Sponsored

Is the 2.3 going to be the reliable offroad engine vs the 2.7?

BackcountryBirds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
196
Reaction score
510
Location
Virginia (temporarily)
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ram Power Wagon
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
I'm still wishing we'd get a good-old-fashioned V8 in the Bronco. People love to explain that smaller-displacement turbo engines give you better power efficiency and better performance at altitude. Then I see the test results showing the Bronco doing worse in both regards than the 5.7 HEMI in my Durango and I wonder what exactly the payoff is to these uber-complex dual-turbo engines that look like a bowl of spaghetti under the hood and will certainly give the owner some expensive repairs down the road.
You are exactly right. Neither the 2.3 nor the 2.7 are very fast performers in all the videos we have seen.

Towing is extremely low, so no advantage to a turbo there either. As you said a 5.7 Hemi blew away the 2.7 at elevation, so no turbo advantage at elevation either. Turbos are certainly more finicky, expensive and difficult to repair, so that's a big negative off-road. The turbos certainly aren't proving to be very fuel efficient in the bronco. I would love a straight 6 or good ole V8 which would be slow, non fuel efficient just like the turbos but be easier/cheaper to work on and more reliable. The bronco appears to have taken all the bad of turbos and given us none of the good.

What reasons does anyone have for wanting anything other than a naturally aspirated engine in an off-roader? And does the bronco turbo engines deliver on any of those reasons (doesn't appear so)?
Sponsored

 

mpeugeot

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
May 14, 2021
Threads
17
Messages
7,299
Reaction score
13,563
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
97 Ferrari F355, 11 Ford F-150, 21 OBX 2D
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
What reasons does anyone have for wanting anything other than a naturally aspirated engine in an off-roader? And does the bronco turbo engines deliver on any of those reasons (doesn't appear so)?
One easy reason, tuning potential.

It's obvious that the 2.7 has been nerfed for some reason. The fact is that the way the engine is mapped by the factory, based on what I learned from watching a YouTube HP Tuners video, is that it is incredibly easy to set the ECU strategy to nerf the motor without significantly changing the fuel or timing maps (something that became abundantly clear as I began to dig into the tuning software that HP Tuners sells). They don't yet support the Bronco (at least not according to their website). The nerfing can come from either the ECM module or the TCM module, and may actually be coming from both units.
 

BackcountryBirds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
196
Reaction score
510
Location
Virginia (temporarily)
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ram Power Wagon
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
One easy reason, tuning potential.

It's obvious that the 2.7 has been nerfed for some reason. The fact is that the way the engine is mapped by the factory, based on what I learned from watching a YouTube HP Tuners video, is that it is incredibly easy to set the ECU strategy to nerf the motor without significantly changing the fuel or timing maps (something that became abundantly clear as I began to dig into the tuning software that HP Tuners sells). They don't yet support the Bronco (at least not according to their website). The nerfing can come from either the ECM module or the TCM module, and may actually be coming from both units.
Isn't the speculation that's it's "nerfed" due to the transmission? Seems like you are just creating other problems potentially, for a bit more speed. Not to mention that's an aftermarket mod, that may void warranty.
 

Tricky Dick

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Dick
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Threads
88
Messages
7,503
Reaction score
25,540
Location
PNW
Website
www.TD-Distributing.com
Vehicle(s)
21 Bronco, 88 Bronco II, 03 Ford F250
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
Isn't the speculation that's it's "nerfed" due to the transmission? Seems like you are just creating other problems potentially, for a bit more speed. Not to mention that's an aftermarket mod, that may void warranty.
That is a popular theory but I'd lean more to the other theory that it's to protect the axles. The torque multiplication in 4 low is just a brutal amount of force on the axle shafts. Something like 26k lb/ft to the tires for a 2.7 Sasquatch and 28k for a 2.3 7MT BL.
 
Last edited:

BackcountryBirds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
196
Reaction score
510
Location
Virginia (temporarily)
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ram Power Wagon
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
That is a popular theory but I'd lean more to the other theory that it's to protect the axles. The torque multiplication in 4 low is just a brutal amount of force on the axle shafts. Something like 26k lb/ft to the tires for a 2.7 Sasquatch and 28k for a 2.3 7MT BL.
Could be. Either way, a tune doesn't seem like a wise idea.
 

