Drag race between 2.3 vs 2.7 of same configuration.

[Hoofnmouth]

As much as i am a diehard manual guy,its hard to walk away from hp on the table.
Gf says get the 2.3 stick if you end up not being able to live with it trade it later ,maybe thats the plan?

Sponsored

 

[Rogues Gambit]

I'd be getting a 2.7 if I weren't a purist, but I know the Ecoboost has potential as well

 

[Rick Astley]

The only drag race that interest me would be seeing if the 2.3 can keep up with the 2.7 after the warranty period expires .

I'm assuming you're selectively choosing the very small number of Rangers which have fuel dilution issues in the oil from faulty HPF pump seals.

And you also selectively ignored the fact that all 2.7's have PLASTIC oil pans with PLASTIC drain bungs. For which there are drastically more stripped plastic oil pan bungs and weaping than there are fuel dilution issues.

You also chose to ignore the growing number of F150 owners who are facing having to replace both turbos as their impellers seem to be made from government cheese.

But yes, if you selectively ignore the realities of what's happening with these motors and go entirely on anecdotal feelings, then i'm confident that you're confident that you're correct. Those two new turbos are going to be factory fresh (cheese) compared to out-of-warranty old kit.

Well said. I honestly think I'd only really need the 2.3, but once I pack gear for a road trip, I just don't see that i4 being trouble free for 8-10 years under load.

Doubtful that Mustang folks have been driving their sporty cars of a gentle enough nature to make them feel virgin for the next owner. And that Ford would have designed the 5G ranger to include a full warranty replacement vehicle with every initial purchase.

Full disclosure: Using our '19 Ranger Lariat FX4 last weekend I loaded up the 5,000 lb trailer along with ~500 lbs in the cab and did a few freeway onramp sprints with our weekend chores/deliveries along with some very slow crawls up 9% grades. This is a total weight of approximately 9,941 lbs.

Due to my personal dislike of the abysmal 10-speed auto in Ranger (and F150!), I kept it in sport mode and used the manu-matic shifting features the entire time, plus had the transmission locked out of gears 7-10. The 2.3 in Ranger is a fantastically capable motor that has a very wide torque range. This motor paired with a manual transmission is a major factor in wanting Bronco.

Somebody please, please, please tell me how they are going to have their Bronco have a vehicle weight of 9,941 lbs. Will it be because you have a 4-door Bronco with sasquatch, a roof rack and paint protection film? Oh wait, you can't have squatch with roof rack due to weight limits.... Or maybe because you're going to be towing 4,000+ lbs with Bronco? Oh, i guess you're right, you can't tow that with Bronco....

Well shit then ladies and gents, I guess the 2.3 will have enough capacity for Bronco duty...... That's before you calculate the effective torque at a 95:1 crawl ratio.......

 

[Laminar]

F-150 XLT SuperCrew 2.7 curb weight is 4627.
Ranger Lariat SuperCrew curb weight is 4441.

Also, look at the acceleration times in top gear to tell you a bit about the torque curve.

F-150:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.0 sec

Ranger:
60 mph: 6.5 sec
100 mph: 17.5 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.6 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.6 sec

The 2.7's power comes on earlier and gets a heavier vehicle moving more quickly at speed. Less downshifting needed to get the acceleration you want, less downshifting when trying to maintain speed up hills.

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

F-150 XLT SuperCrew 2.7 curb weight is 4627.
Ranger Lariat SuperCrew curb weight is 4441.

Also, look at the acceleration times in top gear to tell you a bit about the torque curve.

F-150:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.0 sec

Ranger:
60 mph: 6.5 sec
100 mph: 17.5 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.6 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.6 sec

The 2.7's power comes on earlier and gets a heavier vehicle moving more quickly at speed. Less downshifting needed to get the acceleration you want, less downshifting when trying to maintain speed up hills.

Think this is being looked at all wrong. 0-60 in a truck is a bit of an oxy. Pure HP is important in a sports car. However, in a truck, that is not the best gauge of power.

I would judge a truck or in this case, Bronco on Torque, as low end power and ability to pull at low speed or under load is where trucks separate themselves. In many ways, the ability to go fast or accelerate quickly will add extra wear under load conditions. Also, on trail, you don't want a truck to be jerky to light intended inputs. It's bad enough that these are turbo engines.

 

[Rydfree]

I'm assuming you're selectively choosing the very small number of Rangers which have fuel dilution issues in the oil from faulty HPF pump seals.

And you also selectively ignored the fact that all 2.7's have PLASTIC oil pans with PLASTIC drain bungs. For which there are drastically more stripped plastic oil pan bungs and weaping than there are fuel dilution issues.

You also chose to ignore the growing number of F150 owners who are facing having to replace both turbos as their impellers seem to be made from government cheese.

But yes, if you selectively ignore the realities of what's happening with these motors and go entirely on anecdotal feelings, then i'm confident that you're confident that you're correct. Those two new turbos are going to be factory fresh (cheese) compared to out-of-warranty old kit.

You seem to have read a lot more into a sarcastic statement than was warrantied , and that's no assumption . LOL

 

[Laminar]

Think this is being looked at all wrong. 0-60 in a truck is a bit of an oxy. Pure HP is important in a sports car. However, in a truck, that is not the best gauge of power.

I would judge a truck or in this case, Bronco on Torque, as low end power and ability to pull at low speed or under load is where trucks separate themselves.

Yeah that's why I pointed out the top gear acceleration times. That highlights power available low in the RPM band.

 

[gryphon1231]

I think it would make a lot of decisions easier if we could see one simple race 2.3 vs 2.7 i would be intrested how it goes.

No need for a race, all you have to do is look at the torque difference between the 2 engines and your question is answered. 2.7 is the better engine (unless you have your heart set on a manual trans)

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

Yeah that's why I pointed out the top gear acceleration times. That highlights power available low in the RPM band.

Yes. Although you did do that, I fear that the technical knowledge of automotive physics is lost on many people whether or not they admit what they don't understand or not.

Think weight vs. power ratios, or the effects on injection systems, turbo pressure control and efficiency, etc. I'm no engineer or even a mechanic (sort of amateur wrenching), but I know cars with some training and track time.

So many YouTube channels, or even magazines, etc cross talk things that are relevant in cars or even sports cars with trucks and SUVs. I find this to be a bit irresponsible and dangerous, yet understand why it's done; it sells. How even sport tuned pickups introduce high levels of lift when approaching 100mph is an effect of dynamics that most don't understand, have never experienced or trained for, yet will buy that Dodge Trackhawk, take it to over 100 and wonder why they're losing control and see to be getting light in the tires. The Ford Lightning is by best example of this.

Some of us really can get down into the weeds on the forum; trust that I appreciate and enjoy that, but the majority hang on the words of what we tend to write and at times become confused and can misinterpret things.

Anyway, not being critical of you or anyone at all, but as we type fast, we have to consider the least knowledgable among us and help to make them curious enough to do further research on these topics.

 

[Power Man]

Motor Trend did a 1/8 mile, 1/4 mile, and braking test of a 2.3 vs 5.0 2016 mustangs. The 2.3 won all three hands down.

Sponsored