Sponsored

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

OP
OP
Wanted33

Wanted33

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 1, 2018
Threads
20
Messages
4,050
Reaction score
9,240
Location
Down south in Dixie
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT, 2019 Wrangler, 2020 Ranger
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
Clubs
 
Like the OP I have the same question 2.3 vs 2.7 and read all posts here and in other threads:
Below is a simple list of reasons for one over the other if I summarized what I read correctly - I am not a tech when it comes to motors, in my youth I swapped V8 motors out and have done clutch jobs etc...when things were simpler. Never been involved with tunes or turbos.

The 2.7 for the money seems like a no brainer if you have the money. That being said, the 2.3 may be the better choice if the 2.7 capabilities are never to be really utilized.

I think the OP is looking at this issue with the following mindset for the sake of this exercise.
Money is not an issue and not concerned about 2.7 increased HP for general motoring.
OP is more interested in if the 2.3 is the better choice than than the 2.7 when performance vs $$ is doped out.

2.3 & 2.7 Pro & Con list as I read it

2.7 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.7 more stock HP & torque is better
Pro No direct injection issues
Pro 2.7 tried & true in the F150
Pro 2.7 block is made out of better alloy
Pro 2.7 "thought" to more likely to have better longevity - no proof
Pro 2.7 with 10spd auto tranny is good match
Pro 2.7 more HP is always better - better to have it in case you need it

Con 1895. more $
Con takes up more room in the bay and harder to work on
Con 2 turbo's to care for and more complicated = more possible problems
Con 1-2 MPG less


2.3 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.3 1895. less expensive
Pro 2.3 is only choice for standard transmission
Pro 2.3 has enough horsepower
Pro 2.3 can get tuned for additional HP simply & cheaply
Pro 2.3 gets better MPG (not sure if true when a tune is done)
Pro 2.3 plenty of power - can haul 7500 trailer & 1000lb payload in Ranger no problem
Pro 2.3 offer more engine bay room for mods

Con 2.3 has a less attractive torque curve
Con 2.3 with tune requires 93 octane - cost = price of 2.7 upgrade in 10+- years
Con 2.3 has DI causing valve build up issue (problem eliminated with catch can - cost = ?)
Con 2.3 "thought is" the longevity will be less than 2.7 - no proof

You never can take the element chance out of the equation so there are unknowns that may pop up over the life of both. I say go with your gut!
That's good perspective Craig. Reading all of the helpful info in this thread has me thinking I'll be fine with the 2.3L. I have one in my Ranger, but had in my mind the increased weight of the Bronco would change the performance of the engine. One of the things that had me in the quandary was the 2011 F-150 SuperCrew with the 3.7L NA that I owned for 2 years. The engine was awful for that size truck, and the mpg's never got close to advertised. Enter the 2013 F-150 SCREW with the 5.0L that performed much better, and actually got better mpg's. With help from the answers here I now know that I was comparing apples to oranges dealing with these ecoboost engines. Owning a Jeep JL I did go over to the Jeep forum as suggested, and perused the 2.0L post. I found the owners of those are extremely happy with that engine which has nearly the same specs of the 2.3L, and moving a heavier vehicle around. My Bronco will never tow, or rock crawl. Light off road trails, road trips, and some daily driving is what it will be used for mostly. And, as stated by others if I feel the need for more power/torque there's always the Ford Performance tune just waiting for me at the dealer. Lord knows I hope I don't start overthinking this thing again. I surely would like to settle in on the build of my Bronco, and just give the info to Granger when they call. :)
Sponsored

 

Rover72

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Craig
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
191
Reaction score
435
Location
Delray Beach
Vehicle(s)
22 JLUR, 18 Cadillac XT5
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
Clubs
 
I had a 6spd S/T Mini with DI and had to pay $600. to have the head removed and the valves or some part of the head walnut shell blasted at 90K miles. I would prefer to never have to remove the head for any reason.

I have no experience with the 2.3 ecoboost and have read here that many have experience with it in Rangers & Mustangs.
Is the catch can necessary or just good insurance to help eliminate the the valve build up?

