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

[Newbie]

I love I4s, but in this particular case the 2.7 is far superior to the 2.3. Ask certified and not shade tree mechanics most will tell you go for the 2.7. Everyone knows you can tune the 2.3 yadi yadi. You can also tune the 2.7 yadi yadi. I will admit I am a shade tree mechanic, but doing my due diligence and discussing with mechanics contributed to my thought process.

?

Sponsored

 

[Broncocito]

I think we need to look at the fact we all want a Bron

?

Good one, but it is what it is.

 

[WuNgUn]

2.7 ll the way . The smaller tank doesn't concern me as the 2dr is also smaller and lighter so it will average out . I also have to stop to pee after a few beers anyway and I also need to pick up more beer .

The 2D is smaller and lighter, true... Compared to the 4 door. But we're comparing 2.3 and 2.7 in just the 2 door.
I'll have to go over the gross vehicle weight stuff I think.

 

[Rydfree]

The 2D is smaller and lighter, true... Compared to the 4 door. But we're comparing 2.3 and 2.7 in just the 2 door.
I'll have to go over the gross vehicle weight stuff I think.

2.7 with more torque will have the potential to get better mpg in real world driving actually . Especially if you load it down with gear or tow or sasquatch

 

[Thechief86]

2.7 with more torque will have the potential to get better mpg in real world driving actually . Especially if you load it down with gear or tow or sasquatch

This is certainly true, and the way things have consistently gone for me with N/A v6 vs. N/A v8, and with my 2.5 litre jeep vs. all the 4.0 litre jeeps I've had. My '97 4 banger Wrangler was lucky to get 15 mpg with 4.10 gears and 32's, while my 4.0 Cherokee with 4.10's and 33's gets around 22 mpg.
Both were 5 speed manual.
I really do think I'll go down to 33's with my 2.3 ManSquatch, and the difference in tire mass coupled with the 4.7 gears will net decent gas mileage, (torque at the wheels should be a tad better) as long as I keep the RPM in a comparable range.

 

[CycloneGT500]

You are buying the manual 2.3 for the experience. You are buying the 2.7 auto for resale down the road. Spending 1595 for an automatic without spending an additional 300 for the 2.7 ranks up there with those who wouldn't spend the additional 30 bucks to get a 289 over a straight 6 when Mustangs first came out.

 

[pozi240]

You are buying the manual 2.3 for the experience. You are buying the 2.7 auto for resale down the road. Spending 1595 for an automatic without spending an additional 300 for the 2.7 ranks up there with those who wouldn't spend the additional 30 bucks to get a 289 over a straight 6 when Mustangs first came out.

True that. And , coincidentally, $30 from 1965 is worth $248 in today's money. Too funny. Ford must still be using the same upgrade cost formula.

 

[WuNgUn]

2.7 with more torque will have the potential to get better mpg in real world driving actually . Especially if you load it down with gear or tow or sasquatch

Possibly!? But with more power, you're tempted to use more of it all the time! Lol
Heavy on the pedal.... Weeee!

 

[Gman90]

The 2.7 to me is a better engine than the 2.3. I’ve had 2.3 engines that have failed in mustangs, especially kid owned mustangs who don’t take care of them. I would love to have a 2.7 IF I had the money to always have some one else work on it. It’s mustang 4.6 SOHC vs 4.6 DOHC all over again. Yes DOHC is more hp but harder to build and more expensive to maintain “More parts equals more chances for failures”. SOHC easier to build and the HP Is more than enough for 90% of people “I personally like keeping it stupid simple”. Btw the 2.3 turbo has more hp than both those engines did when the first came out.

 

[rapidredbronco2021]

You are buying the manual 2.3 for the experience. You are buying the 2.7 auto for resale down the road. Spending 1595 for an automatic without spending an additional 300 for the 2.7 ranks up there with those who wouldn't spend the additional 30 bucks to get a 289 over a straight 6 when Mustangs first came out.

Getting the manual could still add value because it will be rarer. But imo unless you want the manual I'd just spend the extra money on the 2.7L. I rather go manual than 2.7L, since there's no manual option on the 2.7L.

 

[CycloneGT500]

Getting the manual could still add value because it will be rarer. But imo unless you want the manual I'd just spend the extra money on the 2.7L. I rather go manual than 2.7L, since there's no manual option on the 2.7L.

I swore Id get manual but was reminded I may not want to shift in 5 years and I plan to keep this for awhile. Manual shift certainly adds to the fun factor in my opinion.

 

[Cheshire]

I'm still on the fence... Having gobs of power from the V6 would be nice. And if I decide on auto, I'll 85% probably go with the 2.7L
But the 7 speed is still intriguing!
Difference in mileage will come down to the added weight and more internal resistance of 6 cylinders, which won't be a huge difference.
As for driving, it WILL be my daily driver (Badlands, un-Squatched) and it'll be racking up the miles!

Im Badlands - no Squatch. Definitely getting the 2.7L. You'll never regret the bigger engine, but if you regret the smaller, you're f_cked!

 

[rapidredbronco2021]

I swore Id get manual but was reminded I may not want to shift in 5 years and I plan to keep this for awhile. Manual shift certainly adds to the fun factor in my opinion.

I agree, I may not want to be in traffic with a manual, which I'll occasionally be in but I want the fun factor over anything else. I think I'm going to be happy with the manual and 2.3L. I don't think I'm at manual or nothing at this point but I'm definitely ordering my two door with a manual.

 

[Bronco4lyfe85]

One could argue the added power of the 2.7L along with the V6 will allow for less gas usage getting the vehicle up to speed. Where as the 4 cylinder will be pushed harder. During idle and cruise the difference has to be negligible.

 

[Bronco88]

7 speed Manual 2.3 in a 2 door would be fun but I'm not investing in that 4 banger while in a heavy 4 door off roading vehicle with steep gearing and big tires. Doesn't matter how much HP you can tune it to, the problem is longevity over time. The 2.7 has iron graphite coating (Taken from the 6.7 Diesel) and makes it makes its power in the low to mid range so I would think that would be better for an off roading vehicle compared to the 2.3's powerband. I'm getting the 2.7 hands down, it's the fastest stock engine in the F150 and the 2nd fastest after tuning (Not Including the Raptor engine) I mean a 5.0 out of a mustang would be sweet lol

Sponsored