2.7L, or 2.3L. Help me make the right decision.

[DC9atnight]

I have a question for Mattwings and others more familiar with the 2.3 and 2.7 engines. Now that the mpg numbers are out it turns out that the non Sas BD is the only trim level that actually improves its mpg with the 2.7 over the 2.3. (Non Sas Badlands is basically the same for 2.3 and 2.7 and all others are slightly worse with 2.7) The actual numbers are not big enough to make any real difference from a strictly mpg perspective but my question is whether the slightly better mpg number of the 2.7 in a non Sas BD portend an overtaxed 2.3, especially at 70 to 80 highway speeds, and an undertaxed 2.7 and whether that means long term that the 2.7 is the better option on a non Sas BD? (The other two factors to consider is that I am ordering a 2dr and I drive more highway miles than city) Thanks for the feedback.

Sponsored

 

[MayhemMike]

Once owned a Ranger. It was always “ to small”. Married had kids, bought F150 extended cab. It was always, ” the jump seats suck”. Own an F150 crew. Has never been “ to big”. Moral of the story, if you can afford the bigger, go bigger. BTW, if a mile or two per mile in fuel mileage is a great concern, then you are shopping for a vehicle in the wrong aisle. Personally, the thing that bothers me the most about either engine are the turbos. I would rather have 250 up from a aspirated six then beefed up HP with spools. But that me.

 

[Wanted33]

I have a question for Mattwings and others more familiar with the 2.3 and 2.7 engines. Now that the mpg numbers are out it turns out that the non Sas BD is the only trim level that actually improves its mpg with the 2.7 over the 2.3. (Non Sas Badlands is basically the same for 2.3 and 2.7 and all others are slightly worse with 2.7) The actual numbers are not big enough to make any real difference from a strictly mpg perspective but my question is whether the slightly better mpg number of the 2.7 in a non Sas BD portend an overtaxed 2.3, especially at 70 to 80 highway speeds, and an undertaxed 2.7 and whether that means long term that the 2.7 is the better option on a non Sas BD? (The other two factors to consider is that I am ordering a 2dr and I drive more highway miles than city) Thanks for the feedback.

@Mattwings

Good question John, I tagged him for you.

 

[LSU Jonno]

I don't think it would make much difference. These aren't race cars lol.

The aerodynamics actually do make a noticeable difference. The Bronco is a giant brick moving down the road. All of these SUVs moving to the "egg" design are doing so to capture that extra fuel efficiency.

 

[Mattwings]

@Mattwings

Good question John, I tagged him for you.

I happened to drive my sons 2.3 Ranger home from our cabin this weekend. I was towing a small landscape trailer and the bed was full of lawn equipment and yard debris bags (probably 400 lbs. of cargo and towing 1.2K trailer and weight in the trailer). It averaged about 19MPG, where it would normally do abut 22mpg on that same loop, so it definitely takes a hit when you are into the turbo more. Earlier in the weekend. I towed my 6K lb. boat and trailer with my 2.7 F150 from the barn to the lake (50 miles, 60 mph average seed) and it went from 19.6 to 16.9 mpg. Way more weight, I would have expected to see a bigger hit to mileage. In normal driving, same loop, similar driving style, we see about a 10% variance 2.7 to 2.3. The harder you work them, the smaller the gap. Aerodynamics come into play at higher speeds, but the ranger is also more sensitive to highway speeds. a 70MPH the 2.7 does about 21.5 mpg, the 2.3 24-25. 80mph (normal MI speed) F150 does about 19.6 MPG, 2.3 21 mpg. Not scientific and tons of variables, but the drop off is definitely more noticeable in the 2.3 as speeds climb. Both trucks are crew cab, 2.3 is FX4 with 3.73, f150 is a Sport with 3.55 gearing. My wife also drove the Ranger for the first time this weekend. She thought the motor was good, but it shifted more than the 2.7 (to the point she much preferred the 2.7). She is pretty experienced, having owned and driven a host of trucks, since running a landscape crew in high school, wheeling a 3/4 ton crew cab and 20ft landscape trailer, to a 1997 F150 V8 5 speed (special order) and her last truck being a 2013 F150 Super Crew 5.0.