Edit: if the consensus is the catch can is recommended, how much $ and what brand is best?
 

long_road

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
TR
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
180
Reaction score
438
Location
Concord, NC
Vehicle(s)
202? 4dr CG Big Bend 2.3 7MT (Ordered)
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
I'm in for the 2.3 regardless since I'm getting the manual, but this debate has been on my mind as well. I really wished I could get the 2.7 with a manual because I worried the 2.3 would be underpowered for the weight and heft of a 4-door Badlands.

The other day I rode in my coworker's 2021 Explorer with the 2.3. When you hammer down, that thing moves! Like, it legit puts you back in your seat. A new Explorer is around 4500lbs curb weight. A little lighter than the Bronco (depending on trim), but fairly comparable. With the Bronco's gearing, I think the 2.3 will be plenty of power. I no longer have any concerns there.

That doesn't hit on any of the other other concerns - mpg, reliability, direct injection carbon buildup, etc. But in terms of "is it enough power?" - yeah, the 2.3 will be fine.
 

Buckin Bronco

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
ChoSunJuan
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
264
Reaction score
343
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
2004 Nissan Xterra
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
i currently have a volvo with the T5 engine (turbo 2.0 i4) and on the volvo forums people had the same topic of the T5 vs the T6 (turbo and supercharged 2.0 i4). what it came down to was the 240hp of the T5 had plenty of power for every day needs and the T6 was just wasted because you never use it.

in Ontario, 50kph over the limit and your car gets impounded. so having all this extra power to me doesn't do you any good.

In BC it's only 40kph over and you get impounded for a week.
 

mikeheel

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
MIke
Joined
Jul 12, 2020
Threads
12
Messages
264
Reaction score
717
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Website
lovelikehateblog.wordpress.com
Vehicle(s)
Azure Gray Wildtrak, BWM K1600B, Ford Maverick
Your Bronco Model
Wildtrak
Clubs
 
Yeah but with the 2.7L you are stuck with the auto trans. And in 35 years of vehicle ownership, I've never had an engine or manual trans failure, but have had several major auto trans issues. In fact recently had to get my Jeep auto trans rebuilt, and it wasn't cheap. So at least for me, reliability and longentivity equals manual trans. Hence the 2.3L.
I've had one transmission blow up on me - a Ford manual transmission in a Mustang. I purchased the car new, didn't abuse it, and made sure it was well maintained.

I've had one engine blow up on me - a Ford 4cyl in a Mustang I bought to replace the first one. Again, purchased new, not abused, well-maintained.

Hence my ongoing skepticism about the 2.3L. 4-cylinder engines are much better today than when I was younger, and I owned my last Mustang nearly 20 years ago. I have no problem with the 4-cylinder in my wife's Subaru Ascent, for instance. It has roughly the same power as the 2.3L Ford is offering in the Bronco. But I still just don't have the same level of trust for a Ford 4-cylinder.

Or maybe my lesson should be to avoid Mustangs now.... Heh.
 

Sponsored

Austin26

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Austin
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Threads
46
Messages
996
Reaction score
1,567
Location
Houston, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2019 Subaru Crosstrek
Your Bronco Model
Base
Hold up, the 2.7 will take regular? Friggin' game changer.

Hearing my current 3.2L NA V6 (271HP) struggle climbing Vail Pass this weekend certainly pushes me towards the 2.7 regardless.
As another poster said, both will take regular safely. You won't make as much power but yes regular is fine. I think you misunderstood a different poster saying that one could tune a 2.3 (necessitating premium) to nearly the power of the stock 2.7 (could run either).
 

Big Boss

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Outer Heaven
Vehicle(s)
Bronco Big Bend
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
Hold up, the 2.7 will take regular? Friggin' game changer.

