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

[eBronco]

Isn't the 2.3L the same one that was on the Focus RS? Same one on the Ranger?

Sponsored

 

[Raptor911]

and the mustang. yes .. same

Isn't the 2.3L the same one that was on the Focus RS? Same one on the Ranger?

 

[1st4rd]

Every day millions of people merge on the highway with clapped out old 4 cylinders. You don't need a big engine to drive on a highway. Again....y'all just looking for an excuse.

Sure...quicker is better but a 2.7L isn't the starting entry fee to the highway.

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

 

[Rogues Gambit]

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

I had a 'vert Mustang Ecoboost, Automatic (Long story, wasn't my choice)

Stock, it did 14.7 down a quarter (2nd time ever drag racing) and took it to 144 on a trip down to Mexico stock as well. I did an impromt 1/4 at a Tollbooth in Mexico and did 13.5 at 107

311whp w/out a Downpipe and generic tune, 275whp on a Truck Dyno with a few extra goodies (I have the dyno sheet at my folks house).

Obviously there'll be a weight difference, but those things will respond to mods and while I'm not sure if Mustang and Ranger parts are interchangeable, engine's been out long enough that you can make up the difference.

It won't be a 2.7tt, but it's hardly a slouch and besides, easier to make power with the 2.3t than the 3.6 Jeep

 

[FJ 432]

A concern of mine is that the Bronco is a flying brick. What will the 2.3 feel like on a vehicle with no consideration to aerodynamics.

I have had an FJ40, FJ60, FJ Cruiser and Jeep Rubicon so I can speak from a little bit of wisdom.

 

[Toccoa]

A concern of mine is that the Bronco is a flying brick. What will the 2.3 feel like on a vehicle with no consideration to aerodynamics.

I have had an FJ40, FJ60, FJ Cruiser and Jeep Rubicon so I can speak from a little bit of wisdom.

Go test drive a Ranger. It's basically a brick as well. Same engine.

 

[indio22]

A concern of mine is that the Bronco is a flying brick. What will the 2.3 feel like on a vehicle with no consideration to aerodynamics.

I have had an FJ40, FJ60, FJ Cruiser and Jeep Rubicon so I can speak from a little bit of wisdom.

That and 35" tires are going to impact acceleration. Hopefully the 2.3L will be able to keep up, especially at higher altitudes. Yeah I know turbo is good for the latter, but with gear and stuff at higher altitude, will see ...

 

[Deleted member 3063]

Isn't the 2.3L the same one that was on the Focus RS? Same one on the Ranger?

Actually it shares more parts with the RS than the Mustang and being slightly different to both.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/detroit-auto-show/a15840269/ford-focus-rs-ranger-engine/

 

[Spooled]

A concern of mine is that the Bronco is a flying brick. What will the 2.3 feel like on a vehicle with no consideration to aerodynamics.

I have had an FJ40, FJ60, FJ Cruiser and Jeep Rubicon so I can speak from a little bit of wisdom.

None of the vehicles you listed are Ecoboosts though. Ecoboosts are designed for low/mid range power. Even with 35's it will be fine due to do the 4.7 ratio.

Seriously guys... If y'all have doubts go test drive a Ranger or an Explorer with the 2.3.

 

[D K]

Don't discount this 4 banger for a second...

Much more aftermarket available for this engine.

Check this out: https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cu...s-684-hp-from-ford-four-cylinder-23-ecoboost/

If the towing is the same and once I figure out the gear ratios and curb weights, I'll go with a manual 2.3.

 

[FJ 432]

I believe that driving a Ranger is a great idea to see how well the motor performs. And I realize that my past vehicles did not have an ecoboost. My point is that I had the same motor in a Tacoma as the FJ Cruiser. The shape does affect the performance.

I am not complaining. Just curious is all.

 

[DrewBronc21]

I’m already researching mods, having a history with turbo 4 bangers, reading the Ranger forums, Mustang EBs, etc., I know that the Bronco with the 2.3 will perform and be quite powerful with mods and Very responsive with a manual transmission and since I’m leaning towards manual transmission as a must, I probably don’t have a choice, but the 2.7 would be preferred. Damn Ford. No 2.7 and Manual. You dropped the ball.

 

[indio22]

Don't discount this 4 banger for a second...

Much more aftermarket available for this engine.

Check this out: https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cu...s-684-hp-from-ford-four-cylinder-23-ecoboost/

If the towing is the same and once I figure out the gear ratios and curb weights, I'll go with a manual 2.3.

I understand that - but I'm not making mods to the engine of my new car. It will have to meet my needs in that regard from the factory. Else I would opt for a different engine or buy something else from the get go.

 

[D K]

Right.
I'm saying if the engine is capable of doing that, adding 50hp/tq with a simple tune is probably pretty easy.

I understand that - but I'm not making mods to the engine of my new car. It will have to meet my needs in that regard from the factory. Else I would opt for a different engine or buy something else from the get go.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

That and 35" tires are going to impact acceleration. Hopefully the 2.3L will be able to keep up, especially at higher altitudes. Yeah I know turbo is good for the latter, but with gear and stuff at higher altitude, will see ...

They'll have Ford Performance Tunes for it

Sponsored