Is the 2.3 really enough for the 4door?

[Rick Astley]

The 4 Door bronco weighs approximately 1000 lbs more than the Ranger. A lot of high reviews for the 2.3 in the ranger giving it plenty of torque and power but what will the additional 1000 lbs due to that pep? Someone posted about an Ecoboost Power Pack available for the ranger from factory, boosting the hp from 270 to about 320 hp. Anyone know more about this as well?

Wouldn't even have this discussion if the 2.7 came with a manual. I really want to like the 2.3 with a Getrag combo but seems like pushing the 2.3 limits and the Getrag doesn't have high marks.

I've towed 5,000 lbs behind the Ranger with another ton in the bed and didn't even notice it was there. I'm assuming had a trailer tire blown out I would have noticed, but that wasn't the case. (driving was on Seattle highways and side roads, there is elevation change everywhere, but it was a warm sunny day)

Having a Ranger in the family since pre-release, that the Bronco has a manual transmission option is a massive factor in wanting Bronco. I have ZERO reservations about the ecoboost 2.3 engine being more than enough for Bronco in 99.9% of its global mileage across all owners.

The only thing that makes me not enjoy driving the Ranger is the automatic transmission. It would be a deal-breaker for me if Bronco was only available with the slushbox as it's design is for fuel economy and being in 10th gear as often as possible.

Sponsored

 

[MaverickMan]

The 2.3 is the equivalent of Jeeps V6. It also makes TWICE the power of the old 5.8L V8 FSB.

In some years maybe, but most years it make 50% more hp at most and less actual torque. However it should be comperable if not a bit peppier. I drive a 96 5.8 Bronco, even with the E4OD it is plenty peppy for a 5000 suv. Also like the 2.3 it is very easy to make more power. A single weekend swapping the head, cam, intake to make about 350hp. The 2.3 will make 310 with warranty, and 350 for less than the cost of upgrading to the 2.7.

I would rather start with the 2.7, but will be happy with the 2.3 MT.

 

[Rednek]

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/the-ford-bronco-model-you-need-to-avoid/

wow what a bunch of pecker heads!

 

[mC.242]

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/the-ford-bronco-model-you-need-to-avoid/

That site looks like sneaky Jeep propaganda - I wouldn't put any stock in what they say.

 

[mC.242]

I think this debate is way too subjective. I've said this before: My 2006 Pathfinder is pretty similar in terms of size and weight, but makes less HP and Torque. However, even when towing a 3000 lb trailer through the mountains between CA and AZ I never really felt the need for more power, and especially not in daily driving. To that, I say the 2.3L is more than enough.

 

[wjfawb0 [hacked account]]

In some years maybe, but most years it make 50% more hp at most and less actual torque. However it should be comperable if not a bit peppier. I drive a 96 5.8 Bronco, even with the E4OD it is plenty peppy for a 5000 suv. Also like the 2.3 it is very easy to make more power. A single weekend swapping the head, cam, intake to make about 350hp. The 2.3 will make 310 with warranty, and 350 for less than the cost of upgrading to the 2.7.

I would rather start with the 2.7, but will be happy with the 2.3 MT.

The 3.8L 60* iron block OHV V6 was used in the 2007 to 2011 Jeep Wrangler JK (oil burners). It made from 197 to 215HP and 230 to 245 lbft of torque. It had no variable valve timing, and it made wranglers like tractors to drive--not much fun on the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_3.3_&_3.8_engine

The 3.6L 60* aluminum block DOHC V6 (pentastar) has been used from 2012 to current wranglers at 285HP and 260 lbft torque. It's much better to drive, but I feel it lacks torque down low to be fun on the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Pentastar_engine

The 2.3L ecoboost has been in a lot of stuff, and it does look better on paper compared to the current V6 in the wrangler. The ranger version is 270 HP and 310 lbft torque.

 

[Rick Astley]

From what I’ve heard from a knowledgeable guy who has worked on cars his whole life the 4 Banger is going to be worn down a lot faster because it’s powering a suv and vehicles with turbos in general wear down a lot faster. Sure you’ll get better fuel efficiency with it but it’s a smaller engine so it’s gonna be working quite hard. The v6 is gonna last a lot longer and won’t have to work as harder.

Spend that extra few thousand for the V6 so you’ll have a better and stronger engine that you won’t have to worry about down the road like the 4 banger.

Uhhhhhhhhh, you do know that the V6 2.7 ltr engine in the Bronco is TWIN TURBO, right?

By the incredibly anecdotal and sketchy "information" handed down from your "knowledgeable guy", the V6 should break down before you leave the dealership (what a boon for the service department!).

