Sponsored

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

NCOBX

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
1,745
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
H2 Hummer, Holden Commodore
Your Bronco Model
Base
Bad hot take there. Americans have a love affair with powerful cars.
If that’s the simplified jist of it then why buy any pony car or fast car, just buy a Tesla with ludicrous mode.
Sponsored

 

96Bronco

New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
96 Ford Bronco
What is the weight difference of i4 vs v6?

If its 100 plus pounds or something, not bad to have that weight off the nose of bronco
 
  • Like
Reactions: D K

Southern Girl

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
7,783
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
1974 Bronco/2023 Bronco
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
Speaking as another dumb millennial, I prefer the simplicity of a naturally aspirated engine, too. Fewer parts means fewer parts that can break.

That said, the EcoBoost family of engines have been on the market since 2009, and the 2.3L and 2.7L EcoBoosts have been around since 2015.

While neither engine is problem free (nothing designed or made by human beings ever will be), I can't find any reports of properly maintained turbos failing, which doesn't mean it can't happen, but the turbos themselves don't seem to be the weak link here.
I agree with your comment. I love a v8. My mechanic drives an F150 with ecoboost and he keeps telling me what a great engine it is. He is also a rancher, so he uses it for work purposes on the farm. I feel like I'm trading off a little here with the v6, but I think it's a reliable engine.
 

Sponsored

Spooled

Raptor
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Threads
21
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
6,741
Location
Republic of Texas
Vehicle(s)
Raptor
Your Bronco Model
Raptor
Clubs
 
What is the weight difference of i4 vs v6?

If its 100 plus pounds or something, not bad to have that weight off the nose of bronco
It's about 90lbs I would say.
 

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
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.
Tell that to the people who have wrecks in the slow lane of a jersey cloverleaf that has people trying to accelerate to 70 (sometimes people actually stop, before they start to accelerate again) crossing over people decelerating to 30 (from 80) all in 3-400 feet of road. I've seen one crash myself and 1000's of near misses every day in rush hour traffic.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/I...06b63545ad576fd!8m2!3d40.159473!4d-74.4213108

People feel very comfortable @ 80-90 on the highway these days, so they do it all the time. The people with a clapped out 4 cyl are an issue, when the 85th percentile is way above the speed limit and you have entrance and exit ramps ending/starting in the same exact same spot.
 

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
Speaking as another dumb millennial, I prefer the simplicity of a naturally aspirated engine, too. Fewer parts means fewer parts that can break.

That said, the EcoBoost family of engines have been on the market since 2009, and the 2.3L and 2.7L EcoBoosts have been around since 2015.

While neither engine is problem free (nothing designed or made by human beings ever will be), I can't find any reports of properly maintained turbos failing, which doesn't mean it can't happen, but the turbos themselves don't seem to be the weak link here.
And they are not going to be an issue for 90+%. I never said Ford was wrong for using those engines. I just don't want one in my hard core offroad rig. Plenty of stuff goes wrong when you get to a certain level. Even a coyote is more complexity than I'd want, for the torque is brings, to the table (but at least it doesn't bring things of non linearity and heat soak). The last thing I want is a TT small engine in addition to an electric drivetrain. Long term nightmare for a hard core rig.
 

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
If that’s the simplified jist of it then why buy any pony car or fast car, just buy a Tesla with ludicrous mode.
IMO because they are not that powerful for their price. a 3 perf for 58K traps about what a 33K mustang GT A10 does and a modern V-8's is 6K away from trapping what a 90K Tesla does.

The only thing missing from a modern muslce car is pair of in wheel motors in the front. I've been in contact with this company http://ecomove.dk/ecomove-qwheel/ to eventually put a set on the front of my stang, mostly only needed up to about 25 MPH. If it happens to be able to run on electric only for 20-30 miles a day, that would be cool also.

Also, they are ugly (not S) and have no soul.
 

EvlNvrDys

Banned
Big Bend
Banned
Banned
Joined
May 29, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
4,274
Reaction score
14,061
Location
Hunterdon County, NJ
Vehicle(s)
'84 Bronco, '93 Bronco, '94 Bronco, 2012 Mustang
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
Clubs
 
Take a hour, go drive a Ranger Super Crew (the heaviest model) then come back and describe just how slow and under powered it is compared to your bigger engined whatever. If you're even considering a Bronco you owe it to yourself.
If the 2.7 is affordable I'll have it just because it's more not because it's needed. If I "needed" the manual I surely be satisfied with the 2.3 and I know this because I've actually driven both.
Yep, if I get the 2.3 I'll be looking at tunes but if you really think about it a tune might be the cost effective choice depending on how just much the 2.7 actually costs. That's money I could put toward the Sasquatch package which IMHO is going to be steep.
Actually I did just that today. Ranger lariat super crew. 2.3l but with the auto. And with an auto the engine lagged at start until the turbo kicked in. Yes higher rpm it has some pep. But it feels more like a car engine, not a Bronco engine.
For me... I did not like it at all. Maybe with a manual if you Rev higher before releasing the clutch it'll compensate for that. But for me, it's just not what I want.
But that's OK, Cuz all y'all can get what you want. This is America after all.
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

securitysix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
442
Reaction score
832
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
2011 Toyota Tundra
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Clubs
 
And they are not going to be an issue for 90+%. I never said Ford was wrong for using those engines. I just don't want one in my hard core offroad rig. Plenty of stuff goes wrong when you get to a certain level. Even a coyote is more complexity than I'd want, for the torque is brings, to the table (but at least it doesn't bring things of non linearity and heat soak). The last thing I want is a TT small engine in addition to an electric drivetrain. Long term nightmare for a hard core rig.
Fair enough, but I'll point out that if the Coyote is more complexity than you want, you're probably not going to find that dirt simple engine in a modern vehicle, even if you stick with the naturally aspirated options available today.
 

NCOBX

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
1,745
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
H2 Hummer, Holden Commodore
Your Bronco Model
Base
Fair enough, but I'll point out that if the Coyote is more complexity than you want, you're probably not going to find that dirt simple engine in a modern vehicle, even if you stick with the naturally aspirated options available today.
I think the non-DI, OHV 7.3L is exactly what he described.
 

securitysix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
442
Reaction score
832
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
2011 Toyota Tundra
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Clubs
 
I think the non-DI, OHV 7.3L is exactly what he described.
You may be right, but Ford's not going to put that in the Bronco. So perhaps I should rephrase:

If the Coyote is more complexity than you want, you're probably not going to find that dirt simple engine in a modern production medium sized off road capable vehicle.
 

NCOBX

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
1,745
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
H2 Hummer, Holden Commodore
Your Bronco Model
Base
You may be right, but Ford's not going to put that in the Bronco. So perhaps I should rephrase:

If the Coyote is more complexity than you want, you're probably not going to find that dirt simple engine in a modern production medium sized off road capable vehicle.
Toyota’s 4.0l may be OHC but there’s no high pressure fueling DI system so that’s about as close to simple as what’s available.
 

RupertH

Banned
Banned
Banned
First Name
Rupert
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
77
Reaction score
168
Location
West
Vehicle(s)
Mostly
But that's OK, Cu all y'all can get what you want. This is America after all.
No, I can't- because Ford isn't offering it.

Part of me is still holding out hope- Ford's trucks are all derated about 20-ish lb-ft from the Mustangs... Now follow me on this... The Getrag is rated at 406, and the outgoing GT350's FPC 5.2 is rated at 429... It could happen, right?!?

God, if I could listen to that engine in something convertible- I'd drive it topless in the rain, snow, sleet, whatever!
Sponsored

 
 


Top