Is there a big difference in the 2.3 and 2.7 with Sasquatch Package?

gentlemanbronco

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Rick
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
ford fiesta 5.0
Bronco
Black Diamond
Clubs
 
So since the beginning I've been deadset on the 2.7 and sasquatch, However, as of late I've been strongly considering downgrading to the 2.3. I know the 2.7 has more oomph, but realistically in stop and go city traffic with the occasional highway driving, is the 2.3 really much of a downgrade realistically? My main reasoning is MPG, but won't that go out the window with the sasquatch package?
Just curious what others on here who have driven either or both think.
Advertisement

 
  • Like
Reactions: R11

AzScorpion

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
630
Reaction score
1,761
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger SuperCrew Lariat 4x4
Bronco
Badlands
So since the beginning I've been deadset on the 2.7 and sasquatch, However, as of late I've been strongly considering downgrading to the 2.3. I know the 2.7 has more oomph, but realistically in stop and go city traffic with the occasional highway driving, is the 2.3 really much of a downgrade realistically? My main reasoning is MPG, but won't that go out the window with the sasquatch package?
Just curious what others on here who have driven either or both think.
If that's your intended use I would go with the 2.3. I have it in my Ranger with 32's and it has plenty of power stock. If you think it needs a little more oomph just add a tune, I have a Livernois tune and it's a rocket now. 🚀
 

AMK610

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
313
Reaction score
546
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
2019 RAM 1500 Rebel
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 
So since the beginning I've been deadset on the 2.7 and sasquatch, However, as of late I've been strongly considering downgrading to the 2.3. I know the 2.7 has more oomph, but realistically in stop and go city traffic with the occasional highway driving, is the 2.3 really much of a downgrade realistically? My main reasoning is MPG, but won't that go out the window with the sasquatch package?
Just curious what others on here who have driven either or both think.
i've driven a 2.7 black diamond 2 door non sas and a 2.3 badlands 4 door non sas, and honestly i think i had more fun driving the 2.3. The 2.7 is quick dont get me wrong, but theres something about the character of the 2.3 that i really enjoy. Im getting the 2.3 since im getting the manual sas, but i wouldnt hesitate to take a 2.3 either way. The torque numbers are so similar between the two motors
 

old goat

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Raul
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
351
Reaction score
687
Location
texas
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Colorado
Bronco
Black Diamond
with a 2.3 / Auto , can you still get the 4.27 rear axle. ?????
following
 

R11

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
359
Reaction score
1,170
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
Bronco
Base
So since the beginning I've been deadset on the 2.7 and sasquatch, However, as of late I've been strongly considering downgrading to the 2.3. I know the 2.7 has more oomph, but realistically in stop and go city traffic with the occasional highway driving, is the 2.3 really much of a downgrade realistically? My main reasoning is MPG, but won't that go out the window with the sasquatch package?
Just curious what others on here who have driven either or both think.
I assume 2.3 will make you feel a little better about MPGs, but 2.7 definitely makes me smile. About as fast as my 2014 mustang (3.7 305HP), which still surprises me. FWIW, gigantic difference between Sport mode and Eco mode. When they claimed they improved throttle response in Sport, they were not kidding. Also, in eco on the highway, I can get pretty great MPGs for a heavy vehicle on 35s, above 20, and even had a stretch of 16 miles testing it where I was around 25 MPG using a complicated Prius-grandma driving technique. Overall average seems to fall in the 15-16 MPG range, but I do like Sport mode lol.
 

