2.3 vs. 2.7 ultimate pro/con list

[wvcoalminer6912]

I am still on the fence and waiting till more information comes out.... but since thats weeks and months away, might as well keep speculating...

2.3 PROs:
Manual Transmission (and the gear ratios that come with it.)
Metal oil pan
Fumoto compatible

2.3 CONs:
Direct injection
Aluminum block
Oil filter location (based on the Ranger.)

2.7 PROs:
More HP & torque
CGI block
Port injection
Trail turn assist (and the other things that are only available with they auto trans.)

2.7 CONs:
No available manual transmission.
Plastic oil pan (based on other applications)


TBD:
plastic oil pan composite strength unknown
MPG - Based on the 2.3 in the Ranger and the 2.7 in the F-150 it looks like MPG between the two engines will be about 1-2 MPG difference, which I would mark as a major CON for the 2.3/PRO for the 2.7.
Initial purchase price - if upgrading to the 2.7 is in the 3% of the overall purchase range again I'd put that as a CON for the 2.3/PRO for the 2.7

Normally choosing a smaller engine is purely an economical choice - Cheaper purchase price, better MPG and cheaper insurance bill - but with available information so far, that doesn't appear to be the case here.

Right now, as much as I want that manual, I'm leaning toward the 2.7. If the MPG/purchase price is better than I predict with the 2.3 I'll tip the other way.

The Ford bronco is not a trail endurance condenter with jeep the 2.7 has a twin turbo v6 with plastic oil pan how does ford we keep water out of the engine with them turbo tubes snorkel them the engine is big it takes alot of room up in a f150 this vehicle will be a nightmare to fix on the trail jeep has a hp rating of 190 hp off factory GM is rumored to have a jeep contender with the vortec inline six with improved quality and offered in a auto or manual with Dana's off the factory am waiting on that to see if it will be a trail contender it produces a little less than 300 hp that gm made in mid 2000s they already have the engine and a plant in Toledo ohio that produces the best transmisson on the planet they have the capacity and staff if u look on the net you can see the top of the new GM jeep on the testing grounds that's only pic I could find you choose I say wait guys until we know how this will do in the trail or what it's up to you

Sponsored

 

[Pork-n-Bean]

.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

 

[sscott87]

The Ford Bronco is not a trail endurance contender with the Jeep Wrangler. The 2.7 has a twin turbo v6 with a plastic oil pan. How does Ford keep water out of the engine with the turbo and tubes? Snorkel it. The engine is big. It takes a lot of room in an F150. This vehicle will be a nightmare to fix on the trail.

Jeep has a hp rating of 190 hp from factory.

GM is rumored to have a Jeep contender with the vortec inline six, improved quality, and offered in an auto or manual with Danas factory. I’m waiting on that to see if it will be a trail contender. It produces a little less than the 300 hp that GM made in the mid 2000s. They already have the engine and a plant in Toledo, Ohio that produces the best transmisson on the planet. They have the capacity and staff; if you look on the net you can see the top of the new GM on the testing grounds. That’s the only pic I could find.

You choose. I say wait, guys, until we know how this will do in the trail or what. It’s up to you.

You’re all welcome.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

You’re all welcome.

 

[SoccerDude]

The Ford bronco is not a trail endurance condenter with jeep the 2.7 has a twin turbo v6 with plastic oil pan how does ford we keep water out of the engine with them turbo tubes snorkel them the engine is big it takes alot of room up in a f150 this vehicle will be a nightmare to fix on the trail jeep has a hp rating of 190 hp off factory GM is rumored to have a jeep contender with the vortec inline six with improved quality and offered in a auto or manual with Dana's off the factory am waiting on that to see if it will be a trail contender it produces a little less than 300 hp that gm made in mid 2000s they already have the engine and a plant in Toledo ohio that produces the best transmisson on the planet they have the capacity and staff if u look on the net you can see the top of the new GM jeep on the testing grounds that's only pic I could find you choose I say wait guys until we know how this will do in the trail or what it's up to you

I am really surprised nobody brought up the plastic oil pan earlier. It is a potential design problem with gasket issues documented already and could of course be a long term issue.

