4 cylinder 4 door? Really?

[Frank N]

Yikes. I can’t wait for the motor oil discussions...

Sponsored

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Yikes. I can’t wait for the motor oil discussions...

 

[DonM]

I'm doing a 2.3 4DR Sasquatch with auto? I should be good, if not I guess I'll tuning it!

 

[Butzy]

The Bronco looks big and heavy - even as a 2 door - is anyone actually interested in the 4 cylinder in the 4 door?

The Bronco looks big and heavy - even as a 2 door - is anyone actually interested in the 4 cylinder in the 4 door?

I just don't see a turbo 4 cylinder holding up for 100k plus miles. I actually love 4 cylinders as I'm not concerned about horsepower and speed, and more interested in economy and so when I saw you could only get a 7 speed with the 4 cylinder I didn't think I'd want the V6 anyway.

Even though I'm only interested in the 2 door, now I'm second guessing if the 2.3 turbo is enough. With the ergonomics and all the off-road running gear I'd bet that the fuel economy between the 4 and 6 cylinders won't be a tipping point one way or another.

I'm really hoping between now and December Ford decides to offer the V6 with a manual transmission - I can't imagine its and engineering issue. Only thing I can think is with a manual trans there would be no point in the GOAT modes so it's more of a marketing issue.

I'd like a Base 2door, V6, 7 speed, 'squatch, with the LED headlamps.

If I have to get an automatic to get the V6 then I do want the GOAT modes and then I'm looking at a Wildtrack? Or a badlands (which I don't think comes with the V6)?

I agree % people keep saying horsepower and torque.....blah blah blah. The old 289s and 302s are way stronger and more durable than any modern engine. The components are stronger. Just because an engine can put up high numbers on a dyno, doesn't make it a durable engine. I personally wanted a 2.7L mansquatch but that combo isn't available as we all know. I settled for a black diamond with smaller wheels because I want the manual transmission but want to limit the stress to this little engine.

 

[3Dogs]

I agree % people keep saying horsepower and torque.....blah blah blah. The old 289s and 302s are way stronger and more durable than any modern engine. The components are stronger. Just because an engine can put up high numbers on a dyno, doesn't make it a durable engine. I personally wanted a 2.7L mansquatch but that combo isn't available as we all know. I settled for a black diamond with smaller wheels because I want the manual transmission but want to limit the stress to this little engine.

You say that like it's a fact.
Do you have any data to back it up?
How many people actually wear out an engine? If it doesn't fail catastrophically from a head gasket leak, or running it out of oil, most people will trade in their car before the engine is trashed.

 

[Mattwings]

I agree % people keep saying horsepower and torque.....blah blah blah. The old 289s and 302s are way stronger and more durable than any modern engine. The components are stronger. Just because an engine can put up high numbers on a dyno, doesn't make it a durable engine. I personally wanted a 2.7L mansquatch but that combo isn't available as we all know. I settled for a black diamond with smaller wheels because I want the manual transmission but want to limit the stress to this little engine.

I have had several 302s. They were good, with several flaws (ever see one that didn’t leak from the rear main seal?) I also had a couple of 4.6 Tritons’ great motors. I had two buddies hit 250k on that generation of engines. 3 valves, not as good. The 2.3 is every bit as durable if treated well and the electronics are way, way better than any Bronco 302 (I had a 5G, nice motor, not much power, so so fuel economy and very limited tune ability pre MAF). People have a very romantic view of older cars. I owned and wrenched on everything from mid 60s “muscle cars “ to my current 2018 2.7 10sp F150. The latest is the best, by far. Great power, great economy, flawless operation. 2.3 will be solid as any prior Bronco power train IMO. I am going 2.7, because it will be even more awesome

 

[HotdogThud]

I agree % people keep saying horsepower and torque.....blah blah blah. The old 289s and 302s are way stronger and more durable than any modern engine. The components are stronger. Just because an engine can put up high numbers on a dyno, doesn't make it a durable engine.

This is FUD, plain and simple. Without cherry-picking anecdotal stories of engine failure on a 'modern' car, there is little to no data to back up this claim. Hell, even a bottom of the line Kia with a 1.6L NA in it will run for 200k with little more than oil changes and spark plugs. Engines from 10 year old Tundra's are often referred to as 'million mile motors' for a reason.

For example, here's the exhaust camshaft from a VW 2.0T that had 150,000 miles on it. It ran 23 pounds of boost, made nearly 300whp, and did 6-8 track days per year. Clearly, not very durable:

And to be honest, random internet stranger, I don't really like lighting people up this way. I mean, I don't even know you, you're probably a perfectly nice person that helps little old ladies across the street. But to poo-poo on 'new' things simply because it's not what you're used to and know, is obtuse.

Besides, If all these old motors are so good, why are people in 'classic' cars so hell bent on replacing them with more modern solutions?

 

[OX1]

This is FUD, plain and simple. Without cherry-picking anecdotal stories of engine failure on a 'modern' car, there is little to no data to back up this claim. Hell, even a bottom of the line Kia with a 1.6L NA in it will run for 200k with little more than oil changes and spark plugs. Engines from 10 year old Tundra's are often referred to as 'million mile motors' for a reason.

For example, here's the exhaust camshaft from a VW 2.0T that had 150,000 miles on it. It ran 23 pounds of boost, made nearly 300whp, and did 6-8 track days per year. Clearly, not very durable:

And to be honest, random internet stranger, I don't really like lighting people up this way. I mean, I don't even know you, you're probably a perfectly nice person that helps little old ladies across the street. But to poo-poo on 'new' things simply because it's not what you're used to and know, is obtuse.

Besides, If all these old motors are so good, why are people in 'classic' cars so hell bent on replacing them with more modern solutions?