 

[Wanted33]

I happened to drive my sons 2.3 Ranger home from our cabin this weekend. I was towing a small landscape trailer and the bed was full of lawn equipment and yard debris bags (probably 400 lbs. of cargo and towing 1.2K trailer and weight in the trailer). It averaged about 19MPG, where it would normally do abut 22mpg on that same loop, so it definitely takes a hit when you are into the turbo more. Earlier in the weekend. I towed my 6K lb. boat and trailer with my 2.7 F150 from the barn to the lake (50 miles, 60 mph average seed) and it went from 19.6 to 16.9 mpg. Way more weight, I would have expected to see a bigger hit to mileage. In normal driving, same loop, similar driving style, we see about a 10% variance 2.7 to 2.3. The harder you work them, the smaller the gap. Aerodynamics come into play at higher speeds, but the ranger is also more sensitive to highway speeds. a 70MPH the 2.7 does about 21.5 mpg, the 2.3 24-25. 80mph (normal MI speed) F150 does about 19.6 MPG, 2.3 21 mpg. Not scientific and tons of variables, but the drop off is definitely more noticeable in the 2.3 as speeds climb. Both trucks are crew cab, 2.3 is FX4 with 3.73, f150 is a Sport with 3.55 gearing. My wife also drove the Ranger for the first time this weekend. She thought the motor was good, but it shifted more than the 2.7 (to the point she much preferred the 2.7). She is pretty experienced, having owned and driven a host of trucks, since running a landscape crew in high school, wheeling a 3/4 ton crew cab and 20ft landscape trailer, to a 1997 F150 V8 5 speed (special order) and her last truck being a 2013 F150 Super Crew 5.0.

Thanks Matt. Your assessment of the 2.3L is spot on. My 2.3L Ranger is exactly as you described.

 

[DC9atnight]

I happened to drive my sons 2.3 Ranger home from our cabin this weekend. I was towing a small landscape trailer and the bed was full of lawn equipment and yard debris bags (probably 400 lbs. of cargo and towing 1.2K trailer and weight in the trailer). It averaged about 19MPG, where it would normally do abut 22mpg on that same loop, so it definitely takes a hit when you are into the turbo more. Earlier in the weekend. I towed my 6K lb. boat and trailer with my 2.7 F150 from the barn to the lake (50 miles, 60 mph average seed) and it went from 19.6 to 16.9 mpg. Way more weight, I would have expected to see a bigger hit to mileage. In normal driving, same loop, similar driving style, we see about a 10% variance 2.7 to 2.3. The harder you work them, the smaller the gap. Aerodynamics come into play at higher speeds, but the ranger is also more sensitive to highway speeds. a 70MPH the 2.7 does about 21.5 mpg, the 2.3 24-25. 80mph (normal MI speed) F150 does about 19.6 MPG, 2.3 21 mpg. Not scientific and tons of variables, but the drop off is definitely more noticeable in the 2.3 as speeds climb. Both trucks are crew cab, 2.3 is FX4 with 3.73, f150 is a Sport with 3.55 gearing. My wife also drove the Ranger for the first time this weekend. She thought the motor was good, but it shifted more than the 2.7 (to the point she much preferred the 2.7). She is pretty experienced, having owned and driven a host of trucks, since running a landscape crew in high school, wheeling a 3/4 ton crew cab and 20ft landscape trailer, to a 1997 F150 V8 5 speed (special order) and her last truck being a 2013 F150 Super Crew 5.0.

Thanks for the write up. Like many on this thread I’m torn. I like the idea of being light and zippy on the trails in my 2dr 2.3 but I’m likely driving 4 plus hours on the highway to get to those trails so the 2.7 seems better at 70 to 80 mph. From your posts it really seems like a toss up with you sticking with 2.3 for the better likelihood of a 21? Am I reading that correctly?