Sponsored

mpeugeot

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
May 14, 2021
Threads
17
Messages
7,299
Reaction score
13,563
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
97 Ferrari F355, 11 Ford F-150, 21 OBX 2D
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
Could be. Either way, a tune doesn't seem like a wise idea.
That would very much depend on how much you know (and I am not claiming that I know anything special), but I seriously doubt that these Broncos are made of glass. These are built, at a minimum, to survive their warranty period with the knowledge that they are not going to be treated like a base model escape.

Also, some of us will either upgrade parts (CV joints/shafts) or other components as needed to address any shortcomings. Personally, yes, I am willing to sacrifice a few CV joints to the gods... I am far less willing to sacrifice a transfer case or a transmission. The transmission can still be protected while potentially improving performance significantly (but possibly at the expense of fuel economy).

Speaking of which, power alone usually isn't the problem, but rather power combined with drive line shock is the real killer. My ex-wife broke the ring gear in an automatic 1992 Geo Metro Convertible... Certainly wasn't the power generated by that nasty 1.0 liter naturally aspirated powerhouse... No it was her thinking she was driving a stick shift and going from Drive to Reverse at 50 MPH. Snap!
 

BackcountryBirds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
196
Reaction score
510
Location
Virginia (temporarily)
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ram Power Wagon
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
That would very much depend on how much you know (and I am not claiming that I know anything special), but I seriously doubt that these Broncos are made of glass. These are built, at a minimum, to survive their warranty period with the knowledge that they are not going to be treated like a base model escape.

Also, some of us will either upgrade parts (CV joints/shafts) or other components as needed to address any shortcomings. Personally, yes, I am willing to sacrifice a few CV joints to the gods... I am far less willing to sacrifice a transfer case or a transmission. The transmission can still be protected while potentially improving performance significantly (but possibly at the expense of fuel economy).

Speaking of which, power alone usually isn't the problem, but rather power combined with drive line shock is the real killer. My ex-wife broke the ring gear in an automatic 1992 Geo Metro Convertible... Certainly wasn't the power generated by that nasty 1.0 liter naturally aspirated powerhouse... No it was her thinking she was driving a stick shift and going from Drive to Reverse at 50 MPH. Snap!
I guess it's possible ford decided to "nerf" the 2.7 for no reason at all, but I tend to think it was deliberately done to protect something. Either way, and to my point, the turbo engines from the factory are not giving performance metrics (mpgs, acceleration, elevation improvements) that are superior to the tried and to Naturally Aspirated engines. I just wish we could point to some tangible gains for the turbo negatives in complexity and reliability.
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Threads
45
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
1,299
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
fusion sport etc” i can’t recommend it. They have all sorts of oil leaks and heat related issues from being shoehorned into these smaller vehicles
Fusion Sports had ONE chronic oil leak, the plastic oil pan. Once the correct procedure
for RTV/install is followed, it is a non issue after that. No heat related issues, and I've had
mine on a full day road course, three times.
 

Little Foot

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Threads
46
Messages
857
Reaction score
1,178
Location
Buffalo
Vehicle(s)
F150
Your Bronco Model
Base
Clubs
 
So with the issues arising early from some members with the engine seizing and codes and such, do any of you all think we are going to find out that the 2.3 will be the more reliable engine for the more abusive Bronco owners?
The 2.3 has been around towing and hauling in the Ranger, as has the 2.7 in the F150. But the 2.7 is a smaller component motor given its cylinder count. We also have the MT to think about. It will most likely live longer with the offroaders than the 10spd, especially since C gear should save the clutch from the less skill full of us. I wish I could get the 2.7 but am going to be manual only so its a no go.

Anyone have thoughts on the future of these motors? Say 100,000 miles and many mud pits and trail rides later?
For what it is worth and I am by means no expert, but my boss had a 2.3L engine that just crapped out on him. He had just over 100k miles on the engine and blew out the rings and such. He doesn't beat his vehicles, and was driving to NC with his wife to visit their son at Cherry Point.

Basically when he got it to a Ford dealership, he was told that coking because of the direct injection was the reason that his engine had failed. The engine was a total loss and it was going to cost his $13k to get a replacement engine.

MY OPINION, because the 2.7 is not solely direct injection, but also has port injection, the detergents from the fuel will reduce coking, taking out one factor that "could" cause a failure in the engine like what happened to my boss.
 
