Sponsored

Compilation of 2.3L Reviews!

Streetfish

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Threads
6
Messages
246
Reaction score
404
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
2014 Toyota FJ Cruiser TTUE
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
I’m not getting the 2.3 to be a race car. If I wanted that I’d buy a Mustang or some other bullshit. It’s a plenty powerful plant for it’s intended purpose. I can’t wait to be out on the trails going over and through everything thrown at it, and then actually having a comfortable ride home when I’m done.
fast enough to get me there.

Just pointing out that not all the reviews were unicorns and rainbows. It is a heavy vehicle so there may be scenarios where the 2.3 doesn't feel like enough; though certainly 300HP should be plenty for most applications.

As someone else noted, it may just be that the reviewers are more familiar with sports cars, or that auto may do a better job of finding a gear to put the power down. On the bright side, most reviews were very positive; i wouldn't be hesitate to get the 2.3
Sponsored

 
OP
OP
BaseSquatch

BaseSquatch

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
@NotOJsBronco
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Threads
23
Messages
537
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ford Bronco
Your Bronco Model
Base
Clubs
 
Another win for Team 2.3L!

Nice to see the 2.3L and the 2.7L have around the same 0-60 time (on a flat surface). As expected, the extra 30 horsepower doesn’t mean much there. I’m sure the 2.7 would have an advantage on a steep hill because of the extra torque. But that’s about it.
 

BuzzyBud

Well-Known Member
First Name
TBD
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Threads
38
Messages
676
Reaction score
2,501
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
TBD
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Nice to see the 2.3L and the 2.7L have around the same 0-60 time (on a flat surface). As expected, the extra 30 horsepower doesn’t mean much there. I’m sure the 2.7 would have an advantage on a steep hill because of the extra torque. But that’s about it.
One other interesting tidbit. As you switch from the 2.7L to the 2.3L you lower the front axle weight by approximately 139 pounds which you might apply to a winch on the front bumper. For me, that is a benefit I plan to realize. (It is all about intended use.)
 

Rick Astley

Raptor
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Threads
70
Messages
5,019
Reaction score
18,563
Location
Up Doug's ass
Vehicle(s)
d
Your Bronco Model
Raptor
As someone else noted, it may just be that the reviewers are more familiar with sports cars, or that auto may do a better job of finding a gear to put the power down. On the bright side, most reviews were very positive; i wouldn't be hesitate to get the 2.3

would tend to agree that perception is a massive part of this. These reviews are also from auto journalists. They might have/had a Porsche 911 to drive the week prior, or a Nissan Leaf.

Many auto journos don't even own vehicles as they are always provided to review.

Speaking anecdotally, our 2019 Ranger has done absolutely fantastic towing 3,500 lbs with another ton in the bed and occupants. I have yet to hear of a credible account on here of Bronco with 4,500 lbs of payload to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Instead it's the typical American ramblings of needing the largest motor to satisfy size and/or image issues.

If you're expecting to have a F-350 Super Duty levels of power out of the 2.3 then yea, you'll be let down. But the 2.3 engine is absolutely capable and will handle Bronco duty just fine. Having to be smart enough to understand throttle modulation is beyond 95% of drivers on the road anyway, so that could be what frustrates "typical" users.

I'm so excited they paired the 2.3 with a proper manual transmission. That was the winning ticket for me to order Bronco. It fixes the only problem with Ranger, and does so on a more exciting platform.
 

Sponsored

Laminar

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
969
Reaction score
2,498
Location
Iowa
Vehicle(s)
Cougar
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
those looking for a theme… I simply followed the tea leaves…

‘Pleasant,’ Adequate,’ ‘Regular,’ ‘Keeps pace,’
enough,’ ‘Lighter,’ ‘Oomph,’ ‘Taking off on a flat road,’ and ‘Standard’

P.A.R.K.-en-L.O.T.S.
Yeah...I wouldn't call those glowing reviews. Everything they're saying basically boils down to "it's good enough to get you through traffic, I guess." This really cements my disappointment that there was no 2.7/manual option.

I surprised that the SavageGeese guys said the 2.3 was nowhere near as peppy as the Jeep 2.0. The 2.3 has better peak crank hp and tq ratings, but dyno sheets (Wrangler vs. Ranger) show them to be pretty similar - about 230whp and 270wtq.

They also said that the 2-3 gear change has a brutal RPM drop, so unless you really wring out 2nd gear, you end up out of boost in 3rd and it's sluggish. Basically, if you assume that you're into boost by 2500rpm, you have to wring 2nd out to over 4000rpm to stay in the powerband. If you shift sooner than that, you end up just lugging the engine along. And as buzzy and thrashy as the 4 cylinder EcoBoost is, you'll definitely feel like you're wringing it out if you take it over 4000.

I wonder if Ford has really detuned the response of the engine for better efficiency. And the wide spread of the gears seems to be hurting it even more. It would also be really useful to know how many miles are on the truck (broken in yet?) and a confirmation that some intern didn't go fill them all up with 87 octane before they were given to the press.
 

