Why I switched to the 2.3L over the 2.7L...

Merc4x4

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
steve
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
2,495
Location
NYC
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco
Bronco
Badlands
Except your argument is based on the assumption that the "60" strictly implies 600 newton/meters. Internals can be upgraded fairly easily to get a little more headroom. Especially when there are several other transmissions within the same family to draw from. Ford may have just wanted to keep the 60/80/100 nomenclature system for simplicity purposes.

Edit: Not to mention that it's not uncommon for upgrades to be done over time without changing the designation. It's not unheard of for a motor to pick up 10, 20, 30+ horsepower over a few years but be called the exact same thing the entire run. The 10R60 could have started as 600 newton/meters but have been fitted with upgraded clutches or shafts or whatever the limiting factor was to something more similar to what's in the 10R80. Now it's good to 650, 700 or more. Maybe the physical dimensions of the 10R60 case made more sense or was more readily available than the one for the 10R80 but they were able to get most of the guts from the 10R80 in there. That's the advantage of having families of assemblies. I've spent more than 20 years in manufacturing. Currently in the automotive aftermarket where making big power is our specialty. Constant revisions in the name of more performance and/or durability is a fact of life. The simple fact is that we don't know. It could have changed. It could have not. But Ford is willing to put a warranty on it and bean counters hate paying out claims. And we've not heard of a single transmission failure while they've been beating the hell out of the Bronco at events this spring.
Whatever. Maybe this, maybe that...
We all know the 60 stands for 600NM of torque and at 601NM it will explode like a hand grenade. I've read it on the internet.
Personally, I'm going to swap the 2.7 for the 3cyl in the Sport and tune that 3cyl to 560NM. Ford should have offered that from the factory instead of equipping Broncos with the deadly 2.7L 10R60 combo.
I bet there will be tons of aftermarket ballistic blankets to cover the 10R60 to keep shards of metal from the exploding transmissions out of the cabin.
But, you do you. 🤮
Advertisement

 

timhood

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
1,608
Reaction score
3,026
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Several
Bronco
Badlands
I’m making assumptions based on the torque rating of the transmission. It’s pretty simple stuff.
I just happened to be reading a review of 3/4 ton trucks that all but explains that the 60 or 80 in 10R60 or 10R80 has nothing to do with Newton meters.

The F-250 is available with a PowerStroke diesel capable of 1050 ft.-lbs. It is mated to a 10R140 transmission. Using the logic you applied to the 10R60 and 10R80, that would mean the transmission was capable of handling only 1032 ft.-lbs. Thus, even in stock form, this transmission should not be capable of handling the torque supplied by an engine specifically intended for heavy-duty use.

Can we close the case on this? That was a rhetorical question. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
ColbyFromBama

ColbyFromBama

Banned
Base
Banned
Banned
First Name
Colby
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
236
Reaction score
640
Location
Alabama
Vehicle(s)
GMC Sierra
Bronco
Base
I just happened to be reading a review of 3.4 ton trucks that all but explains that the 60 or 80 in 10R60 or 10R80 has nothing to do with Newton meters.
''The F-20 is available with a PowerStroke diesel capable of 1050 ft.-lbs. It is mated to a 10R140 transmission. Using the logic you applied to the 10R60 and 10R80, that would mean the transmission was capable of handling only 1032 ft.-lbs. Thus, even in stock form, this transmission should not be capable of handling the torque supplied by an engine specifically intended for heavy-duty use.

Can we close the case on this? That was a rhetorical question. Case closed.
Source? Because I think a trust a Ford Engineer, over some online review you read. The 10R40 has nothing to do with the 10R60.
 

Merc4x4

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
steve
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
2,495
Location
NYC
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco
Bronco
Badlands
Source? Because I think a trust a Ford Engineer, over some online review you read. The 10R40 has nothing to do with the 10R60.
So, you really believe this? You're not just trolling?
You trust some words from an explorerforum member because they put them in quotes?
You trust this so much, it was the major determining factor to forgo the V6 optional engine?
 

Merc4x4

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
steve
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
2,495
Location
NYC
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco
Bronco
Badlands
Let's take this anonymous "former Ford engineer" ("sources close to Ford transmission engineer have told us"!) as truth for this post.
They have stated the 600 (lb.ft? nm?) doesn't take into consideration the torque multiplication of the converter. That means the 10R60 rating could be significantly lower than the rating of the V6, unless the converter ratio is 1.08 or less. [443/1.08=410] Stock tq of the V6 is 415.
My question to you, then, is what do you think the failure rate will be for the V6/10sp combo?