OP
OP
MaverickMan

MaverickMan

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Shane
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Threads
41
Messages
3,432
Reaction score
7,050
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
This Is all great conversation. I think we can all agree that the new 6.8l godzilla motor is the one to have. If they ever make a full size topless Bronco I would hope that is the one inside it. For me I'm manual only and while 300hp is probably enough I think I am going to put a tune on it and efficiency mods like cooling. This whole fuel injection thing is silly. SO fuel gets dumped right at the cylinders and therefor PCV gases and all their oilyness get put in the intake. Seems like the best solution would be water/meth injection to cure the follys of the fool injection. But what about not sending the PCV gasses in there in the first place. On my old maverick I was tired of oily valve covers so I welded a bung hole to the header collector and ran the ventilation out the hot exhaust. I suppose cats would not be happy with that though on this. These complicated engines make so many complications. I do think after 10 years of ownership, I will have to go to a NA pushrod motor swap. Probably something vintage, ditch the goat modes and sensors and stick some autometer gauges in the dash and enjoy looks and capability of the Broncos suspension.
 

Sponsored

Tricky Dick

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Dick
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Threads
88
Messages
7,503
Reaction score
25,540
Location
PNW
Website
www.TD-Distributing.com
Vehicle(s)
21 Bronco, 88 Bronco II, 03 Ford F250
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
Basically when he got it to a Ford dealership, he was told that coking because of the direct injection was the reason that his engine had failed. The engine was a total loss and it was going to cost his $13k to get a replacement engine.
That price is nuts. A brand spanking new 2.3 from Ford Racing is under 7k. 6k of labor?

That's another thing I love about the 2.3, even if it is a total loss, replacement engines are cheap. You can even get a bulletproof 700hp block for 4k. https://www.tuneplusinc.com/products/shortblock?variant=31502810677305
 

Wanted33

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 1, 2018
Threads
20
Messages
4,050
Reaction score
9,240
Location
Down south in Dixie
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT, 2019 Wrangler, 2020 Ranger
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
Clubs
 
I think you have to drive the snot out of the 2.3 to approach any performance parallels of the 2.7.
This would take life out of any engine. How about that inferior induction on the 2.3?- Problems coming.

Read what Motor Trend and Car and Driver say. They know more about these vehicles (and most every other) than anyone on this site. If you don't believe them why would you believe anyone?
The reason I'll never believe Motor Trend is they picked the Chevrolet Vega as the Car of the Year in 1972, and I bought one. :)

I picked the 2.7L for my Bronco for no other reason than that's what I wanted. If it can survive in a big ass lifted F-150 4x4 with 37's over time (We have those all over the place in my area), it will be fine for me. However, I have a '20 Ranger with the 2.3L, and that little 4 banger will certainly get the job done. IMHO there's no wrong choice between the two for the Bronco. There will always be the one off problem, and I think that's what we saw in the members 2.7L that seized up last week.
 

mpeugeot

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
May 14, 2021
Threads
17
Messages
7,299
Reaction score
13,563
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
97 Ferrari F355, 11 Ford F-150, 21 OBX 2D
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
That price is nuts. A brand spanking new 2.3 from Ford Racing is under 7k. 6k of labor?

That's another thing I love about the 2.3, even if it is a total loss, replacement engines are cheap. You can even get a bulletproof 700hp block for 4k. https://www.tuneplusinc.com/products/shortblock?variant=31502810677305
You would think that the price is nuts (and I do), but I went over to the Ford dealership to get a quote on replacement of the timing chain on my 2011 3.5l ecoboost and they quoted me $3,970!!! (with over $2400 being labor).

I know that it's not a simple job, but it isn't 20+ hours of labor either. I don't know what the labor rate was there, but they are high.
 

Mr. Nice

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Jayson
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
678
Reaction score
911
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
12' Boss302, 08' Audi TT, 13' CRV, 14" Ridgeline
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
The reason I'll never believe Motor Trend is they picked the Chevrolet Vega as the Car of the Year in 1972, and I bought one. :)

I picked the 2.7L for my Bronco for no other reason than that's what I wanted. If it can survive in a big ass lifted F-150 4x4 with 37's over time (We have those all over the place in my area), it will be fine for me. However, I have a '20 Ranger with the 2.3L, and that little 4 banger will certainly get the job done. IMHO there's no wrong choice between the two for the Bronco. There will always be the one off problem, and I think that's what we saw in the members 2.7L that seized up last week.
Oh yes the oil embargo days. Yes the one off Vega. Not to worry, the reviewers that recommended it are all dead.
Problem is Motor Trend along with Car and Driver both think the Bronco is a big hit.

Should we not buy one?
Sponsored

 
 


Top