Please know that I say this as a person who has zero history or experience with pre WWII engines, and all the way up to building a 500+ all-wheel-hp Evo IX track car, but that "information" you've been given is worth exactly as much as you paid for it (hopefully that is $0.00)

 

[MaverickMan]

The 3.8L 60* iron block OHV V6 was used in the 2007 to 2011 Jeep Wrangler JK (oil burners). It made from 197 to 215HP and 230 to 245 lbft of torque. It had no variable valve timing, and it made wranglers like tractors to drive--not much fun on the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_3.3_&_3.8_engine

The 3.6L 60* aluminum block DOHC V6 (pentastar) has been used from 2012 to current wranglers at 285HP and 260 lbft torque. It's much better to drive, but I feel it lacks torque down low to be fun on the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Pentastar_engine

The 2.3L ecoboost has been in a lot of stuff, and it does look better on paper compared to the current V6 in the wrangler. The ranger version is 270 HP and 310 lbft torque.

Sorry I was talking broncos not that minivan motor lol!

 

[bmelton]

Yes. It is enough for the Ranger. You can tow over 7000 pounds with the 2.3T in the Ranger. The Bronco with the 2.7TT is brutally fast, but the 2.3T does not feel underpowered. My daily driver is a Ranger with the 2.3T and my wife's daily driver is a Lincoln MKX with the 2.7TT. I have a ton of seat time with both motors.

Both are better than the Pentastar 3.6L.

Agreed to a point. The Pentastar with the 5-speed auto was not a great driving experience. Many many motors would have felt better than that, and especially the 2.3L Ford, but when FCA added the 8-speed auto to the Wrangler lineup, it fixed a lot of the Pentastar's woes. That's a good combo. Personal preference and bias will probably determine what one considers 'better', but the Pentastar + 8 speed is a good combination.

 

[JT1]

Agreed to a point. The Pentastar with the 5-speed auto was not a great driving experience. Many many motors would have felt better than that, and especially the 2.3L Ford, but when FCA added the 8-speed auto to the Wrangler lineup, it fixed a lot of the Pentastar's woes. That's a good combo. Personal preference and bias will probably determine what one considers 'better', but the Pentastar + 8 speed is a good combination.

The 3.6/8A is a good combo. Still light on torque down low, but workable. FCA needs to gear the manuals deeper than 4.10 on the sports and 4.56 may be the right answer..

 

[pat86323]

Lets just put it to rest right now. It is plenty of motor, I regulalry tow a boat at 65 mph up and down mountain roads with my 94 bronco with the 302. Look at the hp and torque ratings on a 94 truck 302 vs the 2.3

 

[Rogues Gambit]

If I had a dollar everytime this was asked...

A Gladiator which is more beefy has less tq and only 15-16 more buff ponies than the 2.3, and it's fine.

Then, a simple tune really wakes things up: "
5-Star's tunes can turn up your 2019-2020 Ranger 2.3L EcoBoost's boost pressure while adjusting its fuel curves, ignition timing, fan control, and a ton of other variables so that your Ranger makes huge amounts of horsepower and torque. 5-Star's custom tuning even takes into account tire size, drivetrain, and axle ratio so that your truck operates perfectly with your choice of tune. 5-Star's custom tunes are available in several variations for 87, 89, 91, or 93 octane gasoline to give you a wide range of tuning options.
The 2.3L EcoBoost's factory tuning leaves plenty on the table for 5-Star to work with and really transform your Ranger. The average baseline power output of 5-Star's test truck at stock 93 octane was about 256 horsepower and roughly 281lb-ft of torque. With 5-Star's powerful 93 octane Performance tune, that same 2.3L EcoBoost truck put down an average of 312 horsepower and 369lb-ft of peak torque. That's a gain of 56 horsepower and 88lb-ft of torque over stock at peak increase. Most impressively is that the maximum gain in peak torque took place at 3450rpm, where stock torque sat at a measly 281lb-ft, giving you a big bump in pulling power and off-the-line performance without the turbo lag and hesitation of the factory tune. In additional testing, the tuned Ranger performed a 0-60 MPH test in only 5.49 seconds while the stock clocked in at a significantly slower 7.44 seconds with the same test conditions and constraints. The power gains are paired up with greatly overhauled transmission shift points and shift pressures which take most of the sluggishness out of your 2019-2020 Ranger and let you really enjoy its improved power output."

Then you add the Intercooler+Charge Pipes, Downpipe, Spark Plugs, CAI and a few other mods and BAM, you're flying!

True, a 2.7 is a bit better, even then, you won't really be lacking. Not sure the emissions standards in Utah, but I know here in Dirty Jerzy, I'm fine with Catted Downpipes.

 

[FourHorses]

I expect it to be fine, the 2.3L and 10 Speed in the 2020 Explorer moves it around just fine. It's not a small bock v8, but I think it does better than the old 4.0L's in Explorers.

 

[Rick Astley]

It's not a small bock v8, but I think it does better than the old 4.0L's in Explorers.

If your goal is a small block V8, then you've already lost the fight. Big Block or go hom!

 

[wjfawb0 [hacked account]]

As long as ford designed the oil and cooling system to handle the high power density and extra heat in the water and oil from the turbo it should be ok. For a while. Making 100HP for hours on the highway is different in a 5.0L V8 than it is for a 2.3L I4.

Sponsored