Not a gear head so explain to me 2.3 vs 2.7 . . .

[DHH]

If 95% of my use of this truck as a DD not towing anything is that hp/torque difference going to be that noticable? Am I going to be disappointed in my 2 door being under powered?

Based on that, I'd say you'll be more than happy with the 2.3.

I'm a 2.3l Ranger owner in my late 50's. In my younger days I'd easily go through AT LEAST 4 sets of rear tires to every front set. We'd go street racing every single Fri/Sat night. I grew up on big V8's with big lumpy cams. Except for my very 1st vehicle (in 78), I've never owned a 4 banger.
The 2.3 has absolutely shocked me. It's an amazing motor for it's size.
That being said, I personally would get the 2.7, but only because I tow about 6000lbs through the mountains semi-regularly. If I didn't do mountainous towing, I'd have no desire for the 2.7. Although that's a moot point, because the Bronco can't tow that much.
Even if you did tow, the measly amount the Bronco can handle wouldn't phase the 2.3.

Sponsored

 

[HPNQ420]

A 2.3L with 270 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque has more power than most production cars / trucks.

More than my 2005 Xterra 4.0 6m has and it has plenty of power.

 

[MCG DAWG]

Based on that, I'd say you'll be more than happy with the 2.3.

I'm a 2.3l Ranger owner in my late 50's. In my younger days I'd easily go through AT LEAST 4 sets of rear tires to every front set. We'd go street racing every single Fri/Sat night. I grew up on big V8's with big lumpy cams. Except for my very 1st vehicle (in 78), I've never owned a 4 banger.
The 2.3 has absolutely shocked me. It's an amazing motor for it's size.
That being said, I personally would get the 2.7, but only because I tow about 6000lbs through the mountains semi-regularly. If I didn't do mountainous towing, I'd have no desire for the 2.7. Although that's a moot point, because the Bronco can't tow that much.
Even if you did tow, the measly amount the Bronco can handle wouldn't phase the 2.3.

Great input. Thank you! Makes me feel better about my 2.3choice.

 

[Ultimate6g]

I think I can summize it like this....

I once drove a 2.3L TT Ranger 4x4 and it felt very strong. A little more peppy than the 4.0 V6 in the Nissan Xterra 4x4 which is a pretty strong motor. The ranger weighs about 4400 Lbs

I once drove a 2.7L TT Ford F150 4x4 and when I stepped on it my first thought was holy shit this thing moves. The F150 weighs about 5000 lbs.

I imagine the 2 door Bronco to weigh around the 4400 lb mark, couple that with that little beastly TT v6 and I doubt you will ever really want for power.

 

[Thed]

My dad wanted me to learn stick and made sure that my first car was absolutely gutless; a well-worn and abused '96 Ranger with the Lima 2.3L and the 5-speed. Boy was he ever right. Single cab so I couldn't stockpile a bunch of friends, stick so I couldn't touch my phone (Bluetooth was still very new and expensive), and the four-pot so I could never go fast enough to get myself into toooo much trouble.

That thing could not break free of 96 MPH to save its life. The only time it hit 101 MPH was when I was drafting someone. Oh, high school memories. Every car since has been a stick, and the Bronco will not be any different.

 

[Itsmeanmuggin]

I'm torn as I'll be changing from a 392 charger lol

 

[Stitches1974]

I'm torn as I'll be changing from a 392 charger lol

Basically in the same boat, except mine is a challenger. I do plan on a 2.7 if I go that route.

 

[Austin26]

I have a pathetic 2.0 NA 150 hp engine in my Crosstrek - but I have a manual, so there are no issues merging. That 2.3 will be just fine I'll bet

I have the same car and engine / tyranny. I drive like an old person but man is it a turd. Subaru wisely offered an engine upgrade last year I read. The Bronco will feel like a race car to us when we get it lol.

 

[noahr]

What? Except for large trucks, almost nothing has been over 4.0L for decades.

mustang gt, corvette stingray, literally any dodge car, chevy camaro, silverado, suburban, gm equivalents etc etc

 

[noahr]

Basically in the same boat, except mine is a challenger. I do plan on a 2.7 if I go that route.

its funny cause the challenger is a boat lol, no hate they're beautiful but i had to do the meme

 

[Stitches1974]

its funny cause the challenger is a boat lol, no hate they're beautiful but i had to do the meme

Except it is a real boat. Well, some guy thought it was.

https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/florida-man-sinks-his-dodge-challenger/

 

[1st4rd]

I have the same car and engine / tyranny. I drive like an old person but man is it a turd. Subaru wisely offered an engine upgrade last year I read. The Bronco will feel like a race car to us when we get it lol.

That new engine is only available with the CVT- which I hate in their cars. I was excited about it for about a minute until I found that out. Yeah, the Bronco is gonna feel amazing to drive after the Crosstrek.

 

[Austin26]

That new engine is only available with the CVT- which I hate in their cars. I was excited about it for about a minute until I found that out. Yeah, the Bronco is gonna feel amazing to drive after the Crosstrek.

If it makes you feel any better, several video reviews of the Crosstrek CVT with small engine was better reviewed than the manual transmission as it managed the power better and if you missed a gear or shift time you're dead in the water, which I experience here and there myself. Basically the engine is such a turd that the CVT hides some of its inadequacies.

 

[BDSQACH]

Not a gear head either but here’s why I’m going with 2.7

I plan on doing overlanding with the bronco.I was inspired by vehicles I saw doing it, main one being Land Rovers defender (older models). They were known to have transmission issues with Transmissions/engines.Reason being? The car was somewhat heavy but once you added roof top tent, canopy, fridge, typical camp cargo, etc, it was a lot of work for engine and transmissions.

that said, I feel like 2.7 will be better equipped for all that

I get where you are going with the reasoning and i agree; however, the weight ratings are sure to be the same for the engines. Will probably vary based on: AT/MT, 2 vs 4 door, suspension/Sasquatch.

Also just consider your options. For instance if you are only overlanding/camping for 5 days or less consider a cooler (otterbox/yeti) so you can shed weight and avoid wiring if not using regularly. Removable canopy or homemade canopy options. Same with tent. Normal tent vs roof top can vary 100+ lbs. Less cargo room but less weight. Also 100 lbs on the roof will perform much different than 10lbs... or 100 lbs in the boot.

But my advice start small and add as you go/need so you have less to change later. Because you will change your mind on a lot of want vs need and find dual use stuff.

Engine advise. Think reliability , durability (2.7 graphite block), maintenance (2.3 buildup- but if you drive it like you stole it... from a friend, you should be fine) and repair (1 vs 2 turbos).

M/T has several cost and durability advantages if you don't overthink lawsuit forum talk.

I don't think anyone is wrong to get either option. Each will pose various issues and benefits based on use.
The V6 will have good power but have extra cost short and long term.
I4 M/T low start-up costs, with good driving and maintenance cost should stay somewhat lower.
I4 A/T some higher start-up cost, more fluid maintenance, no clutch replacement but could cost you if it fails and don't break it open in the trail ?.

I originally wanted the Badlands 4 door V6 etc...but will save so much money with the Base 2 door M/T Sasquatch giving me front and rear locker. Going to add aftermarket front/rear high clearance + winch aluminum/steel bumper and steel rock rails+ skid plates.

To each their own. I really look forward to seeing everyones builds! Happy trails.

Sponsored