Hearing my current 3.2L NA V6 (271HP) struggle climbing Vail Pass this weekend certainly pushes me towards the 2.7 regardless.
As another poster said, both will take regular safely. You won't make as much power but yes regular is fine. I think you misunderstood a different poster saying that one could tune a 2.3 (necessitating premium) to nearly the power of the stock 2.7 (could run either).
Both the 2.3 and 2.7 will run fine on 87. Both the 2.3 and 2.7 will make more power on premium.

I stay in the middle ground and round 89 lol
 

guerro

Banned
Raptor
Banned
Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
507
Reaction score
1,082
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
2023 Bronco Raptor
Your Bronco Model
Raptor
I need some guidance folks. My old mind keeps telling me the 2.3L engine is too small for a 4 door OBX w/10 spd auto. I'm old school (and just old also), and the thought that there's no replacement for displacement is ingrained in my way of thinking. If you can help me out here I would certainly be thankful. Do I need the 2.7L, or will the smaller 2.3L be fine?
2.7L Do it. Do it.
 

MBLANCHARD

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
86
Reaction score
66
Location
Portland Oregon
Vehicle(s)
Ford Escape
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Like the OP I have the same question 2.3 vs 2.7 and read all posts here and in other threads:
Below is a simple list of reasons for one over the other if I summarized what I read correctly - I am not a tech when it comes to motors, in my youth I swapped V8 motors out and have done clutch jobs etc...when things were simpler. Never been involved with tunes or turbos.

The 2.7 for the money seems like a no brainer if you have the money. That being said, the 2.3 may be the better choice if the 2.7 capabilities are never to be really utilized.

I think the OP is looking at this issue with the following mindset for the sake of this exercise.
Money is not an issue and not concerned about 2.7 increased HP for general motoring.
OP is more interested in if the 2.3 is the better choice than than the 2.7 when performance vs $$ is doped out.

2.3 & 2.7 Pro & Con list as I read it

2.7 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.7 more stock HP & torque is better
Pro No direct injection issues
Pro 2.7 tried & true in the F150
Pro 2.7 block is made out of better alloy
Pro 2.7 "thought" to more likely to have better longevity - no proof
Pro 2.7 with 10spd auto tranny is good match
Pro 2.7 more HP is always better - better to have it in case you need it

Con 1895. more $
Con takes up more room in the bay and harder to work on
Con 2 turbo's to care for and more complicated = more possible problems
Con 1-2 MPG less


2.3 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.3 1895. less expensive
Pro 2.3 is only choice for standard transmission
Pro 2.3 has enough horsepower
Pro 2.3 can get tuned for additional HP simply & cheaply
Pro 2.3 gets better MPG (not sure if true when a tune is done)
Pro 2.3 plenty of power - can haul 7500 trailer & 1000lb payload in Ranger no problem
Pro 2.3 offer more engine bay room for mods

Con 2.3 has a less attractive torque curve
Con 2.3 with tune requires 93 octane - cost = price of 2.7 upgrade in 10+- years
Con 2.3 has DI causing valve build up issue (problem eliminated with catch can - cost = ?)
Con 2.3 "thought is" the longevity will be less than 2.7 - no proof

You never can take the element chance out of the equation so there are unknowns that may pop up over the life of both. I say go with your gut!
 

Sponsored

Bajabound

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
Cole
Joined
Dec 7, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
87
Reaction score
262
Location
Southern California
Vehicle(s)
2022 Ford Bronco Big Bend, 1986 VW Vanagon
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
The 2.3L bronco has +40 hp, +70lb/ft torque more than my current tacoma (which has been plenty capable for the past 14 years. Should be plenty for my new 2.3L bronco
 

MBLANCHARD

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
86
Reaction score
66
Location
Portland Oregon
Vehicle(s)
Ford Escape
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Like the OP I have the same question 2.3 vs 2.7 and read all posts here and in other threads:
Below is a simple list of reasons for one over the other if I summarized what I read correctly - I am not a tech when it comes to motors, in my youth I swapped V8 motors out and have done clutch jobs etc...when things were simpler. Never been involved with tunes or turbos.

