2.3 vs 2.7

[Hey19]

No doubt a base with the 2.7 would be pretty darn quick IMHO. However, I really enjoyed running through the gears in my 18 Focus ST, and so feel it should be a "different" kind of fun, but fun none the less, in the Bronco. I don't feel I'm compromising getting the 2.3, but would be in getting the 10A. My $0.02

Sponsored

 

[da_jokker]

It's been a while since I had anything that truly allowed me to run through the gears, although my current car has paddle shifters and "manual mode" but I would think that as fun as that is on the street... the opposite would be true off road. Just seems like with all the other things one needs to focus on while off roading.... stalling shouldn't be one of them.

 

[Bmadda]

According to survey pricing 2.7=$3500 + $1600 for auto trans. Thats $5100 for 40hp. I think I could do alot w/$5100 and I can get 40hp w/a pretty mild tune. 2.7 has lost the war of dollars IMO. Im also completely terrified of Ford v6 engines (not just ford but most mfgrs) Maybe 2.7 is the exception that proves the rule...but im still scared away by past experience. I'll stay w/2.3...manual is a bonus!

 

[Skeeterjack]

I think ford has us over a barrel. You up grade to the 2.7. Addthe Sasquatch pkg. solid roof top and some extra options and all of a sudden I’m seeing a new c8 corvette and a beater in the driveway for winter.

 

[Thed]

I think ford has us over a barrel. You up grade to the 2.7. Addthe Sasquatch pkg. solid roof top and some extra options and all of a sudden I’m seeing a new c8 corvette and a beater in the driveway for winter.

Good luck getting a C8 for under $80k right now.

 

[bf4445]

I've got the 2.3L ecoboost in my 2016 Mustang... with a tune, intercooler, intake/exhaust, it's plenty quick - keeps up with (beats) stock Mustang GT's until about 75-80 mph ... however with that said... I'll be going with the 2.7 in the Bronco. It's a small price increase for a pretty substantial increase in power.

My problem with the v6 is a crowded engine compartment. So much easier to get at things with a 4cl engine. I've never needed a bigger engine as long as i had the gears. Big engines were needed back in the 3sp, 4sp days but thats gone now we have 8 and 10 speed trannies with low range transfer cases. If you have a need to go 80mph in the rocks then maybe you need the big engine but otherwise just drop a couple of gears slow down and enjoy the ride. Oil Slick my 47 cj5 with a tiny 4 banger that would turn 3,000 rpm and do 60mph wide open would climb anything and go any place sometimes passing big jacked up monster engined 4x4's bogged down. I loved to do that i would just go around them sipping a beer and wave.....Our 67 bronco could not do those things

 

[Rydfree]

According to survey pricing 2.7=$3500 + $1600 for auto trans. Thats $5100 for 40hp. I think I could do alot w/$5100 and I can get 40hp w/a pretty mild tune. 2.7 has lost the war of dollars IMO. Im also completely terrified of Ford v6 engines (not just ford but most mfgrs) Maybe 2.7 is the exception that proves the rule...but im still scared away by past experience. I'll stay w/2.3...manual is a bonus!

$3500 is for the 2.7 AND the 10 Auto
$1600 is for the 10 Auto if you keep the 2.3

 

[Bmadda]

$3500 is for the 2.7 AND to 10 Auto
$1600 is for the 10 Auto if you keep the 2.3

Ok...whatever it is I'm not paying it?

 

[Rydfree]

my 47 cj5 with a tiny 4 banger that would turn 3,000 rpm and do 60mph wide open would climb anything and go any place sometimes passing big jacked up monster engined 4x4's bogged down. I loved to do that i would just go around them sipping a beer and wave.....Our 67 bronco could not do those things

I miss my ole '55 that I had back in the early 80's. Well , except for the 3,000 rpm runs down the highway wide open ,lol . Remember them well

 

[Mattwings]

To be fair, both motors have more HP than any stock 302 or 351 (I had a 302 and drove a 351 at work regularly back in the day). The 2.7, more torque too. It is a heavy vehicle for its size at 5k for the 4dr, but I am pretty sure the 2.3 auto will beat any prior Bronco 0-60 and 1/4 mile. For me its a question of weight and balance. I would like to drive both. I would guess anything 35” and under off road the 2.3 will be awesome and better driving and the 2.7 will be a better daily driver and more fun “light to light” on the road. Just my guess, but I love my 2.7 F150 now, fun as a street toy in sport mode.

 

[calgecko]

My problem with the v6 is a crowded engine compartment. So much easier to get at things with a 4cl engine. I've never needed a bigger engine as long as i had the gears. Big engines were needed back in the 3sp, 4sp days but thats gone now we have 8 and 10 speed trannies with low range transfer cases. If you have a need to go 80mph in the rocks then maybe you need the big engine but otherwise just drop a couple of gears slow down and enjoy the ride. Oil Slick my 47 cj5 with a tiny 4 banger that would turn 3,000 rpm and do 60mph wide open would climb anything and go any place sometimes passing big jacked up monster engined 4x4's bogged down. I loved to do that i would just go around them sipping a beer and wave.....Our 67 bronco could not do those things

95% of my driving will be commuting - 45 miles a day with most of it being highway miles - I want something that will get up and go when I want/need it to even with the 2.7, I'll be looking at power-adders - intercooler upgrade, tune, exhaust etc

 

[Mopar2Bronco2021]

A Bronco with a auto trans can weigh just over 5300 lbs depending on how you spec it out. That’s as much as a super crew cab F150 I believe. The Ranger weighs no more than 4500 lbs.

So it really depends on how your Bronco is spec’d out before you can compare it’s power to weight ratio with the Ranger. It more so compares with the F150 if you opt for the 4 door auto from what I’m seeing.

Edit: If you’re getting the auto regardless of doors, it looks like damn close to 5000 lbs curb weight. Again, that’s F150 territory.

 

[bf4445]

I miss my ole '55 that I had back in the early 80's. Well , except for the 3,000 rpm runs down the highway wide open ,lol . Remember them well

Yes, they were great vehicles. Mine was purchased from the original owner and was bone stock. All i did was clean it up and tune it and ran perfect. Started slow so was about to convert to 12v but after taking the starte off and cleaning the mounting flange, bolts and starter the 6v actually started very fast. The issue wasnt the 6v but a bad electrical connection due to dirty mounting surfaces. I wish i had never sold that jeep. I'm excited about the new Bronco but won't buy one unless they come with rain sensing wipers and winch package option

 

[Buckin Bronco]

You know... the one fact that may be worthwhile is WHEN does the high torque kick in for each. Love these marketing about how much HP and Torque something has and then they leave out the required high RPM to get it.

One of the most impressive DD engines I every had was that little 4 banger diesel in my VW. That torque was right off throttle.. God that was fun!

I believe they both get max torque at 3000 rpm.

 

[Used2jeep]

Do you want a 0.575L combustion every 180 degrees or a 0.45L combustion every 120 degrees?

Sponsored