

You have too much time on your hands and thus are over thinking it. If you need to justify the 2.7 over the 2.3 then use this one >> 2.7 has dual injection (direct and port) and the 2.3 ONLY has direct injection.

Because of this, I think the 2.7 will just run cleaner and thus should last longer.

When Ford released the 3.5, it only has direct injection. Why do you think Ford redesigned the 3.5L to give it dual injection now?

 

[stras27]

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.

The only X factor that you left out was the APR that it will cost to finance the upgrade. Add 4% on 60 months and you add $4,500 roughly (I think). Your monthly payment increase would also need to factor into the total cost of ownership on the upgrade.

 

[Bud2020]

The only X factor that you left out was the APR that it will cost to finance the upgrade. Add 4% on 60 months and you add $4,500 roughly (I think). Your monthly payment increase would also need to factor into the total cost of ownership on the upgrade.

 

[Fordmanbob]

Sorry...should have precluded that post by saying that I'm an accountant....so the math doesn't drive me crazy...it comforts me. I know, I'm weird.

I'm interested that the gas price difference is only 31 cents in CA despite the price being higher. Out here in MD as soon as the gas prices started going up the difference between the 2 started going up with it. I think I remember the old days when the difference was like 10 cents/gallon, but the gallon of regular was like a buck.

It's like .70 difference in KC. RIDICULOUS there is that much difference between grades

 

[jxc]

As has been said before - There's no replacement for displacement.

Get the 2.7.

 

[Mike Mc]

I saved 3500 by getting a 2.3 with a manual. It is all about the power to weight ratio.

 

[Bronco2021RV]

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.

This all looks really good and it makes a lot of sense I almost thought about showing this to my wife so I could go down the same road. But then she said what about the cost of the automatic transmission. My response was oops

 

[Bronco2021RV]

As has been said before - There's no replacement for displacement.

Get the 2.7.

Oh great thanks for that. Now I can’t just un see it

 

[Eric L]

Screw the numbers....I want the 2.7

 

[stm378]

The only X factor that you left out was the APR that it will cost to finance the upgrade. Add 4% on 60 months and you add $4,500 roughly (I think). Your monthly payment increase would also need to factor into the total cost of ownership on the upgrade.

I thought about that, I get pretty decent treatment from the bank, so my rate would be closer to 2.5%, which would make it still less. Presumably oil changes and routine maintenance might cost more, but on the flip side of that there's the potential long term costs that might wind up being higher on the 2.3 vs the 2.7 related to the 2.7 having both port and direct injection.

 

[stm378]

This all looks really good and it makes a lot of sense I almost thought about showing this to my wife so I could go down the same road. But then she said what about the cost of the automatic transmission. My response was oops

Just tell her it's already included and then whisper (in the Outer Banks) under your breath.

 

[Brianstrange]

Don't forget to add the cost of replacing two turbos. If you're going 2.7, do it because you believe it's the better motor for your needs. The 2.3 has been proven out to be a great motor, adequate for most peoples needs. If you plan on towing with a 4 door on a regular basis, I would say a 2.7 is a necessity. If you're like us empty nester 2 door freaks, the 2.3 has plenty of power to get the job done. Fords record of V6 powerplants doesn't compare to their I4 and V8. I'm not knocking the 2.7, but the reliability of the 2.3 ECO is what made our final decision.

 

[Wide Open Roads]

You automatic transmission guys make me laugh with your engine choice debates.

But I do respect how the OP rationalized into the choice he knew he wanted. Life is short.

 

[Rick Astley]

As has been said before - There's no replacement for displacement.

Get the 2.7.

This argument goes well past potato shaped when you're comparing engines with a total difference of LESS THAN 25 cubic inches. (2.3 ltr = 140 cubic inches. 2.7 ltr = 164 cubic inches)

The 7.2 ltr FE in my Thunderbird displaces 439 cubic inches. The 2.3 in Ranger will thoroughly destroy it all over town, especially on the race to a gas station.

The 235 cubic inch (3.8 ltr) in my '51 Fleetline topped 100 hp when new. (Single barrel carb FTMFW!)

Viable replacements for displacement here in 2021:

1. tuning
2. forced induction
3. direct injection
4. strong tailwind
5. better arguments than "there's no replacement for displacement"
6. Bronco with 2.3 comes with a manual transmission, this should end all arguments
7. fuel injection
8. proper gearing
9. Ditching anything with a torque converter

Sponsored