2.3 vs. 2.7 ultimate pro/con list

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

you forgot the part where the 2.7 has twice as many turbos to be replaced, tones of piping and junk all over the place blocking access to important parts, and 0 room in the bay making repairs difficult

"Twice as many turbos" is a dramatic way of saying "1 more turbo." I have not seen how much room each engine takes up, but I bet neither will be easy to get a wrench around in.

I'm not ready to put "more/less could go wrong" to the pros and cons. The 2.7 has more data to go on in the truck application, but I suspect both engine will be durable enough.

Sponsored

 

[BE_]

"Twice as many turbos" is a dramatic way of saying "1 more turbo." I have not seen how much room each engine takes up, but I bet neither will be easy to get a wrench around in.

I'm not ready to put "more/less could go wrong" to the pros and cons. The 2.7 has more data to go on in the truck application, but I suspect both engine will be durable enough.

here is the 2.7 in the bronco

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

here is the 2.7 in the bronco

And the 2.3? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's also a pretty standard condition of the modern vehicle. I had a 69 Chrysler with a 440 and you could fit a family of 5 under the hood with it.

 

[PELS82]

Are we expecting a timing chain in these? Ranger has a chain right?

 

[ericmario]

I would be a bit cautious of a small engine with two turbochargers. I would think the smaller engine would wear out faster.

Well technically it's not two turbochargers for the 2.3, it's a twin-scroll turbine

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

Also (Based off current production Fords ( I.e. F150 and Ranger)):
2.7 - plastic oil pan (con)
small percentage known to leak
Not fumoto valve compatible
composite strength unknown ( pro or con)
Easy oil filter access (pro)

2.3 - metal oil pan (pro)
Fumoto compatible
Strength limits known
Oil filter location (con)

View attachment 22829

Updated to the list.

 

[BE_]

And the 2.3? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's also a pretty standard condition of the modern vehicle. I had a 69 Chrysler with a 440 and you could fit a family of 5 under the hood with it.

couldn't get a screenshot with the entire bay cause the cameraman was an idiot.

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

couldn't get a screenshot with the entire bay cause the cameraman was an idiot.

Yeah, I'm not walking away from either of those without bloody knuckles....

 

[DonsBronc]

only con for the the 2.7 is cost, other than that no replacement for displacement

 

[DrewBronc21]

2.3 - Pros= Manual and aftermarket
Cons= less power stock and DI

2.7- Pros= More power stock and more potential with less mods
Cons= More expensive and boring 10 speed auto.


I’m 90% set on the 2.3 Manual and adding bolt ons relatively quickly, it’s just a more fun driving experience, but in the Back of my head is a voice telling me get the 2.7 because It will be a beast with minimal mods and I still have my STi for manual driving.

Pricing will be a determining factor Too

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

2.3 - Pros= Manual and aftermarket
Cons= less power stock and DI

2.7- Pros= More power stock and more potential with less mods
Cons= More expensive and boring 10 speed auto.


I’m 90% set on the 2.3 Manual and adding bolt ons relatively quickly, it’s just a more fun driving experience, but in the Back of my head is a voice telling me get the 2.7 because It will be a beast with minimal mods and I still have my STi for manual driving.

Pricing will be a determining factor Too

I'm not ready to list the 2.7 cost as a con yet. It will be more expensive of course, but if its a $3K upgrade on a a $35K rig, that's only 8%. Annual fuel and insurance cost will also be pretty close. I'm predicting "bang for your buck" might tip toward the 2.7.

 

[Moze]

I will absolutely be hitting the trails in my Bronco. And I may miss the crawl gear the 10-20 days a year I am doing serious crawling. But I will appreciate the 10 speed auto and 2.7 every other day.

(P.S. my 6 speed auto Jeep has done fine everywhere it's ever been, so...)

 

[TNcoupe]

Nothing is worth giving up that sweet 7-speed MT for me. Not worried about the DI motor either, it's not a Hyundai

I'll put my DI Hyundai 2.0 turbo Veloster N against a 2.0 Ecoboost Focus ST anyday. As a matter of fact I already have cause I traded the ST for the Veloster. Power delivery is way better on the Hyundai.

 

[Mdemieville]

Am I the only one who thinks its possible the 2.7 will get better fuel economy real world due to it not having to work as hard to get the bronco moving. I had an 87 ranger 6 cylinderthat got way better milage than my 95 4 cylinder did. Full disclosure the 87 was manual and 4x4 and the 95 was a 2wd auto

 

[mC.242]

I'll put my DI Hyundai 2.0 turbo Veloster N against a 2.0 Ecoboost Focus ST anyday. As a matter of fact I already have cause I traded the ST for the Veloster. Power delivery is way better on the Hyundai.

Yeah but Kia/Hyundai does not have the best track record with their DI motors staying clean. But I have no idea how that compares to the Ecoboost engines. I have a DI motor in my 2015 Mazda6, but it's not a turbo and runs like new after almost 100K miles.

Sponsored