Engine 2.3l or 2.7l? Is the upgrade worth it?

[pakrat]

I've driven both with the 10spd auto transmission. Had the 2.3L for a 24 hr. test drive back in Oct. '21. Have owned the 2.7L since Nov. In that configuration the 2.3 felt and drove like a rental Nissan Sentra. Hated it! Just anemic in acceleration and power. It really made me rethink buying a Bronco at all until I drove the 2.7. Night and day. The 2.7L hauls a$$, shifts so smoothly, accelerates up steep mountain grades at altitude and brings a smile to my face every time I start it up. According to the computer, after over 4k miles I've averaged 17.8 mpg living at 6500' elevation and driving mostly on mountain roads. Thats in a 4dr Sasquatch Badlands.

That said, I'm told the manual is an entirely different beast. If I was going automatic there is absolutely no way I'd buy a 2.3 Bronco.

Sponsored

 

[Flippedr6]

I always use the theory of get the biggest normal engine they offer. Under the same driving conditions the 2.7 will work less than the 2.3. Which should increase the longevity and reliability of the engine.

like with my Tacoma I got the six instead of the four. But if they offered a 5.7 special edition I would have stuck with the six. Unless it was a play truck and not a daily driver.

 

[RainbowStix]

Another good YouTube video is by the The Budget Mechanic- 4 cylinder vs 6 cylinder. Apart from other things discussed here I just did not find the gas mileage of the 2.3 to be significantly better to seriously consider it.

I find my 2.3L getting less than the 2.7, but it could be because of the 37s vs 32s . Either way, it’s about a 2-3mpg difference so nothing to write home abit

The 2.7 beats the 2.3 at almost everything, even MPG.

The only advantages of the 2.3 are:
Cheaper upfront cost (but as % of purchase price it is nominal)
It weighs less (which is somewhat helpful for off-roading)
And the biggest advantage is that in this case its the only way you can get a manual transmission.

I don't understand why Ford chose to go with options that are so similar across the board.
A 2.3 vs a 3.0 would have made a lot more sense. Then put the 3.5 in the Braptor etc...

Isn’t the 2.3 supposed to get better MPG apples-to-apples?

I always use the theory of get the biggest normal engine they offer. Under the same driving conditions the 2.7 will work less than the 2.3. Which should increase the longevity and reliability of the engine.

like with my Tacoma I got the six instead of the four. But if they offered a 5.7 special edition I would have stuck with the six. Unless it was a play truck and not a daily driver.

it’s a sound theory but doesn’t really work in practice considering the 2.7 premature failures, and the 1.5M mile Tacoma is on a 4cylinder. But ya know he did have to replace the engine at 900K
Then you compound on the fact it’s like… $3k for an engine replacement? Vs the $2k to upgrade to 2.7 and maybe get a few thousand more miles out of it under this theory?

 

[Mr. Nice]

Had to do a full on evasive maneuver on the interstate on the drive home after buying my Bronco. Had zero issues with the brakes during the evasive action. Plenty grippy... plenty responsive. No concern they weren't going to get me stopped when the time came for that. And that was on a 2 door badlands with the 2.3, sasquatch, leveling kit, and a REALLY heavy wheel/tire combination. Was very pleased with how the vehicle handled and performed during all situations on the 1800 mile journey home. No complaints here...

Guess your lucky you weren’t following a 2.7 Bronco. Probably would have hit him.

There’s a lot of bad press on the 2.3’s brakes. They are a carry over from the Rangers. Their vacuum assisted system is known for long stopping distances, mushy pedal, poor modulation along with design failure issues. Here’s just one from Car and Driver.

“And not only was its 193-foot stop from 70 mph the longest here, but the pedal feel was genuinely frightening. It sank through a couple of inches with no resistance or response and then grabbed with an immediacy that frequently had our heads bobbing.”

And another.

“Also, it's a good thing L.A. traffic isn't moving well today, because stopping from 70 mph requires a lengthy 217 feet.”

 

[Mr. Nice]

I've driven both with the 10spd auto transmission. Had the 2.3L for a 24 hr. test drive back in Oct. '21. Have owned the 2.7L since Nov. In that configuration the 2.3 felt and drove like a rental Nissan Sentra. Hated it! Just anemic in acceleration and power. It really made me rethink buying a Bronco at all until I drove the 2.7. Night and day. The 2.7L hauls a$$, shifts so smoothly, accelerates up steep mountain grades at altitude and brings a smile to my face every time I start it up. According to the computer, after over 4k miles I've averaged 17.8 mpg living at 6500' elevation and driving mostly on mountain roads. Thats in a 4dr Sasquatch Badlands.

That said, I'm told the manual is an entirely different beast. If I was going automatic there is absolutely no way I'd buy a 2.3 Bronco.

