2.3 vs 2.7 compromise

[johndeerefarmer]

I always run regular in my 2.3 EcoBoost. Ford states it will make more power on Premium, but it feels just fine the way I drive it. Plenty of power, 43k miles without a problem, and two cross country and back trips. Assuming the Bronco is heavier and will be beat on a little more, I opted for the 2.7. Both, however, are great engines. I know a Ford employee who dailies a 2.3 Focus RS (with Mustang EcoBoost heads swapped in at 40k-50k miles) and now has over 200k miles on it.

Before Ford added port injection to the 3.5 ecoboost there were problems with deposits. After a class action lawsuit Ford added port injection in 2017 to fix this issue.

As far as premium goes I have towed 10-12k with my ecoboosts. When it's hot or towing is when you need to run premium so that's what I would do. Run the cheap stuff during the winter months and premium during the summer heat

Sponsored

 

[NVCowboy]

I like the six for other reasons. Port injection and designed from the turbo down. Numbers ain't bad either.

 

[Contact]

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.

Cost to be happy...................Priceless.

 

[Panmort]

The 2.3 will work fine for me. I don't need the extra power so I rather spend the difference on a higher trim, etc.

 

[Streetfish]

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

Not really in my experience, but I do notice a difference in fuel economy (higher octane better)

 

[MattyAg]

Did you factor 2 less spark plugs on the 2.3 into your calculations? Or the 7 quarts of oil in the 2.7? Over the life of the vehicle the 2.3 will be half the price of 2.7. I did the maths.

 

[GreyBronco]

Copy and Pasted. Sent email to the wife. Priceless

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Did you factor 2 less spark plugs on the 2.3 into your calculations? Or the 7 quarts of oil in the 2.7? Over the life of the vehicle the 2.3 will be half the price of 2.7. I did the maths.

I did factor the ease of changing said spark plugs.

Neat little row down the center of the engine has an appeal over a DOHC V6 shoehorned in.

 

[Norm A.]

Man you put a lot into that to justify you getting a 2.7, me I'm just getting it because I want it

 

[King Luis]

But the 2.3 has a manual. Savings there.

 

[Daktari]

I thought this was rather easy, there's a larger engine? Check. Done. I'll never buy an other manual car again, so didn't care about that part, I plan to keep this thing for a long time, so the price difference over the years is negligible and not worth thinking about. If you can afford it now, just get it, it'll be funner

 

[NotApplicable]

Both will propel the vehicle forward and neither will last as long as they used to.

 

[Big Boss]

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

Yes you can tell but as Drex explains below it really isn't noticeable until the upper part of the power band.

My Mazda is 227 HP on regular and 250 on premium. It does feel a bit more lively with premium in it especially at the top of the power band but the bigger difference is that if I keep my foot out of it it returns better mpg on premium. Normally average 29 to 31 with 89 in it and with premium its 32 to 34

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.

 

[mpeugeot]

Both will propel the vehicle forward and neither will last as long as they used to.

Ummm, you clearly don't remember Ford engines of the 70's and 80's. The engines in general are much better than engines of the past.

 

[dorenhagen]

EXCELLENT video - thanks.

Sponsored