The 2.7 for the money seems like a no brainer if you have the money. That being said, the 2.3 may be the better choice if the 2.7 capabilities are never to be really utilized.

I think the OP is looking at this issue with the following mindset for the sake of this exercise.
Money is not an issue and not concerned about 2.7 increased HP for general motoring.
OP is more interested in if the 2.3 is the better choice than than the 2.7 when performance vs $$ is doped out.

2.3 & 2.7 Pro & Con list as I read it

2.7 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.7 more stock HP & torque is better
Pro No direct injection issues
Pro 2.7 tried & true in the F150
Pro 2.7 block is made out of better alloy
Pro 2.7 "thought" to more likely to have better longevity - no proof
Pro 2.7 with 10spd auto tranny is good match
Pro 2.7 more HP is always better - better to have it in case you need it

Con 1895. more $
Con takes up more room in the bay and harder to work on
Con 2 turbo's to care for and more complicated = more possible problems
Con 1-2 MPG less


2.3 Pro / Con list
Pro 2.3 1895. less expensive
Pro 2.3 is only choice for standard transmission
Pro 2.3 has enough horsepower
Pro 2.3 can get tuned for additional HP simply & cheaply
Pro 2.3 gets better MPG (not sure if true when a tune is done)
Pro 2.3 plenty of power - can haul 7500 trailer & 1000lb payload in Ranger no problem
Pro 2.3 offer more engine bay room for mods

Con 2.3 has a less attractive torque curve
Con 2.3 with tune requires 93 octane - cost = price of 2.7 upgrade in 10+- years
Con 2.3 has DI causing valve build up issue (problem eliminated with catch can - cost = ?)
Con 2.3 "thought is" the longevity will be less than 2.7 - no proof

You never can take the element chance out of the equation so there are unknowns that may pop up over the life of both. I say go with your gut!
Thanks for posting, I have read through all the pages and this is a good recap. Lots of good points, but I am still on the fence. Power is not that important to me, and I did just test drive the Ranger which has a lot more power than my Escape with a 1.6. I am the most concerned with longevity as I keep my cars for a long time and this will be my daily driver. I have reserved a 2 door Big Bend with (Roof Rack, Tube step, Sound Deadening Headliner, and Tow Package for a bike rack). Keeping the stock tires for now. Wondering if this added weight is a concern for the 2.3. I am not opposed to paying the extra for the 2.7 if it would last longer, but not sure if I really need it with my build?
 

Buckin Bronco

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
ChoSunJuan
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
264
Reaction score
343
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
2004 Nissan Xterra
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
I got tagged for 39 over in Kamloops this summer in a Nissan Versa loaded with four people and gear. Cop took it easy on me I guess.

I don't think I need the 2.7L ?
I got a $150 ticket for 50kph over in Merritt once. Man I miss the good ol' days.
 

da_jokker

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
124
Messages
6,143
Reaction score
7,012
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JKUR
Your Bronco Model
Wildtrak
Clubs
 
Thanks for posting, I have read through all the pages and this is a good recap. Lots of good points, but I am still on the fence. Power is not that important to me, and I did just test drive the Ranger which has a lot more power than my Escape with a 1.6. I am the most concerned with longevity as I keep my cars for a long time and this will be my daily driver. I have reserved a 2 door Big Bend with (Roof Rack, Tube step, Sound Deadening Headliner, and Tow Package for a bike rack). Keeping the stock tires for now. Wondering if this added weight is a concern for the 2.3. I am not opposed to paying the extra for the 2.7 if it would last longer, but not sure if I really need it with my build?
The reality is none of us can know and its all a guessing game. So putting aside the actual designs and engineering differences, simple logic would suggest that the bigger engine will have to work less and therefore would have a longer durability.

But anything could happen. So the best we can do is if you think your Bronco is going to be on the heavier end... go bigger engine for better MPG.

If our choices were between turbo vs non, or diesel vs gas we'd have more to debate. But you are talking 2 more cyl, 0.4 more liters, and an extra turbo... so flip a coin.
Sponsored

 
 


Top