Change order or ride it out on 2.3L?

PrepVet

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
K
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
370
Reaction score
662
Location
Wausau, WI
Vehicle(s)
A bunch.
The only ecoboost I have experience with is the 3.5 in my expedition. I like it. In fact it drives much better than the 5.7 wedgie in my 2500.

In the end I went with the 2.3 and alas a slush box since I couldn’t get the options I wanted with the preferred row it yourself. But the Bronco will replace my old JK as my DD so I am very comfortable with my choice.





Advertisement

 

Chrism81

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
chris
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
3,131
Reaction score
8,943
Location
connecticut
Vehicle(s)
Mazda
Clubs
 
One of the primary deciding factors between 2.3L and 2.7L for me was that in addition to the up front cost, I'd be paying more for it over time with worse MPG;however, it seems with the Black Diamond that is not the case. I'm now debating hard on whether I should switch to the 2.7L, but with a 7/14 reservation and no Vin yet I keep doubting thinking that if I switch now it'll just throw my undetermined build date even further out? Realistically what are we looking at here?

Nobody knows so why concern yourself?

2.3Ls are less constrained stick with what you've got and you'll likely get it sooner.

It won't have any effect switch.
If you are even considering the 2.7 then get it if you can afford it. Other stuff you can easily get aftermarket, but the engine is not so simple. I don't need a 2.7 but I sure am hell is getting one
 

Bronco2021RV

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Robert
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
221
Reaction score
366
Location
Prescott Valley Az
Vehicle(s)
Acura rdx
One of the primary deciding factors between 2.3L and 2.7L for me was that in addition to the up front cost, I'd be paying more for it over time with worse MPG;however, it seems with the Black Diamond that is not the case. I'm now debating hard on whether I should switch to the 2.7L, but with a 7/14 reservation and no Vin yet I keep doubting thinking that if I switch now it'll just throw my undetermined build date even further out? Realistically what are we looking at here?

Nobody knows so why concern yourself?

2.3Ls are less constrained stick with what you've got and you'll likely get it sooner.

It won't have any effect switch.
Which one would you have more fun driving ( enjoy more)? That’s your answer
 

RubyRedGT

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
187
Reaction score
308
Location
Central NC
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang (supercharged 5.0) and 68 Mustang 429
Clubs
 
2.7 for me as I’m power hungry (even the 5.0 in my S550 mustang needed a supercharger to satisfy). And I got build date and VIN with 7/31 reservation, as do some others, so it doesn’t seem like the 2.7 is that bad a constraint.
 

Compta38

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
3,767
Location
Alabama
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fusion
There is no way in hell I would order one of these with a 4 cylinder. Hell, I wish I could have gotten the 3.5. I think there is going to be a bit of regret from some folks who opt for the smaller engine especially if the get Sasquatch or end up running bigger tires.
 

old goat

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Raul
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
260
Reaction score
477
Location
texas
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Colorado
There is no way in hell I would order one of these with a 4 cylinder. Hell, I wish I could have gotten the 3.5. I think there is going to be a bit of regret from some folks who opt for the smaller engine especially if the get Sasquatch or end up running bigger tires.
not me , DD 2D Base , 2.3 , AT , no regrets here . I will add 32's and that is it . that little 4 popper will handle it well.
 

604Bronco

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2021
Messages
1,821
Reaction score
5,642
Location
British Columbia
Vehicle(s)
2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trailhawk
I’ve said it many times before on this forum, and I’ll say it again… Order what you truly want.

You’re ordering a vehicle from the factory vs. Just choosing one off the dealership lot. Don’t give-in for some option just because you think it will help it get built sooner. That “switch” to some other options may move you ahead, or maybe a bunch of other people thought the same thing, and now you’ve helped contribute to a new parts constraint in the coming weeks - Who knows?

All I know is I’ve purchased lots of vehicles in my life, and there’s been some instances where I decided “well… if it doesn’t have XX option, it’s no big deal… At least I’ll get my vehicle sooner!” And sure enough, I eventually have regrets not getting some option or specific colour.

If you absolutely need your vehicle sooner rather than later, or you could care less about a 2.3 vs. 2.7, then fill your boots. But usually you’ll have a favourite above the other option, and you should go with that. Get what you want on your build so you have no regrets.

Short term pain in waiting will have a long term gain when your awesome ride with all your options you really wanted, shows up at the dealership for you to pick up.
 

ColbyFromBama

Base
Banned
Banned
First Name
Colby
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
236
Reaction score
625
Location
Alabama
Vehicle(s)
GMC Sierra
You will definitely get your Bronco sooner if you order with the 2.3L. But that shouldn’t be what determines your decision.