I don’t think the manual is any better.

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

 

[WarthogJr]

Get the 4 cylinder. You don't need more power. You're friends won't feel let down when you take them for a ride. You won't feel any less powerful as a person. You'll be getting better mileage. You'll never wonder what it would be like if you had opted for the bigger engine. When people ask if you have the V6 twin turbo, you won't feel bad saying "no."

Screw that...get the 2.7 like I did. It's a blast!

 

[equitasforall]

Guess your lucky you weren’t following a 2.7 Bronco. Probably would have hit him.

There’s a lot of bad press on the 2.3’s brakes. They are a carry over from the Rangers. Their vacuum assisted system is known for long stopping distances, mushy pedal, poor modulation along with design failure issues. Here’s just one from Car and Driver.

“And not only was its 193-foot stop from 70 mph the longest here, but the pedal feel was genuinely frightening. It sank through a couple of inches with no resistance or response and then grabbed with an immediacy that frequently had our heads bobbing.”

And another.

“Also, it's a good thing L.A. traffic isn't moving well today, because stopping from 70 mph requires a lengthy 217 feet.”

Oh I get it. And I've read them. Was just saying that mine work great. No issues. Nothing that makes me the least bit concerned. Was just providing some real world experience.

 

[TopRecon]

I don’t think the manual is any better.

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

It's really hard to take the comparisons at face value with the different factors at play. A 2.3 might feel perfectly fine on a Base 2D, and it might feel woefully inadequate on a 4D Sasquatch with passengers, really hard to know without a standard baseline.

 

[Mr. Nice]

It's really hard to take the comparisons at face value with the different factors at play. A 2.3 might feel perfectly fine on a Base 2D, and it might feel woefully inadequate on a 4D Sasquatch with passengers, really hard to know without a standard baseline.

I guess a person has to believe what was written. These weren’t comparisons. These were reviews. Different vehicles, different drivers, different conditions, but same results. Plenty of info out there. Just saying.

 

[Bronc_Bronc]

I find my 2.3L getting less than the 2.7, but it could be because of the 37s vs 32s . Either way, it’s about a 2-3mpg difference so nothing to write home abit

Isn’t the 2.3 supposed to get better MPG apples-to-apples?


it’s a sound theory but doesn’t really work in practice considering the 2.7 premature failures, and the 1.5M mile Tacoma is on a 4cylinder. But ya know he did have to replace the engine at 900K
Then you compound on the fact it’s like… $3k for an engine replacement? Vs the $2k to upgrade to 2.7 and maybe get a few thousand more miles out of it under this theory?

At best it gets 2mpg better. The more you make the engine work (off-road, bigger tires, under load, towing, speeding) the more it will swing in the other direction. I think with the sasquatch package its actually a wash on paper.

 

[NC_Pinz]

I drove a 2.3L manual BL 4 door and the engine felt fine. I have no idea why one of the reviews would say something about a vague clutch or feel...the one I drove is one of the best modern manual / clutch setups I've driven. Good feel. 1st gear felt a little too low. Any forward motion and you really wanted to jump right to 2nd.

I'm going for the 2.7L because I'm forced into an automatic. I'd have no qualms about the 2.3L and the manual. I need to drive the auto version before I'd make a change.

 

[Last Ride Bronco]

I’ve driven both. I have the 2.7. It truly is a matter of perspective. I wanted the 2.3 to be enough because I wanted the manual, but from my perspective, it just wasn’t enough.

 

[SoCalG]

I had the same question... 2.3L or 2.7L
I did some googling and found this data:

2022 Ford Bronco 2.3L 4 cyl HP 300 | Torque 325
2022 Ford Bronco 2.7L 6 cvl HP 330 | Torque 415
1993 Ford Bronco 5.8L 8 cyl HP 200 | Torque 300

The smaller 2.3L in today's Bronco's has more horsepower and torque than the 1993 Ford Bronco 5.8L V-8 had!
That's the same famous Bronco that OJ Simpson ran from the cops in!

I was sold on the 2.3L !!!

 

[MarcAx]

Man did you have options? I took the one I could get at the time which was the 2.3.
Hopefully there will be more than one bronco on the lot when I get my next one !

 

[mpeugeot]

Thanks, I didn’t realize they had added port injection to the 2.7 in 2018.

About five years ago I worked with a guy who ended up with a really rough running eco boost escape at around 150k miles, which I understood to be the result of the carbon deposits. I’ve been wary of turbo engines lacking port injection since. I guess I’ll find out with the 2.3!

My 2011 F-150 3.5 Ecoboost (Direct Injection only) engine has 250k miles on it and doesn't have any "carbon build up" issues. It's more of a non-issue.

Sponsored