4 cylinder 4 door? Really?

[Jook13]

Red line is 6500-6750 on the 150 (so 60%) and 6000 on the 2.7 (37%)

My point was. People complain “a turbo engine has to work harder” sure if you look at lbft per cylinder.... but what about RPM? A n/a motor has to run 2x as fast to generate the same torque. So what’s worse? 30% more force per cylinder or 100% more movement

That's a good point. Perhaps that's why diesel engines typically have the reputation of lasting longer. A ton of torque, but very low rpm... In a lot of ways the Ecoboost engines behave like a diesel.

Sponsored

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

Dick, I think I understand. Me, I'm old school, and can't imaging a 4 banger with a small turbo would be the right engine for a 4wd Bronco. But, then I have to remember these are not the old 4 bangers of old. And at my slightly more mature age that's even difficult. I have a friend with a new Ranger, and he says the little 2.3 will move the truck down the road really well. I know it's just in my head, and I've got to shake my old way of thinking. But, I still bet I'll get the 2.7 when the time comes for me to order. BTW, did I mention I'm old, and set in my ways?

Welcome to the forum.

It's not the power I question, its the durability. I'm quite used to driving underpowered 4 bangers. They get the job done. But I'm also not in a machine anything like what this looks to be. With all that power being squeezed out of that little guy I question how long it will hold up. Seems like a recipe for blowing heads.

Ok you say that, but everyone here is giving you their thoughts and you’re still stuck on decades old engine tech. Turbo-charged engines have been around for awhile now, and they will continue to be the way of the future until ICE isn’t a thing anymore. Just because it’s a small displacement, turbo-charged engine doesn’t mean it’s made out of aluminum foil.


And that diesel engine you love also happens to be a 4 cylinder, turbo charged engine ?‍

Edit to say: there is a reason that the Raptor went from a 6.2L V8 to a 3.5L twin-turbo v6. Other than sound I don’t see anyone complaining about that engine.

I haven't driven a V8 since 1998, and have no desire to start again.

I'm reading plenty of great responses, but some people are really taking some things out of context.

What decades old engine tech am I stuck in? I never even mentioned a V8... but for some reason everyone wants to tell me why I shouldn't want one. I didn't mean to question the power of the 2.3L, which most people seem stuck on, but the durability *when paired with something the size and build of this Bronco*.

Yes I like that little diesel, and I'd like to see something similar in the Bronco, but isn't it a stretch to say if I like a 185 horsepower turbo diesel I can't question the durability of a 270 horsepower turbo gas 4 cylinder?

I'm reading that in the Focus RS the 2.3L was blowing head gaskets, and it seems to me that an off-roading Bronco is going to push the engine harder than Focus on the street.

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

Realistically they will drive fine and people will buy them.

Interesting to see people fear base vehicle being slow, they usually are!

I never said I was worried about it being slow.

 

[MaverickMan]

coyote has the exact same torque as the 2.7. But the 2.7 has more on the low end of rpm.

wet weight with driver will be right at 5,000 for a loaded Sasquatch. with even the 4 banger will be able to handle that.

remember turbo engines don’t need to rev as hard to work as hard.

big v8 motors need to almost redline to move

Not big V8 motors, just little ones like the coyote. Godzillas movements are more continental.

Still I want the 2.7 and I want to upgrade the turbos but do a milder tune so it ends up a torque monster. Basically like doing a stroker 408 or 427 or even 514 but with a dual plane intake and a 4x4 cam.

Just need that manual to happen, I have enough troubles with non electric and passibly electric autos, I cant imagine how much I will tear up a full electric auto.

If I cant get the 2.7 spd, my 4 door will just have to have a big wrung out 4 banger.

 

[codydb19]

With all that power being squeezed out of that little guy I question how long it will hold up. Seems like a recipe for blowing heads.

I didn't mean to question the power of the 2.3L, which most people seem stuck on, but the durability *when paired with something the size and build of this Bronco*.

I'm reading that in the Focus RS the 2.3L was blowing head gaskets, and it seems to me that an off-roading Bronco is going to push the engine harder than Focus on the street.

Okay but everyone is telling you that the 2.3 is bulletproof and very reliable. If you don’t do any crazy mods you won’t have any reliability issues. And even then you will probably still be fine.

The 2.3 in the focus RS was “squeezing” out more power than it does in this application. And the problem with the RS engine was that somehow the wrong head gaskets were originally used, not some bigger problem with the engine itself.

The engine isn’t gonna care if it’s being wound out around a track, daily driving, or pushing 37s over Mount Everest. It’s going to do what it was designed to do.

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

Okay but everyone is telling you that the 2.3 is bulletproof and very reliable. If you don’t do any crazy mods you won’t have any reliability issues. And even then you will probably still be fine.

The 2.3 in the focus RS was “squeezing” out more power than it does in this application. And the problem with the RS engine was that somehow the wrong head gaskets were originally used, not some bigger problem with the engine itself.

The engine isn’t gonna care if it’s being wound out around a track, daily driving, or pushing 37s over Mount Everest. It’s going to do what it was designed to do.

To be fair, "everyone" is not telling me the 2.3 is bulletproof. And circling back to my OP I am leaning toward it since I am only interested in the 2door, and really want the 7 speed. I'll have to learn more about the GOAT modes and price of the 'squatch package before I make the final call. Oh and the dealer markup....