As someone who’s driven both, the 2.3L has more than enough power. It makes the 2.7L look like overkill. But if you want that extra power, I’d switch to the 2.7L because it’s so cheap to upgrade.

With that being said, I switched to the 2.3L once I found out the Bronco was getting the 10R60 transmission. That transmission has a relatively low torque rating, and knowing my driving, I’d destroy it if I got the 2.7.

The 2.7 fanboys get mad when I say this though! 😂🤣
 
Last edited:

DC9atnight

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
338
Reaction score
1,185
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Toyota Tacoma
Clubs
 
OP. I’m in the exact same boat. I’ve debated the 2.3 vs 2.7 for two weeks now and tortured myself with all the pros and cons and tomorrow I’m emailing my dealer and switching my BD to 2.7. Good luck with whatever you decide!
 

Mr. Nice

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jayson
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
136
Reaction score
205
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
12' Boss302, 08' Audi TT, 13' CRV, 14" Ridgeline
OP. I’m in the exact same boat. I’ve debated the 2.3 vs 2.7 for two weeks now and tortured myself with all the pros and cons and tomorrow I’m emailing my dealer and switching my BD to 2.7. Good luck with whatever you decide!
Here is another crumb for the 2.7 and the potentially sub par brakes for the 2.3 like the Ranger.

Well as far as I know the 2021 Ranger comes with a vacuum booster..they have the 2.3 engine.

depending on your Bronco engine..there will be 2 types of brake boosters.

2.3 engine - vacuum

2.7 engine - electronic

also appears Bronco has bigger caliper Swept area.

1512ff56-c177-468e-8bf6-32c09e4beaa3-jpeg.jpg
 

Mpatient1

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mel
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
286
Reaction score
453
Location
FLORIDA
Vehicle(s)
mustang
Clubs
 
I had a similar “well crud” moment when seeing the BD mpg. I’m sticking with the 2.3 because I don’t have the budget to up my build and more power just isn’t important for what I’m doing. I’m not really sweating it but I’ll admit it does have me thinking about letting my first reservation go by and picking up my Granger October reservation instead though. Maybe use the savings for the 2.7 or switch to better mpg in the OBX and spend the savings on the high package. My first reservation is also 7/14.

Thought regarding BD MPG: Anyone ever remove steel plates and just put them back on when going off road? Between that and a rear seat delete maybe I’d buy a little fuel economy? Just spitballing.

I had the same thoughts exactly regarding the plates and rear seat delete, especially if the plates are truly the mpg factor where the BD is concerned.
 

Tataman

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
39
Reaction score
61
Location
Gilbert
Vehicle(s)
2005 Chevy suburban
Clubs
 
Not sure if I have seen it mentioned in this thread by the OP, but is this for a two or four door?

I drove a ranger with the 2.3 and it was adequate. I think that engine would be well paired with a two door. Given the bigger size of the four door, including the additional plating below on a BD, the 2.7 just seems like a better fit. Also, Scotty the YouTube star said to get the bigger engine. 😁
 

lakesinai

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
333
Reaction score
387
Location
29466
Vehicle(s)
F150 Crew Cab
I had a similar “well crud” moment when seeing the BD mpg. I’m sticking with the 2.3 because I don’t have the budget to up my build and more power just isn’t important for what I’m doing. I’m not really sweating it but I’ll admit it does have me thinking about letting my first reservation go by and picking up my Granger October reservation instead though. Maybe use the savings for the 2.7 or switch to better mpg in the OBX and spend the savings on the high package. My first reservation is also 7/14.

Thought regarding BD MPG: Anyone ever remove steel plates and just put them back on when going off road? Between that and a rear seat delete maybe I’d buy a little fuel economy? Just spitballing.
I have the OBX and its better mileage . . . Except i don't! I opted for the rear locker, and that changed the axle ratio from 3.73 to 4.27. I doubt EPA tested this version.

I'm guessing that the primary reason for the mileage drop in the BD is the axle ratio, not the weight. The BD has the 4.46 axle with the rear locker. The weight of the plates counts, I'm sure. But i regularly get 24mpg Highway on my F150 with the 2.7 ECO, and its lots heavier than the Bronco. Same 32" tire diameter. But i have 3.55 axles, not the tow friendly 3.73 or 4.27.

We can all compare next year in real life. But axle ratio is a big factor, along with tire size, in mpg. IMO. The reason the Sasquatch isnt worse is that the diameter of the 35" tires counters the 4.7" axle ratio. (And v.v.)
 

Advertisement







 
Zone Offroad


Advertisement
Top