 

timhood

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
1,608
Reaction score
3,026
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Several
Bronco
Badlands
Source? Because I think a trust a Ford Engineer, over some online review you read. The 10R40 has nothing to do with the 10R60.
Source? That would be Ford itself. It's their published public information that the PowerStroke in the F250 outputs 1050 ft.-lbs. Go here: https://www.ford.com/trucks/super-duty/models/f250-lariat/ Scroll down to "Power", click the icon next to "Engine - 6.7L Power Stroke® V8 Turbo Diesel" where you will see "best-in-class 475 hp and an impressive 1,050 lb.-ft. of torque". Note also the transmission is the "TorqShift® Ten-speed Automatic with Selectable Drive Modes".

My point is that, regardless of whether the 10R140 is similar or different internally than the 10R60 or 10R80, the nomenclature does not refer to Newton-meters of maximum torque capability of the transmissions. Or are you saying it does, but only for the transmissions you want it to? 😄

P.S. The review wasn't "some online review," but a major automotive magazine that's been around for decades. Not that it matters, because the data, as I pointed out, is directly published by Ford.
 

Drex

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
1,827
Reaction score
5,474
Location
various, construction engineer.
Vehicle(s)
'13 SLK55 AMG, '15 Indian Chief, '15 WRX
Bronco
Badlands
The nomenclature is not exact. It is rounded down to the nearest 100 N-M so you don't have something called the 10r147 or other oddball numbers, nice round numbers that make it easy to identify the minimum of the maximum for a transmission. Depending on the real numbers, a 10r60 might be rated at close to 500 lbs-ft. The 10r140 to around 1100 lbs-ft. the converter STR ratio and stall speed kept below the engine torque peak (the full multiplication is only at the peak difference of input and output speed, decreases as they get closer) protects the transmission from exceeding ts rating, also the torque limiting strategies that limit the engine in the lower gears can be used to protect the transmission. The 10r60 will have no extra trouble with the 2.7 over the 2.3. Might even be the reverse with the faster input to the transmission generating more heat due to the steeper final gearing on the 2.3.
 

rmanecke

Badlands
Active Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
41
Reaction score
70
Location
60516
Vehicle(s)
83CJ / 87YJ Mashup
Bronco
Badlands
I'm in, I have no need to race sportscars on the highway, or put a badge with how much horsepower my car has, and I watch the leadfooted dudes on the trails coming home with all kinds of vibrations from twisted axles, or getting towed from gunning it in the mud. The 2.3 MT is more my style - but, I think driving style of us amateurs off road probably busts more equipment than anything else.
 

jclaypool83

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
83
Reaction score
276
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
Badsquatch, 6.7L 2500 RAM, FOCUS RS
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 

Derby

Big Bend
Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
52
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Ford
Bronco
Big Bend
So the op doesn't want the 2.7 because it makes too much power, but wants to put a tune on a 2.3? I don't think adding a tune will make the engine last longer than manufacture designed it to. The 2.7 has the multi port direct injection the 2.3 doesn't. It's they're vehicle, but if they are worried about durability I would skip the tune.
 

DesertChip

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Chip
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
118
Reaction score
206
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Vehicle(s)
2019 Q5, 2017 GTI, 2007 Porsche Cayman S
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 
1C1786DD-B58D-4041-85E4-C8373B976659.gif


The 2.7 is an extremely powerful engine. The twin turbos really add an incredible amount of torque. Unfortunately, I think the 2.7 has too much torque for the 10R60 transmission the Bronco is getting. In fact, the 10R60 transmission only has a torque rating slightly above what the stock 2.7 puts out. Which means if you get the 2.7, you’ll have a lot of wear and tear on your Bronco transmission, especially if you add a tune.

I’m more worried about the longevity of my Bronco, than immediate power. And I don’t feel like upgrading my transmission. So I’m sticking with the 2.3L. And I’ll add a tune later. I’ve driven both engines, and you can barely tell the difference unless you’re on a steep hill.

If Ford offered the 10R80 transmission in the Bronco, I’d without a doubt upgrade to the 2.7. Even the Ranger comes standard with the 10R80, that allows for more torque than the Bronco.

Added input from Ford Engineer:

36C34F93-C6AA-4A16-8B01-25FB51126117.jpeg
Seems like you are solving a rumored, unproven, maybe non-existing problem. Also, engines spend very little time at there peak power output, except maybe a drag car.
 

steevenk

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
kurt
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
87
Reaction score
186
Location
Chicago
Vehicle(s)
'05 AWD Astro, '90 G20 Van, '14 Subaru Forester XT
Bronco
Black Diamond
Source? Because I think a trust a Ford Engineer, over some online review you read. The 10R40 has nothing to do with the 10R60.
The random online "Ford transmission engineer" that doesn't remember what the 60 stands for?

There is absolutely nothing in that screenshot that is secret factory engineer information. There is a lot more relevant info about your assumptions in this thread then you received from this engineer.
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top