 

[wvmtneer]

The Ford bronco is not a trail endurance condenter with jeep the 2.7 has a twin turbo v6 with plastic oil pan how does ford we keep water out of the engine with them turbo tubes snorkel them the engine is big it takes alot of room up in a f150 this vehicle will be a nightmare to fix on the trail jeep has a hp rating of 190 hp off factory GM is rumored to have a jeep contender with the vortec inline six with improved quality and offered in a auto or manual with Dana's off the factory am waiting on that to see if it will be a trail contender it produces a little less than 300 hp that gm made in mid 2000s they already have the engine and a plant in Toledo ohio that produces the best transmisson on the planet they have the capacity and staff if u look on the net you can see the top of the new GM jeep on the testing grounds that's only pic I could find you choose I say wait guys until we know how this will do in the trail or what it's up to you

Get some sleep buddy, shift work sucks. Do you work on section or longwall?

 

[iamchewby]

 

[Rick Astley]

To it’s benefit, the 2.7 does have the oil filter on the front-top of the engine, while I know you have to pull a wheel on the ranger to do an oil change.

What you know is A. False and B. Incorrect. You do not have to remove a wheel to do an oil change on a Ranger. You do have to turn the steering wheel hard right.

Please stop repeating this incorrect information. Every press junket ran with that incorrect information and had to redact it. Update your memory banks as well, please.

In the ranger, which is lighter and less heavy duty, the 2.3 gets 18-21 MPG.

Ranger got 25.5 MPG over about 1,000 miles from Seattle to Montana and back on highway driving at ~70 mph. In my experience of over 5,000 miles of the 16,000 on our Ranger, it gets a regular 18-19 mpg in city and well over 21 mpg on the highway.

Ecoboost engines seem to be very sensitive to throttle modulation and a heavy foot will impact MPG more than any other vehicle i've ever had. If you are careful on the gas you can coax decent MPG out of it. When in crawl gear it won't matter anyway...

Crawl gear because the 2.3 is the better motor of the two for this use

My 2.3 is tuned and thats putting out around 375-400 bhp at the crank. $600 tune and a new air filter. Took about 15 minutes and eliminated a VERY annoying rev hang that apparently the EPA required.

I'm assuming they didn't bother to actually dyno your car and simply loaded in their canned tune based on the cost and time involved.

The best tunes i've ever had, ranging from the multiple turbo configurations on my Evo 9 all the way to large cfm carbs on big block Ford's have been custom dyno tunes that also include at least an hour of drive-ability tuning. Happy to pay for that extra hour to get the car driving just as fine as frog fur.

 

[mandrew]

The Ford bronco is not a trail endurance condenter with jeep the 2.7 has a twin turbo v6 with plastic oil pan how does ford we keep water out of the engine with them turbo tubes snorkel them the engine is big it takes alot of room up in a f150 this vehicle will be a nightmare to fix on the trail jeep has a hp rating of 190 hp off factory GM is rumored to have a jeep contender with the vortec inline six with improved quality and offered in a auto or manual with Dana's off the factory am waiting on that to see if it will be a trail contender it produces a little less than 300 hp that gm made in mid 2000s they already have the engine and a plant in Toledo ohio that produces the best transmisson on the planet they have the capacity and staff if u look on the net you can see the top of the new GM jeep on the testing grounds that's only pic I could find you choose I say wait guys until we know how this will do in the trail or what it's up to you

 

[TTown]

Does anyone know (or has anyone heard) if either the 2.3 or 2.7 have any known, or unexplainable, or frequently arising or other fundamentally bad traits like the Mustang 5.0 and it's infamous BBQ tick?

 

[GYMEBronco22]

.....I'm assuming they didn't bother to actually dyno your car and simply loaded in their canned tune based on the cost and time involved.

Nope - no dyno. Ford said the car had 350bhp stock and then Cobb said their tune was good for another 50. Took everyones word for it....
May get it dyno'd one day....

 

[Rick Astley]

Nope - no dyno. Ford said the car had 350bhp stock and then Cobb said their tune was good for another 50. Took everyones word for it....
May get it dyno'd one day....

Did they at least make it elevation dependent, or do you have a 4-bar MAP sensor in there so the ECU tunes to elevation?

 

[frinesi2]

I am really surprised nobody brought up the plastic oil pan earlier. It is a potential design problem with gasket issues documented already and could of course be a long term issue.

People bring up the plastic oil pan about 7 - 10 times a month I'd say. About twice a week.

 

[GYMEBronco22]

Did they at least make it elevation dependent, or do you have a 4-bar MAP sensor in there so the ECU tunes to elevation?

Not a clue - its a 91 octane tune (though I can change it to 93)

I'm at sea level but have taken it up into the White Mountains in NH (app. 2000 feet) and all was OK. Pretty standard tune really, and it doesn't void Fords warranty. These 2.3 are good up to 500bhp.

Sponsored