Debating on 2.3 vs 2.7 engine?

[brkdncr]

Plenty of DI vehicles on the roads these days, and I haven't heard of any of them needing valve jobs. Ive walnut blasted some Honda Fit valves for carbon deposits causing issues, but no serious head issues, yet.

lots of reported issues, a quick search on YouTube will turn up some research and examples.

Sponsored

 

[kevin.gt]

Plenty of DI vehicles on the roads these days, and I haven't heard of any of them needing valve jobs. Ive walnut blasted some Honda Fit valves for carbon deposits causing issues, but no serious head issues, yet.

I assumed the dual injection on 2.7 was to prevent carbon buildup, but I believe I’m wrong. I just read this article about it and Ford engineers claim carbon build up on their DI engine valves isn’t an issue. According to the article, ford’s dual injection implementation uses PI at low rpm for noise and efficiency reasons. This is an older article and curious if it holds true with the bronco.

 

[Sitruc_btb]

lots of reported issues, a quick search on YouTube will turn up some research and examples.

Ill poke around. I haven't heard of any myself, aside from the vehicles I work on, and it's mostly faulty injectors from the factiory, and the buildup on the DI Fits, no cylinder head issues.

 

[BELIZE91]

Ordered my Outer Banks last month with an estimated build date of 4/30/24. Original order was with 2.3l engine but now having second thoughts for the 2.7 engine. I ordered the Sasquatch package and hard top as well, which I definitely want. Called the dealer today 4/8, they can't change my order and here are my options:
1. Stick with what I have, less peppier engine but should receive in 2 months
2. Get the 2.7 engine but new order starts and won't get for another 4 months (miss the summer when I need it for my family)
3. Dealer does have an Outer Banks in stock with the 2.7 engine, my color, sasquatch package but only has the soft top. I can pick up car now but hard top will be like $5K more down the load with no real estimate on delivery.

I'm sure I'm overthinking this but is the 2.3l engine enough? Any help would be appreciated. This is a gift for my wife who has another SUV. So this is just an extra car for fun, daily driver not real off roading

 

[BELIZE91]

Ordered my Outer Banks last month with an estimated build date of 4/30/24. Original order was with 2.3l engine but now having second thoughts for the 2.7 engine. I ordered the Sasquatch package and hard top as well, which I definitely want. Called the dealer today 4/8, they can't change my order and here are my options:
1. Stick with what I have, less peppier engine but should receive in 2 months
2. Get the 2.7 engine but new order starts and won't get for another 4 months (miss the summer when I need it for my family)
3. Dealer does have an Outer Banks in stock with the 2.7 engine, my color, sasquatch package but only has the soft top. I can pick up car now but hard top will be like $5K more down the load with no real estimate on delivery.

I'm sure I'm overthinking this but is the 2.3l engine enough? Any help would be appreciated. This is a gift for my wife who has another SUV. So this is just an extra car for fun, daily driver not real off roading

I have the Heritage 2.3, no issues, it is quicker than my 68 bronco with the 289 engine. I debated both, but thought about my 46 CJ2 with it's flat head engine and it never had an issue climbing. So I would vote the 2.3, but it they ever did a V-8 I would be first in-line , maybe by then it will only be a 2 year wait for one

 

[redmudtexas]

Two weeks and a thousand miles in with new 2dr BD and 2.3 liter manual trans - highway, woods, urban driving - I love the thing and there's no issues with power levels. 6th gear in cruise up long steep slopes at 65 mph, no sweat at all.

 

[Rover72]

Both motors have plenty of power & are good. The 2.7 will have a bit more zip.
Based on your stated trade-offs it is simply what compromise are you willing to make if you really want the 2.7. If you accept the 2.3 sounds like you are all set. I'd go with 2.3 based on what you have described.

 

[BigMac]

I'm completely satisfied with the 2.3. It has performed just fine from sea level to 12,000 feet, so the "altitude drop off" doesn't seem to be a real thing in my experience. Unless your wife needs to drag race Mustangs/Camaro's you won't have any problems.

 

[Turner00]

I've had my 23 BL SAS 4DR with hard top for just over a year. I found it on a dealer lot an jumped on it. I was worried about it being under powered. Well a year and 10k miles later I have never once felt like it was under powered. Also I average about 22 MPG, mix of city/hwy.

 

[broncobase1]

Isn’t the 2.3l direct injection only? If so, at some point it will need a valve job way before the port+direct injection 2.7. Especially if the turbo starts to release oil into the intake like every turbo ever does.