AMK610

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
313
Reaction score
546
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
2019 RAM 1500 Rebel
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 
I assume 2.3 will make you feel a little better about MPGs, but 2.7 definitely makes me smile. About as fast as my 2014 mustang (3.7 305HP), which still surprises me. FWIW, gigantic difference between Sport mode and Eco mode. When they claimed they improved throttle response in Sport, they were not kidding. Also, in eco on the highway, I can get pretty great MPGs for a heavy vehicle on 35s, above 20, and even had a stretch of 16 miles testing it where I was around 25 MPG using a complicated Prius-grandma driving technique. Overall average seems to fall in the 15-16 MPG range, but I do like Sport mode lol.
thats quite a bit better than the 13mpg i get in my manual trans rubicon on 35's
 

R11

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
359
Reaction score
1,170
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
Bronco
Base
thats quite a bit better than the 13mpg i get in my manual trans rubicon on 35's
Right? I must have been going downhill for a lot of that highway driving or something!
 

uncledoodoo

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
446
Reaction score
955
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
1956 F100, 2011 Volvo XC90
Bronco
Base
I was so unimpressed with the 2.3 with the manual, it talked me into going 2.7. I'm sure each of us has a certain expectation and "feel" they expect so that is obviously a personal opinion. But one feature that doesn't exist with the 2.3 is the one-pedal driving which I look forward to on some obstacles.
 

BlueBronco

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
2,466
Reaction score
9,394
Location
DFW
Vehicle(s)
'16 F150 KR - '13 JKU Moab - '21 Bronco BL
Bronco
Badlands
Obligatory snarky post that the difference between the 2.7 and 2.3 is 0.4L.

But I know that was not what you were looking for. I have a stock 4-door BL (I know its no Squatch but very close) with the 2.3 and paired with the manual, my average mpg is about 15.8 with my lead foot. So the Squatch should be a few ticks less. If you are looking for a huge savings is mpg by switching to the 2.3 I don't think you are going to find it.

Also, you didn't specify two or moar-door?
 

AMK610

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
313
Reaction score
546
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
2019 RAM 1500 Rebel
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 
Right? I must have been going downhill for a lot of that highway driving or something!
hahha maybe so, but i definitely believe it! i was a little let down with my jlur mpg, its 1 mpg better than my '19 rebel on 35s lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R11

Drex

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
4,466
Location
various, construction engineer.
Vehicle(s)
'13 SLK55 AMG, '15 Indian Chief, '15 WRX
Bronco
Badlands
the fuel economy ratings are essentially the same between the 2.3/2.7. You would save the $1900 up front (probably lose half that in resale/trade in)

The massive torque advantage (both in quantity and at a much lower RPM) will make the 2.7 less sluggish getting those MT's to rotate from a stop, off road with the 4L gearing, either engine is way more than you need.

I would count on exactly zero difference in running costs over the lifetime of the engines. All you are going to save is the initial two grand, don't think you will continue to do better after that.
 

Jazer

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jessica
Joined
Jun 20, 2021
Messages
54
Reaction score
90
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
Stinger GT
Bronco
Outer Banks
Clubs
 
I test drove both… the 2.7 is one option I will not give up. The 2.3 makes you think it has some fun packed in, because the throttle response is nice and responsive… but when you are actually trying to accelerate I felt like it totally falls on it’s face. I admit I am extra critical when it comes to engine performance and it’s usually the first thing I look for, however I am still surprised the 2.3 is getting the praise it’s getting paired with such a heavy vehicle. It was just not enough power TBH. IMO even the 2.7 was lacking a bit from what I had hoped, but is at least ”enough”, especially considering the vehicle’s purpose. Anyone who is trying to convince others that the 2.3 is fast, is either A trying to fool themselves, or B has low standards with vehicle performance. I do think it is likely adequate for a good portion of the population but surprised it’s adequate with a niche vehicle like this that calls more of an enthusiast presence. Then again, it’s competitors are pretty boring too, lol.
 

Winkydee

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Pete
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
195
Reaction score
274
Location
Fonthill, Ontario, Canads
Vehicle(s)
1964 Ford Econoline Cargo Van
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 
Personally, the only reason for me to get the 2.3L is the stick shift. If they offered the stick at 2.7 I would be all over that.
I've heard a tune will really bring the 2.3L to life and so I have my fingers crossed that I will get all I want out of this 2 door 2.3 manual.
 
Advertisement

 
Diode Dynamics
Advertisement
Top