Mr. Nice

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Jayson
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
678
Reaction score
911
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
12' Boss302, 08' Audi TT, 13' CRV, 14" Ridgeline
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
2.3L Reviews


“The smaller engine might not have the horsepower of the V6, but it’s lighter and definitely changes the feel of the truck. Making it even more agile.”
-Kelley Blue Book

“The 2.3 L engine is more than enough to keep pace with traffic, even in Eco mode and even with light throttle applications.”
-Ars Technica

“Our on-road time was spent behind the wheel of a 2.3-liter, four-door Outer Banks model with the 10-speed automatic, and we were struck by how effortless it is to drive. Even in the 4,600-pound four-door model, the little four-pot feels strong and accelerates effortlessly. It even sounds pretty good when you really get on it.”
-AutoBlog

“We only had a chance to experience the 2.7-liter EcoBoost out on the road, though the 2.3-liter felt more than adequate for off-road duties.”
-CarBuzz

“I didn't get the chance to drive the I4 on the street, but thanks in part to smart gearing, the smaller engine offered plenty of oomph on the trails.”
-CNet

“The 2.3L four-cylinder engine and 2.7L V6 both generate good torque, thanks to the combination of turbocharging, wide gear ratios and low ranges for scrambling.”
-Detroit Free Press

“The standard turbocharged 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine (300 horsepower and 325 lb-ft of torque with premium fuel) provides sufficient acceleration whether it's combined with the standard seven-speed manual or the optional 10-speed automatic. The larger and optional turbocharged 2.7-liter V6 (330 hp and 415 lb-ft of torque with premium fuel) makes a satisfying improvement but isn't a necessity.”
-Edmunds

“The four cylinder engine offers more than enough power and torque for on and off-road driving.”
-Forbes

“Off-road-specific hardware aside, the 2.3-liter four-cylinder in our Badlands performed far better with the 10-speed automatic than the available manual gearbox. Naturally, moving off the line was a smoother experience. But the way the gearbox behaved in the different GOAT driving modes (there are seven on the Badlands, but we spent most of our time in Rock Crawl) and how it handled throttle inputs gave us much more confidence on the trail. As for power, the base engine was barely an issue on the toughest obstacles, thanks to its ample low-end torque.”
-Motor1

“While the extra V6 power is always welcome, I did not feel the four-cylinder really lacking in power for regular driving on busy city streets or on the interstate.”
-TFL Car

“There's quite a bit of torque on tap, even with the four-cylinder, so you really don't need to touch the throttle when taking off on a flat road. That part made stop-and-go traffic pleasant.”
-The Drive
Here is what I read and it confirms that the 2.3 in not the engine of choice...


Although the four-pot emits a less-than-invigorating thrum and is easier to catch off boost, particularly with the manual, it only gives up 30 horses to the V-6.


CAR and DRIVER





Both engines provide adequate response and low-end torque once geared down in four-low, but the 2.3-liter needs time for the turbo to wind up in daily driving.


HAGERTY





The rest of the transmission's gearing is excessively tall, and we had to change gears later than we normally would lest low revs magnify whatever turbo lag the 2.3-liter engine exhibits. As we charged up the steep inclines that give Texas Hill Country its name, we found we often had to downshift to fifth or fourth to maintain our mile-a-minute pace.


MOTORTREND





The clutch is somewhat vague, which combined with the 2.3's less-predictable throttle tuning made for a rather disappointing experience.


motor1





The 2.3-liter turbo-four seems to have enough grunt on paper, but it felt a bit sluggish in spots, especially when climbing a grade. I found myself downshifting more than I expected to, and it wasn’t until I hit some open highway late in the drive that I found myself using fifth and sixth gears. I wonder how the four-cylinder can handle the extra weight of the four-door – and how it works in concert with the 10-speed, regardless of door count.


The Truth About Cars





The 2.3-liter turbocharged engine definitely needs boost to have any amount of low-end torque. Starting off in first gear, I found myself lugging the engine a bit as the motor began building boost, taking a moment to accelerate out of the hole.


jalopnik





I went with the Bronco my id would want: a loaded, red, two-door Badlands trim model with a seven-speed manual transmission (only available with the smaller but still capable 2.3-liter inline-four engine). It was not the ideal choice for Austin, which was much hillier than I anticipated


GEAR PATROL
 

Apples

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
3,399
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2022 Jeep JLUR, 2004 Lexus GX470
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
They also said that the 2-3 gear change has a brutal RPM drop, so unless you really wring out 2nd gear, you end up out of boost in 3rd and it's sluggish. Basically, if you assume that you're into boost by 2500rpm, you have to wring 2nd out to over 4000rpm to stay in the powerband.
FWIW, this is the same experience in the Jeeps 6 speed (my friend has the v6 not sure if it's the same in the 4cyl). The 3rd gear is really tall. His best guess is that it's in service of 4lo driving where you'll rarely if ever get out of 2nd, so 1st and 2nd have a lot of overlap with a much bigger jump to 3rd
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAC
OP
OP
BaseSquatch

BaseSquatch

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
@NotOJsBronco
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Threads
23
Messages
537
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ford Bronco
Your Bronco Model
Base
Clubs
 
Here is what I read and it confirms that the 2.3 in not the engine of choice...
I’m not sure if you even read the posts you quoted. 😂
Most of them are complaining about the manual transmission, not the 2.3L engine.