 

[Mr. Nice]

Thanks for the write up. Like many on this thread I’m torn. I like the idea of being light and zippy on the trails in my 2dr 2.3 but I’m likely driving 4 plus hours on the highway to get to those trails so the 2.7 seems better at 70 to 80 mph. From your posts it really seems like a toss up with you sticking with 2.3 for the better likelihood of a 21? Am I reading that correctly?

I really can't believe there is so much of a dilemma of which engine to get.

Both get about same mileage
100 pounds of 2.7 extra torque is huge
direct inject system in 2.3 will comeback to haunt you
resale/ trade-in desirability is going to be a problem with 2.3

Getting the 2.3 with the 7 speed manual (if you love to shift in traffic) would be the only possible plus.
If you can't afford the 2.7, then maybe you can't afford the Bronco?

Maybe they should put the 2.3 in the F-150 since they weigh about the same...

 

[Mattwings]

Thanks for the write up. Like many on this thread I’m torn. I like the idea of being light and zippy on the trails in my 2dr 2.3 but I’m likely driving 4 plus hours on the highway to get to those trails so the 2.7 seems better at 70 to 80 mph. From your posts it really seems like a toss up with you sticking with 2.3 for the better likelihood of a 21? Am I reading that correctly?

I think both are likely to be solid choices. I have had exposure to the Bronco with 2.3 and it was definitely good to go. I don’t know how it feels or works on the trail, but my educated guess is it will be noticeably better from a driving dynamics perspective. It’s lighter and has better mass centralization. The 2.7 will be better for higher speed work and definitely if you are loading it down, driving lots of higher speed highway and or towing at the upper end of its limits. If your primary concern is fuel economy, not a significant difference. I was willing to move to the 2.3 if it meant months of waiting, but I have my build date and engine choice isn’t the main commodity shortage. The other thing, seat of the pants acceleration feels better with the 2.7 although in practice, the difference isn’t much. Yes, I have drag raced my son from standing and rolling starts BTW the Ranger 2.3 and F150 5.0 are likely neck and neck in a drag race based on my experience having raced a 5.0 F150 several times.

 

[F OR D]

I really can't believe there is so much of a dilemma of which engine to get.

Both get about same mileage
100 pounds of 2.7 extra torque is huge
direct inject system in 2.3 will comeback to haunt you
resale/ trade-in desirability is going to be a problem with 2.3

Getting the 2.3 with the 7 speed manual (if you love to shift in traffic) would be the only possible plus.
If you can't afford the 2.7, then maybe you can't afford the Bronco?

Maybe they should put the 2.3 in the F-150 since they weigh about the same...

Time: Wait an extra year or substantial delay.
Cost: Pay an extra 1800. Extra few K over 5y for the small gain.
Performance: Very similar, see use case. Tow limit is 3500 so limited benefit.
Use case: What are you doing with the actual vehicle? Most are not crawling or racing.
Reliability: 2.3 is in a fleet of vehicles with no concerns. Most people turn over vehicles before any issues would arise.
Resale: Definite benefit of 2.7 but with demand/availability over the next few years it is an equal offset.
Bonus: Can tune for half the cost, premium fuel makes the cost the same in the long run.

Just because you can afford it doesn't mean I should do it. I can afford it but is it needed?

 

[AZshot]

I picked the manual transmission over getting the bigger engine. The manual was higher priority to me than a few more horsepower. Plus, I didn't see it in the MPG specs, but I always get a few MPG better than what they list, IF I get a stick.

The tired line "no one every asked for less power" is a legacy from the 80s and 90s. Today, a Camry has more horsepower than my 1990 Taurus SHO. When many trucks have 400 or more horsepower, the better question is "why do you need so much power when you don't tow?" It's just a vulgar display of power, in my opinion.

I bought a F-150 Triton V8 in 2002 for towing. It was only 235 HP or some such. Never felt I needed more. Towed a 3,000 lb horse trailer with 3 thousand pound mules in it. Do I NEED to go 85 MPH towing? Um....no. 72 MPH is fast enough, growing up when the national speed limit was 55. Americans today want EXCESS. That's the simple answer.

