- First Name
- Jacob
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2019
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 3,542
- Location
- San Francisco
- Vehicle(s)
- Escape
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
Might want to let Ford know they made a mistake.
Sponsored
Sponsored
- First Name
- Roger
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Threads
- 6
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reaction score
- 2,435
- Location
- Aurora, Co
- Vehicle(s)
- 17 mustang gt, 3 Wrangler JLs
- Your Bronco Model
- Wildtrak
A side note for those comparing the 2.3 to the 2.0 in the jeep wrangler. The 2.0 has the etorque assist. Something like 78 footpounds of torque of electric power along with the 2 liter turbo. Its a great combo and it lets me turn 35s with no issues. The 2.3 does not have that. The 2 liter with the etorque in the jeep feels way better all the way around vs the 2.3 in the ranger.
- First Name
- William
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Threads
- 22
- Messages
- 1,377
- Reaction score
- 1,753
- Location
- Henderson, NV
- Vehicle(s)
- 2002 F350. 2022 Big Bend (Sasquatch)
- Your Bronco Model
- Big Bend
I have the naturally aspirated 3.5 in my Explorer, and I wouldn’t want any less HP than I have now. Also Friends F150 . . .
- Banned
- #49
For an extra $1900, why wouldn't you get the 2.7L? This little indulgence will make you happy for years to come!
That’s what I’m saying. $1900 is nothing for 90 extra lb-ft if torque and 40 more HP. Maybe I’m crazy I don’t know lol. 400 lb-ft of torque is awesome and more than my 5.7L Hemi. It’s a no brainer if you were already opting for the automatic. You’ll never look back
Sponsored
- Banned
- #51
I would not consider the 2.3L with Sasquatch. On road performance would feel sluggish to me. Some people aren't bothered by slow acceleration, but I am. The extra $1900 for the 2.7L will give you many satisfaction units/dollar and well worth it over time.
I'm coming from an old Toyota that makes probably 60hp and is sitting on 33's (4.88's definitely help), I'm totally happy with the output of the 4 cyl bronco. I'm certain that it is more than adequate for squatched out urban mall crawlers or weekend off-roaders.
- First Name
- Ben
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2020
- Threads
- 17
- Messages
- 1,755
- Reaction score
- 2,486
- Location
- Interior of BC
- Vehicle(s)
- 2010 Kia Borrego, 2012 Chevy Cruze, 2022 Bronco
- Your Bronco Model
- Big Bend
This right here should answer your question
ManSquatch may be offered. Rumor has it.
Now we just need 2.7 ManSquatch.
Or you can also look at it a different way. Get the 2.3 and spend only $500 to $800 more on just a simple 93 Octane tune and still get that much power. And be able to get the manual. You'll be right at the 2.7s power and save $1,000 bucks. There's no wrong answer here. They are both good engines. Neither will lack power. I think a lot of people are forgetting Ford will offer a tune through Ford performance.
Sponsored
The 2.7 adds weight vice the 2.3? About 20-23lbs to the Bronco's wait with both engines having autos. With minor tweaks to the 2.7 I can increase the hp and torque by 100hp/100tq. Just saying. No one is saying the 2.3 does not have power and all I hear is about adding power to the 2.3. It is not a power issue and I do not want to put on a catch can because Ford did not fix the problem. Face it guys the 2.3 has shortfalls like any other engine.
I don't really consider flashing the 93 Octane tune a major power adder especially when Ford offers the 2.3 stock with it in other vehicles like the Mustangand Focus RS. It literally just allows you to use premium fuel. And in doing so you get the real power of the engine. Ford detunes the 2.3 in vehicles like the Ranger and Bronco so people can save gas money and use 87 Octane.
If you consider going with the manual transmission your actually saving $3500. Then add the 93 Octane tune and your still saving like $3k and will be at the same power as the 2.7. Thats pretty impressive. And a good savings.
Yes sure you can make the 2.7 more powerful. But then your spending even more money. At that point you'll be $4k++ more then the 2.3.
And if you decide to be a power junkie down the rode you don't have to regret going with the 2.3 because there's actually mods available to take it all the way up to 600 horse power.
For Off Roading id be plenty happy with the 2.3 and 93 Octane tune making 325hp and 375tq and the 4.7 gearing in the Sasquatch.
With all this said I still haven't decided which engine I'm going with. Its all going to come down to last minute budget and cost at the time if ordering. Both engines are good IMO..
I agree with you on the cost, etc. It is more than just flashing, in addition you can add easy things like an intake and taking off that heavy exhaust system replacing it with a less restrictive one. Frankly, I am quite fine with the power of the 2.3 stock for the Bronco. Catch can and aluminum block on the 2.3 is my issue. Aluminum blocks on some other engines have worked but I am not sure about the 2.3.
Here is the deal, if the 2.3 had the 2.7's block material and direct & port injection I would not hesitate and go with the 2.3. Looking at the hundreds of threads this sums it up.
Last edited:
Most modern lightweight engines are Aluminum now. The old cast iron blocks are heavier and becoming a thing of the past. Dodge is keeping them alive in the Challengers but I don't see that lasting much longer.
I hear you, but composite graphite is also here. I currently have an aluminum block.
Sponsored
Similar threads