Where are you getting this valve job info from? DI engines may need a cleaning around 100K miles, but valve job? That's a new one. Plus you have to consider the extra complexity of dual injection.

 

[Syringe]

The 2.3L is fun to rev out, and makes good power - also not vibey at higher rpm. I just towed an enclosed motorcycle trailer to and from Thunderhill with mine and turning 3700 rpm in 4th (75 mph) to pull up and over steep slopes on I-80 didn't seem to phase it at all. (2 dr. Badlands, non-SAS) Fuel economy towing in that state wasn't wonderful - 12-13 mpg, but I seriously doubt the 2.7L would have done better - and it doesn't come with a manual!

My Dad's 2 dr. Wildtrak Sasquatch has the 2.7L, and the best you'll do with it is about 17 mpg [75-80 mph speed limits, wind, and big hills around here]. The 2.3L in mine gets ~20 mpg in the same conditions, and don't find myself down on power.

 

[williamshafer]

Ordered my Outer Banks last month with an estimated build date of 4/30/24. Original order was with 2.3l engine but now having second thoughts for the 2.7 engine. I ordered the Sasquatch package and hard top as well, which I definitely want. Called the dealer today 4/8, they can't change my order and here are my options:
1. Stick with what I have, less peppier engine but should receive in 2 months
2. Get the 2.7 engine but new order starts and won't get for another 4 months (miss the summer when I need it for my family)
3. Dealer does have an Outer Banks in stock with the 2.7 engine, my color, sasquatch package but only has the soft top. I can pick up car now but hard top will be like $5K more down the load with no real estimate on delivery.

I'm sure I'm overthinking this but is the 2.3l engine enough? Any help would be appreciated. This is a gift for my wife who has another SUV. So this is just an extra car for fun, daily driver not real off roading

I've had both engines. The 2.3 is a good motor for most applications. I will say that oil changes on the 2.7 are alot easier imo. Mileage is identical between the two, if that's a concern. I prefer the 2.7 just a little more. I've had both tops as well. Prefer the hard top, but the soft top wasn't horrible.

 

[MNBigfoot]

I've had both engines. The 2.3 is a good motor for most applications. I will say that oil changes on the 2.7 are alot easier imo. Mileage is identical between the two, if that's a concern. I prefer the 2.7 just a little more. I've had both tops as well. Prefer the hard top, but the soft top wasn't horrible.

I've mostly changed my own, probably 40 vehicles. The oil filter on the 2.7 is the easiest I've ever dealt with; however, I've never owned another where the oil shoots out of the pan the way it does. I replaced the plug with the Ronin, which isn't ideal at least it's better.

 

[DriveAllNight]

I’m not an engineologist, never played one on TV or the internet so in my very humble opinion:

The 2.3 of course will work fine and is why Ford made it an option, it (slightly) helps with the ecofriendly agenda (at least more than the alternative), and it makes the Bronco more affordable, not to mention creates a little more room under the hood for snorkels -N- stuff.

The 2.7 on the other hand has more power to move the beast that is the Bronco with the Bigfoot shoes and all that extra weight that can be optioned on. Also for people who like the right skinny peddle enough to not mind the gas pumps. There is something to be said for a vehicle that will get up and move fast when you need it.

I personally think long term the 2.7 driven the same way as the 2.3 should last longer, simple because it shouldn’t have to work as hard, everything else being equal – which is almost never the case.

The reality, I believe, is that some people drive like it’s a beautiful Sunday afternoon with nowhere to go, and others like to drive like they are trying to beat their personal best on the interstate. We all know who we are, and should choose our powerplants accordingly.

So yea, the 2.3 was never even on my radar.

 

[[DELETED MEMBER 27901]]

Unpopular opinion grounded in engineering:

If you are not doing any real off-roading: Skip sasquatch. Go with the 2.3. You are buying thousands of dollars of off-roading equipment you don't need and will likely never use. Order the locking rear differential to get 4.27 gears. Ditch the stock tires and put a set of 285/70 17's on it (33"). Maybe even throw a 1" lift (e.g., Bilstein 5100's) and you will be at sasquatch ride height. You will save thousands, still have awesome off-road potential, and have better automotive performance (acceleration, braking and mileage.)

You are losing the advanced transfer case but run winter tires in the winter and you won't miss it.

That'll preach. The number of people who spent $7k for bigger tires is astonishing.

Sponsored