**REAL rwhp** 2.7L vs 2.3L

steevenk

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
kurt
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
126
Location
Chicago
Vehicle(s)
2005 Astro Van Camper, 2014 Subaru Forester XT
Before getting interested and researching the Bronco and the EB engines, I didn’t realize manufacturers built turbo motors for 87 octane. It makes sense, I have driven through plenty of areas that didn’t have the 91 my Japanese and German motors thirsted for. Living in Chicago 93 is pretty common.
 

Andrew_EOD

Badlands
Active Member
First Name
Andrew
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
33
Reaction score
61
Location
Panama City
Vehicle(s)
Ford Focus ST
We have a 2014 with the same motor. Engine is pretty good, but the transmission stinks imo. It's left us in intersections deciding what gear it should be in before accelerating multiple times and you get either no power or a downshift to a much lower gear than needed when trying to pass on the highway. We will be getting rid of it as a part of the transition to the Bronco. It does have a timing cover leak on the 2.0 at 75k miles that i think shouldn't be happening, but the motor has been good other than that.
Honestly, It's been a LONG time since I've owned a AT... I guess I haven't thought about the delays in shifting and not having control over that. Hmmm...something else to consider.
 

HuskerJen47

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jennifer
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
252
Reaction score
443
Location
Omaha
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fusion
We have a 2014 with the same motor. Engine is pretty good, but the transmission stinks imo. It's left us in intersections deciding what gear it should be in before accelerating multiple times and you get either no power or a downshift to a much lower gear than needed when trying to pass on the highway. We will be getting rid of it as a part of the transition to the Bronco. It does have a timing cover leak on the 2.0 at 75k miles that i think shouldn't be happening, but the motor has been good other than that.
I dont have that problem with the 2017 auto transmission. The only thing I really dont like is the DIAL that you use to put in P, D, N, R. It is weird.
 

Zinn

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
203
Reaction score
464
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT, 2020 Ranger Lariat
Would you stil get the 2.3 if you were getting the 4 door?
Probably, the weight difference is minimal. I probably would not go above 33s on the 2.3 though, without at least reading up some more. Four door Ranger handles 32" well but I don't know for sure how it would do with bigger wheels. Ground clearance on the non-squatched Black Diamond is fine for what I need though.
 

bgcfman

Wildtrak
Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Orlando, FL
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler, Honda Accord, Ford Expedition
Ford Edge Sport 2.7L in the garage, same issue with the tiny fuel tank. I have no idea why Ford loves tiny fuel tanks. MPG ranges from 18 to 29 depending on your driving. 😄
My wife's 3.5L ecoboost averages 16 - 17 combined. Mostly around town miles
 

SoccerDude

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
284
Reaction score
829
Location
West Texas
Vehicle(s)
4Runner
My wife's 3.5L ecoboost averages 16 - 17 combined. Mostly around town miles
So it is safe to say you have to fill up every two or three days ;). When the gas station has a spot reserved for you, you know your fuel tank is too small.....
 

Used2jeep

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
3,146
Location
Massachuvian
Vehicle(s)
2007 Crown Vic P71
Clubs
 
As far as "wheel hp" are we considering loss through the T-case? I would imagine it to be minimal but worth consideration. What will be the difference in loss between the two T-cases offered?
It is a tough comparison to be perfectly symmetrical. Long story short - every piece of metal/plastic/unobtainium that you add to a drivetrain adds weight and friction. The parasitic losses add up with the more stuff that is added. Newer machines have "less" loss than their grandparents due to machining/material/lubrication improvements.

Not quite the answer that you wanted probably but "the more crap behind the motor, the more wasted power".
 

Ruffnuts

Outer Banks
Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
8
Reaction score
9
Location
Kansas
Vehicle(s)
2019 ranger lariat, 2007 mustang gt, 82 f100
Torque is what gets you moving not horsepower.
My 408 powered f100 has 415 tq (dyno numbers) it's an auto and it will launch harder then my 6 spd twin turbo mustang does which has 900 to the wheels, well at least in the first 100 feet lol. You may not feel the 270 versus 300 horsepower but you will definitely feel the extra 100 tq
 

Chuck_Ruck

Badlands
Member
First Name
Chuck
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
24
Reaction score
39
Location
Nomadic
Vehicle(s)
F150, Wrangler, Eldorado, Harley, Triumph
nobody needs that kind of power in a vehicle like this (no matter what they tell themselves).
100% agree, people have a "want", definitely not a need.
I was happy with my 2.5L '98 Ranger making 117hp & 150ft/lbs. But I think the manual trans offered that instant RPM range selection that made it tolerable.
I will say that my 4.6L F150 is a gutless pig when you need to pass slower moving traffic. I can pin the throttle going down hill with a tail wind, it still struggles to overtake. Converting gasoline into noise without hesitation, but the power production is on lunch break.
To the OP, I cannot give you a number, but the manual giving you more "control" has a bigger impact than most people are willing to admit Making power and being able to apply that power are different.
I will be getting the 2dr not just for the aesthetics, but also the power to weight aspect. And the manual for the proper application of the available power.
 

lowmpg

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
405
Reaction score
661
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
F350
Vehicle Showcase
1
Clubs
 
It's been proven time and again that a tuned 2.7 can be a beast. Technology is so advanced now the idea that a manual is 'better' than an auto at using the powerband is just crazy to me. If it was 1999, I'd get it but in 2020 day in and day out you'll get better numbers with a 2.7 auto than a 2.3 manual on a factory vehicle.
 

_2020_

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Sylvain
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
228
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
2014 Mini Countryman S , 2015 JKU, 2017 X5 3.5i
Vehicle Showcase
1
The main advantage i would see in the 2.7 compared to the 2.3 it that the 2.7 comes with a twin turbo which will make the torque and power available earlier and without the more “brutal” boost of the single turbo of the 2.3.

if you keep the 2.3 in the right RPM range it will respond quickly. The 2.7 will react also in lower RPM thanks tho the dual turbo.

I like the way a single turbo engine reacts after downshifting. You feel the boost coming!
On the other end having two turbos working together to have the engine always ready to deliver is also great...

it probably depends of the use you want to have of the truck... i am shooting for 2.3 manual, should be fun for my daily use!
 

Rogues Gambit

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
2,177
Location
Eatontown, NJ
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ram Rebel, '07 A4 Quattro
Clubs
 
I can confirm. This statement cannot be anymore true.
I never saw anything north of 20mpg in my old girl, but I had a lead foot and drove topless

It was fast, but there was always the GT
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top