If I'm getting auto with 2.3L,might as well get V6 for $250?

[WuNgUn]

2 door Badlands, in Canada.adding auto to the 2.3 is $1750
Going with the 2.7L V6 only adds $250...and you also get one-pedal crawl mode.
Is this the deal of the century??
My only concern on the 2 door is range.
How much worse will mileage be?
We're only talking 18 gallon tank... Even the range on 2.3 won't be great.
Then theres the added weight...

Sponsored

 

[Gamecock]

2 door Badlands, in Canada.adding auto to the 2.3 is $1750
Going with the 2.7L V6 only adds $250...and you also get one-pedal crawl mode.
Is this the deal of the century??
My only concern on the 2 door is range.
How much worse will mileage be?
We're only talking 18 gallon tank... Even the range on 2.3 won't be great.
Then theres the added weight...

I think you'd be crazy not to. The engine is much better...way more torque at a small increase in cost. The fuel tank size is bad, but liveable and there shouldn't be a huge difference in fuel economy. It's a no-brainer to me.

 

[Beach_Bum]

I would say it's a no-brainer - Get the v6. But it really depends on your use case and driving habits. Do you ever intend to tow? Do you drive highway mostly? or do you drive in town (stop/go)?

 

[Lab00Rat]

Sounds like the wife and her coupon score. She only spent $58K (CAN) to save $1k on getting the V6. I'd say it's a win win.

 

[Rayder]

The mpg is the big question, and we probably wont know until after odering. If your saving 3-4 mpg with the 2.3, that would be a pretty large percentage, although I somewhat doubt it would be that much of a difference. Also, I would say if you are doing any technical off roading the 2.3 is probably going to be the better motor. Power is not that important in slow technical situations, but taking 100+ lbs of the front is going to make a noticeable difference.

 

[lobbs611]

I'd think not having to turn the 2.7L as hard would almost offset the gas mileage. It can't be that big of a penalty for sure.

 

[Edelfin]

It's only a $300 difference in the US, but if the Mid-package is giving some trims an automatic transmission without paying for it, then you might save even more with that option!

 

[Drex]

if you want an automatic, then get the extra 40 horses and 100 lb-ft of torque (30kW and 136 N-M for our Canadian friends). It is the performance deal of the decade for that change in price. MPG will be close between the two.

 

[Rednek]

I work on the 2.7l,so 2.3l it is lol

 

[Incognito]

To paraphrase the late, great George Carlins:
" One of these days, you'll be cruising down the road in your fuel efficient 4cyl Bronco,....and BAM!!!
You'll slap your forehead and say "I COULD'VE HAD A V6!!!".

------

I bought too much horsepower ~ no one ever

 

[pan-y-cerveza]

I've been manual 2.3 or auto 2.7 all along.

 

[Skeletor]

I work on the 2.7l,so 2.3l it is lol

So, tell me.....what do YOU know?!?!

 

[Rednek]

I've been doing cylinder heads and gaskets,leaking valve covers(cracked) engine oil pans(plastic junk) sensor issues,all in f150's,haven't seen any ranger issues yet,and 0 mustang 2.3 issues

 

[Skeletor]

I've been doing cylinder heads and gaskets,leaking valve covers(cracked) engine oil pans(plastic junk) sensor issues,all in f150's,haven't seen any ranger issues yet,and 0 mustang 2.3 issues

Interesting. So you think the 2.7 is garbage?

 

[Rednek]

not a fan to say the least,

Sponsored