On my 6th Eco, current being the 2.7 in a Fusion. Have no general issue with them for a street rig, but I've never had one with any mods beyond a tune and I''m not sure I'd want one long term without a warantee. I'm sure most go well over 100K with no more than a plug change. It's the issue of if you do have a weird problem even Ford can't fix. Just the amount of crap going on with the valvetrain in a 4 cam V eco is about as complex as an entire EEC IV and sensors was.

Many on this board toss around high HP numbers from modified ECO's like they would be as reliable long term as larger NA V-8. Well already (oldest FS is 2017) there are a bunch of misfire threads on the Fusion Sport board, mostly just those with tunes. But now a thread popped up about trying to fix misfires after putting in 3.0 turbos (not some radical mod, with maybe 15% better airflow potential). No real fix yet.

So for kicks, I googled 2.7 misfires on just the F150forum board. Obviously, a crapload of these sold, but was surprised to see at least 2 pages of misfire threads on just one message board, many on virtually brand new trucks. https://www.google.com/search?q=2.7...KQc0KHW3ZB0E4FBDy0wN6BAgJEDU&biw=1680&bih=870

I'm not here to piss on the ECOboosts (other than my previous comments of lag, lack of consistent linear power, and tractability for how I use a rig offroad), but there seems to be a myopic view from many here that there is not going to be any issues (especially after modding). That would be a fine view, if there wasn't already issues, on pretty new stock trucks.

 

[TJconvert2.7]

I’m in New England. Any modern engine SHOULD outlast the body.

 

[pitter_patter]

If I was going to get an automatic then there is NO question I'd get the 2.7L. For only $2k its a no brainer.

I think both engines will be good. I do think its interesting that these are the two options Ford chose to go with because they are so close together in value and performance. Transmission choice aside, $2k isn't much especially on a $45K rig.

Since I want the manual I'm going to give the 2.3L a shot (on the 2D). I'm not worried about the power at all, I actually would have been okay with a less powerful 4 banger (for less money). The whole point of a 4 banger is to be economical. Between the 2.3 and 2.7 I don't really find the 2.3 to a value over the 2.7. (Value = saving money up front + over time, because of MPG.)

 

[Butzy]

I have had several 302s. They were good, with several flaws (ever see one that didn’t leak from the rear main seal?) I also had a couple of 4.6 Tritons’ great motors. I had two buddies hit 250k on that generation of engines. 3 valves, not as good. The 2.3 is every bit as durable if treated well and the electronics are way, way better than any Bronco 302 (I had a 5G, nice motor, not much power, so so fuel economy and very limited tune ability pre MAF). People have a very romantic view of older cars. I owned and wrenched on everything from mid 60s “muscle cars “ to my current 2018 2.7 10sp F150. The latest is the best, by far. Great power, great economy, flawless operation. 2.3 will be solid as any prior Bronco power train IMO. I am going 2.7, because it will be even more awesome

And you could keep driving it with rear main leak and bad head gasket. The new ones grenade.

 

[flatlander40]

Some of that is perception

4-door big bend is lighter than the 2 door badlands

 

[Deleted member 13702]

https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=135

Good article for those that are worried about longevity. Talks about how the little 4 was beefed up to handle increased output. Anyway, sold me on the 2.3l.

 

[Mattwings]

And you could keep driving it with rear main leak and bad head gasket. The new ones grenade.

Not in my experience. Rear main on at least on of my 302s went so bad the motor seized. Good news, repaired it and it ran fine afterwards, but still left me stranded. Cars are just much more reliable now than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. It is harder to work on them in your garage and there are certainly designs and mechanical issues that are bad on occasion and cause expensive or catastrophic failures at times, but that has happened, regardless of the manufacturer or decade. I don't see the 2.3 being any less mechanically durable than an "old school" 302 or 351 (btw, the 351M and 400 derivative were often plagued with mechanical issues as well).

 

[Butzy]

I have had several 302s. They were good, with several flaws (ever see one that didn’t leak from the rear main seal?) I also had a couple of 4.6 Tritons’ great motors. I had two buddies hit 250k on that generation of engines. 3 valves, not as good. The 2.3 is every bit as durable if treated well and the electronics are way, way better than any Bronco 302 (I had a 5G, nice motor, not much power, so so fuel economy and very limited tune ability pre MAF). People have a very romantic view of older cars. I owned and wrenched on everything from mid 60s “muscle cars “ to my current 2018 2.7 10sp F150. The latest is the best, by far. Great power, great economy, flawless operation. 2.3 will be solid as any prior Bronco power train IMO. I am going 2.7, because it will be even more awesome

And you could keep driving it with rear main leak and bad head gasket. The new ones grenade.

This is FUD, plain and simple. Without cherry-picking anecdotal stories of engine failure on a 'modern' car, there is little to no data to back up this claim. Hell, even a bottom of the line Kia with a 1.6L NA in it will run for 200k with little more than oil changes and spark plugs. Engines from 10 year old Tundra's are often referred to as 'million mile motors' for a reason.

For example, here's the exhaust camshaft from a VW 2.0T that had 150,000 miles on it. It ran 23 pounds of boost, made nearly 300whp, and did 6-8 track days per year. Clearly, not very durable:

And to be honest, random internet stranger, I don't really like lighting people up this way. I mean, I don't even know you, you're probably a perfectly nice person that helps little old ladies across the street. But to poo-poo on 'new' things simply because it's not what you're used to and know, is obtuse.

Besides, If all these old motors are so good, why are people in 'classic' cars so hell bent on replacing them with more modern solutions?

I personally would never drop a modern power plant into a classic. You are not pushing a 5000 lb. Vehicle with your 2.0l jetta engine. I have experience with new and old engines. Data is just numbers on a sheet. Looks good on paper. There is a reason they put big engines in big vehicles

Sponsored