There’s only a couple of reviews that said the 2.3L is underpowered, and those I attribute to the following:
👇

Perception is a massive part of this. These reviews are also from auto journalists. They might have/had a Porsche 911 to drive the week prior, or a Nissan Leaf.

Many auto journos don't even own vehicles as they are always provided to review.

If you're expecting to have a F-350 Super Duty levels of power out of the 2.3 then yea, you'll be let down. But the 2.3 engine is absolutely capable and will handle Bronco duty just fine. Having to be smart enough to understand throttle modulation is beyond 95% of drivers on the road anyway, so that could be what frustrates "typical" users.
 

Mr. Nice

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Jayson
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
678
Reaction score
911
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
12' Boss302, 08' Audi TT, 13' CRV, 14" Ridgeline
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
I’m not sure if you even read the posts you quoted. 😂
Most of them are complaining about the manual transmission, not the 2.3L engine.

There’s only a couple of reviews that said the 2.3L is underpowered, and those I attribute to the following:
👇
I read most everything. First impression reviews of new vehicles are most always uncritical. To say anything negative here is very telling. It takes wide spread equipment documented testing to really shake out things. I don't think reviews are going to get better.

I never said the 2.3 was horrible. I just claimed that it's not the preferred or optimum choice for a 5000 pound truck. If it was that good of an engine it would be put in the F-150...
 

Sponsored
OP
OP
BaseSquatch

BaseSquatch

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
@NotOJsBronco
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Threads
23
Messages
537
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ford Bronco
Your Bronco Model
Base
Clubs
 
I never said the 2.3 was horrible. I just claimed that it's not the preferred or optimum choice for a 5000 pound truck. If it was that good of an engine it would be put in the F-150...
If the Bronco was made for towing, then I’d agree. But it’s not, so the 2.3L is plenty. It would be plenty in an F-150 too, if you never carry a large payload, or tow anything.

The base F-150 engine is a 3.3-Liter Ti-VCT V-6, putting out 290 Hp, and 265 Lb-Ft torque. The 2.3L EcoBoost in the Bronco puts out more than that with premium fuel.
 

Mr. Nice

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Jayson
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
678
Reaction score
911
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
12' Boss302, 08' Audi TT, 13' CRV, 14" Ridgeline
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
If the Bronco was made for towing, then I’d agree. But it’s not, so the 2.3L is plenty. It would be plenty in an F-150 too, if you never carry a large payload, or tow anything.

The base F-150 engine is a 3.3-Liter Ti-VCT V-6, putting out 290 Hp, and 265 Lb-Ft torque. The 2.3L EcoBoost in the Bronco puts out more than that with premium fuel.
So what you are saying is that the 2.3 "is" a better choice than the 2.7 for the Bronco.
All I am saying is that's it's not.

Read the reviews...
 
OP
OP
BaseSquatch

BaseSquatch

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
@NotOJsBronco
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Threads
23
Messages
537
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ford Bronco
Your Bronco Model
Base
Clubs
 
So what you are saying is that the 2.3 "is" a better choice than the 2.7 for the Bronco.
All I am saying is that's it's not.

Read the reviews...
I actually do think it’s a better choice for the Bronco, due to the low torque rating of the 10R60 transmission, and the ability to pair with a manual. But I’m not denying the 2.7L has way more torque. That’s proven.
 

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'm coming from a 2004 Nissan Xterra, 180bhp/202ft/lbs torque, 5sp.

After driving that since '06, I welcome 300bhp/325ft/lbs torque. I added over 400lbs of steel (front/rear bumpers, sliders, winch and roof rack) to it plus 33" tires and it never had any major issues moving. The only problem I had was trying to overtake cars on the highway, needed a lot of road to accelerate. It was also kinda slow up hills.

At any rate, the 2.3L is a vast improvement over what I have now.
 
Last edited:

Laminar

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
969
Reaction score
2,498
Location
Iowa
Vehicle(s)
Cougar
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
The base F-150 engine is a 3.3-Liter Ti-VCT V-6, putting out 290 Hp, and 265 Lb-Ft torque. The 2.3L EcoBoost in the Bronco puts out more than that with premium fuel.
Yeah, and the 3.3 F-150 still gets to 60 more than a second quicker than the 4cyl Bronco. I don't know what's wrong with the 2.3 or its calibration in the Bronco but the performance is BAD.

due to the low torque rating of the 10R60 transmission
lol you're one of those people
Sponsored

 
 


Top