 

[Rogues Gambit]

I can understand the OPs fears, as I4 engines bring to mind ford escorts we trashed as kids in high school. I too had similar reservations before my first (2nd Gen) I4 Tacoma.

That 2.7L I4 produced mush less power than the 2.3Eco and is widely known for its durability and capability. That little engine pulled my similarly weighted Tacoma (and often a trailer) on 32's perfectly fine, for 130,000 miles, despite the factory gearing being a little too tall.

As long as Ford's engineers did a reasonable job, this 2.3 should be more than capable of moving the weight quickly, without strain or effect on reliability.

It's also been out long enough for them to iron out most of the kinks and for us to know how to address any issues.

Wasn't it the same engine in the MS3? Some variant

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Okay but everyone is telling you that the 2.3 is bulletproof and very reliable. If you don’t do any crazy mods you won’t have any reliability issues. And even then you will probably still be fine.

The 2.3 in the focus RS was “squeezing” out more power than it does in this application. And the problem with the RS engine was that somehow the wrong head gaskets were originally used, not some bigger problem with the engine itself.

The engine isn’t gonna care if it’s being wound out around a track, daily driving, or pushing 37s over Mount Everest. It’s going to do what it was designed to do.

Jeeps with less power or in the 2.0t's case, displacement, are running 37's w/no issues, especially the underpowered Gladiator with that 3.6

This isn't the old days, engines are made much better now

 

[Rogues Gambit]

It's not the power I question, its the durability. I'm quite used to driving underpowered 4 bangers. They get the job done. But I'm also not in a machine anything like what this looks to be. With all that power being squeezed out of that little guy I question how long it will hold up. Seems like a recipe for blowing heads.

I haven't driven a V8 since 1998, and have no desire to start again.

I'm reading plenty of great responses, but some people are really taking some things out of context.

What decades old engine tech am I stuck in? I never even mentioned a V8... but for some reason everyone wants to tell me why I shouldn't want one. I didn't mean to question the power of the 2.3L, which most people seem stuck on, but the durability *when paired with something the size and build of this Bronco*.

Yes I like that little diesel, and I'd like to see something similar in the Bronco, but isn't it a stretch to say if I like a 185 horsepower turbo diesel I can't question the durability of a 270 horsepower turbo gas 4 cylinder?

I'm reading that in the Focus RS the 2.3L was blowing head gaskets, and it seems to me that an off-roading Bronco is going to push the engine harder than Focus on the street.

It was a bad batch, shit happens, they fixed it

What underpowered 4bangers have you driven btw?

 

[codydb19]

To be fair, "everyone" is not telling me the 2.3 is bulletproof. And circling back to my OP I am leaning toward it since I am only interested in the 2door, and really want the 7 speed. I'll have to learn more about the GOAT modes and price of the 'squatch package before I make the final call. Oh and the dealer markup....

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

It was a bad batch, shit happens, they fixed it

What underpowered 4bangers have you driven btw?

Don't get it twisted, this was never a worry about lack of power.

But currently a Subaru Forester, which I'm totally happy with.

But over the years too many to count. One of my favorites was an 88 Ford Bronco II. Such a piece of shit, but it never left me stranded and I beat the ever living hell out of it. The benefit of driving a car you don't like is you really drive it.... The new Bronco will not be that case.

 

[da_jokker]

In reading another thread on here, it sounds like the one issue with the 2.3 is how they did the Fuel injection and it being prone to carbon buildup (??). While the 2.7 uses a different Fuel Injection method that resolves that issue. I'm not an expert on the details, but generally it sounds as if the 2.7 V6 is designed better than the 2.3 I4.

I may get slammed for this as well, but my belief is that more cylinders always equals less stress on the engine and lower RPMs, especially when weight is involved.

Sure the 2.3 may have plenty of power, but there is no way I can believe that a fully loaded (with gear and crap) 4 door bronco going up hill at speed would not have to work that I4 more than the V6.

Not only that, but typically I4's have to rev higher to get their power than V6's. Don't get me wrong, I have a 4 banger now in a car and that thing is quick and "spirited" .. as long as I keep the RPM's above 3.

Anyway, as many have put it, test drive both and buy what you want. But I am with the OP... planing on getting the 4 door and I think (or hope) that the MPG difference will be small so that I rarely have to ask the engine to work hard and thus going for the V6.

 

[bbostic5]

Red line is 6500-6750 on the 150 (so 60%) and 6000 on the 2.7 (37%)

My point was. People complain “a turbo engine has to work harder” sure if you look at lbft per cylinder.... but what about RPM? A n/a motor has to run 2x as fast to generate the same torque. So what’s worse? 30% more force per cylinder or 100% more movement

Totally agree. Downside in my eyes is more heat and a little extra complexity in the engine bay.

 

[vr00m_vr00m]

A cylinder for each door, come on man keep up.

 

[Jhuff]

It's also been out long enough for them to iron out most of the kinks and for us to know how to address any issues.

This is very true. But, knowing the younger existing 2.3s don't have known issues, and it has more power to begin with, I don't anticipate overstraining the motor.

I guess my overall point is that I am confident enough to try. This is a big step for me, as I chose the Toyota I4 over the (at that time) unknown Toyota V6. Which is ironic because it is the opposite of the OPs fears.

Sponsored