And I plan on keeping the truck a long time, unless I hate it. Resale the first 2-3 years will be fantastically easy. Most Broncos will sell used for about what we pay for them. It's not like someone won't be shopping for a stick shift Bronco with under 30,000 miles, for about $35,000. Easy sale, if you need to.

Now a $55,000 automatic, Sasquatch, that has been used off road hard for 2-3 years? With a suspected "weaker" transmission? Not such an easy sale.

 

[Mr. Nice]

Time: Wait an extra year or substantial delay.
Cost: Pay an extra 1800. Extra few K over 5y for the small gain.
Performance: Very similar, see use case. Tow limit is 3500 so limited benefit.
Use case: What are you doing with the actual vehicle? Most are not crawling or racing.
Reliability: 2.3 is in a fleet of vehicles with no concerns. Most people turn over vehicles before any issues would arise.
Resale: Definite benefit of 2.7 but with demand/availability over the next few years it is an equal offset.
Bonus: Can tune for half the cost, premium fuel makes the cost the same in the long run.

Just because you can afford it doesn't mean I should do it. I can afford it but is it needed?

Yes, a lot of engines are tunable but that is never going to benefit longevity/resale ability. Look at the 2.3 in the Focus RS. It's reliability has been quite a nightmare. Do your research. That injection system in the 2.3 has proven to be problematic by most every other auto maker. Ford offered the 2.3 for price reasons only. Why did 75% of the orders have the 2.7? You don't but a 2.3 in a 5000 pound vehicle and expect it to be the BEST choice.

I can explain it to you. But I can't understand it for you.

Yes the 2.7 is most defiantly needed or you will regret down the road.

 

[F OR D]

The 2.7 is defiance or I will regret it?

Oh I understand DI vs PI and the 2.3 v 2.7. Ranger weighs a few hundred less and is fantastic. Explorer? MKC? The RS is bad comparison seeing the tune and application, and the issue was primarily gaskets. If we are talking any vehicles what about the Mustang, that has been great.

The current 2.3 actually has a outstanding track record. Over 5m vehicles on the road as of now. Also note more powerful than any previous Bronco engine. Note weight is within a few hundred pounds between the 4/5G and current 6G.

About the only negative could be carbon buildup but that has been pretty much eliminated in modern engines. When asked if he’d hesitate to purchase a vehicle with DI because of this issue Karesh said no. “I’m not seeing it for anything after 2010 or so.”

 

[Wanted33]

Yes, a lot of engines are tunable but that is never going to benefit longevity/resale ability. Look at the 2.3 in the Focus RS. It's reliability has been quite a nightmare. Do your research. That injection system in the 2.3 has proven to be problematic by most every other auto maker. Ford offered the 2.3 for price reasons only. Why did 75% of the orders have the 2.7? You don't but a 2.3 in a 5000 pound vehicle and expect it to be the BEST choice.

I can explain it to you. But I can't understand it for you.

Yes the 2.7 is most defiantly needed or you will regret down the road.

Wow, that's not nice Mr. Nice.................

 

[Mr. Nice]

The 2.7 is defiance or I will regret it?

Oh I understand DI vs PI and the 2.3 v 2.7. Ranger weighs a few hundred less and is fantastic. Explorer? MKC? The RS is bad comparison seeing the tune and application, and the issue was primarily gaskets. If we are talking any vehicles what about the Mustang, that has been great.

The current 2.3 actually has a outstanding track record. Over 5m vehicles on the road as of now. Also note more powerful than any previous Bronco engine. Note weight is within a few hundred pounds between the 4/5G and current 6G.

About the only negative could be carbon buildup but that has been pretty much eliminated in modern engines. When asked if he’d hesitate to purchase a vehicle with DI because of this issue Karesh said no. “I’m not seeing it for anything after 2010 or so.”

The world is full of proven, documented problems with this type of injection. If one thinks that this Ford 2.3 is an exception than I would guess the odds are extremely stacked against them.

People will line up and buy most anything without doing research and listening to hearsay.

I would love to have my "Boss"
engine in a new Bronco, but I can't. I am just trying to help people. The masses would agree that the best engine available for the new Bronco is the 2.7 -Hands down.

Sponsored