Will Ford Delete the Base 2.3L engine option?

[dgorsett]

my BB has the 2.3L with a 4.3 Diff. ? ( the one above the 3.73 ) and it is a well match drive train put together. 2.3 is able enough to do whatever the 2.7 can do for 2k $ less .

Agree. (4.27 BTW). And technically it probably can't do everything the 2.7 can, but it can easily exceed any speed limit on any road on any grade in mountainous western Colorado where I live.

Sponsored

 

[Canadian5.0]

Bump up to black diamond and get the 2.7 . I test drove most models with all engine trans combos . The 2.3 is adequate and no other word describes it better . The 2.7 with auto is dam quick effortlessly and requires no performance mods

 

[MNBigfoot]

I surprised that Ford put in Baja mode and are supportive of race teams on a vehicle that built to drive no more than 30 mph.

 

[SoDak1623]

Or they could do a bigger I-4. I won't lie, the 2.7L I-4 that Chevy just released looks slick.

---

Anyway... no complaints with my 2.3L EcoBoost, and I think it's a good fit for the Bronco. As the DIY type who likes to work on their own vehicles there is a bunch or reasons why I personally have no desire to own the 2.7L.

If the Bronco had 5000 lbs+ towing, then yeah.... I think the 2.7L would be a no-brainer. But it doesn't so I don't see really see the point in the 2.7L engine on a off-road rock-crawling sub-30 MPH type of vehicle.

BUT, this is coming from someone who thought the 300 I-6 and 302 V-8 from the 1980s/1990s was perfectly adequate in the old Broncos. And the 2.3L has better performance that both of those engines... so... Maybe I'm just out of touch.

This is my take. I love my 2.3 manual in my 2 door badlands. Especially with the Ford Performance tune. Even stock the 2.3 beats the 351 from the 96 bronco, and that was the most updated and most powerful engine in any bronco from 66-96. Not to mention I love the easier access and not worrying about cam phasors since Ford has proven since 2004 they still can't get those right on V engines.

 

[SoDak1623]

There's already a 2.5L NA version of this engine family, seems like a natural progression. I haven't seen if the new Mustang 2.3 is still based on the same block?


So much this. The amount of room around the 2.3 is amazing.

The 2.3 ecoboost is similar to the 2.5, but they are different. The 2.3 was designed from the ground up as a turbo 4, borrowing on some of the design from the duratec 4, which is what the 2.5 is, which traces it's linage all the way back to mazda since it's derrived from their L series. Great engines and I've owned a few vehicles with them. They never miss a beat, which is why I love the 2.3 platform.

 

[Tricky Mike]

The 2.3 was designed from the ground up as a turbo 4

Ground up is a bit extreme. A lot of parts still interchange with the old Mazdas. Hell, I've put a 2006 Miata oil pan on a 2017 Mustang engine.

 

[timhood]

So Ford just announced they are dropping the 3.3L v6 base engine in the F150 to be replaced by the 2.7L twin turbo v6. It would appear to me they are trying to streamline production by reducing options (they certainly have done this to the 2024 Bronco).

Do you guys think that for the next year the Bronco, raptor aside, will only have a single engine option standard?

I wanted to get a Big Bend but it's only offered in 2.3L. Perhaps its just wishful thinking that they will offer it in a 2.7L again.

Of course Ford will likely jack up MSRP even more like they did with the 2024 F150. Is it just me or does Ford think that it's still the summer of 2022 and interest rates are still near zero percent...

Absolutely percent not. The base engine provides better fuel economy figures for Ford's CAFE. The F150 had too many engine options. It also had too many configuration options. Two engine options also helps spread the demand. I've answered your question based on whether Ford would ever only have one engine for the Bronco vs. specifically what the anticipated lifespan of the current 2.3 is expected to be. Someday, the 2.3 could be replaced by a different engine that makes more power more efficiently.

 

[timhood]

I dunno what 2.3 you got but the autos I drove were embarrassing especially with a SAS package. Just my opinion though

It's all relative. There are people who will say 0-60 in 10 seconds is plenty preppy and others who say 0-60 in 4 seconds isn't fast enough. But the vast majority would agree that the 2.3 is probably decent in non-Sas, but the 2.7 is a clear upgrade in all applications.

 

[timhood]

Ooh what is that? A N/A V8? With 395 hp? Go back a couple years and all those people telling me that the TT 2.7 got better numbers than the V8.... hmmmm....

Now how about to answer OP's question, we just replace the 2.3 with this engine? Minus the $25k that Ford would add to the cost.

It was the 3.5 TT that was compared to the V8. The 2.7 was compared to the old 3-valve Triton 5.3, which had 300hp and 360 lb./ft. I test drove the 2.7 and 3.5 at an introductory event when they were first released and found the 2.7 every bit as peppy, if not moreso, than our 5.3. The 3.5 felt like a rocket.

 

[Area51BS]

2.3 on 93 is plenty of power. I’m happy with it. Along with the metal oil pan.

 

[dgorsett]

Or they could do a bigger I-4. I won't lie, the 2.7L I-4 that Chevy just released looks slick.

---

Anyway... no complaints with my 2.3L EcoBoost, and I think it's a good fit for the Bronco. As the DIY type who likes to work on their own vehicles there is a bunch or reasons why I personally have no desire to own the 2.7L.

If the Bronco had 5000 lbs+ towing, then yeah.... I think the 2.7L would be a no-brainer. But it doesn't so I don't see really see the point in the 2.7L engine on a off-road rock-crawling sub-30 MPH type of vehicle.

BUT, this is coming from someone who thought the 300 I-6 and 302 V-8 from the 1980s/1990s was perfectly adequate in the old Broncos. And the 2.3L has better performance that both of those engines... so... Maybe I'm just out of touch.

I had a 300 in a 77 F150, loved it and also a 302 in an 89 F150, didn't like it. The 302 seemed under powered, I actually used the AC as a "Jake Brake" going downhill it would suck it down so much.

I'd like to see @Tricky Mike put a hot rodded 300, with three deuces and headers in his '66. I live vicariously through you guys. I don't have the ambition anymore.

 

[Tricky Mike]

I had a 300 in a 77 F150, loved it and also a 302 in an 89 F150, didn't like it. The 302 seemed under powered, I actually used the AC as a "Jake Brake" going downhill it would suck it down so much.

I'd like to see @Tricky Mike put a hot rodded 300, with three deuces and headers in his '66. I live vicariously through you guys. I don't have the ambition anymore.

Potential of the 300 is always tantalizing. Modified LS head, turbo, etc, but ultimately I think it's only worth building one if you already have it stock. I would import a Barra first if was set on an L6.

 

[SoDak1623]

Ground up is a bit extreme. A lot of parts still interchange with the old Mazdas. Hell, I've put a 2006 Miata oil pan on a 2017 Mustang engine.

Sure, some things like that will interchange, but they do not use the same block, internals, heads, etc... even if the dimensions are similar or the same.

 

[BigHoof]

Maybe you got a bad one or have only driven really good tractors lol. Mine shifts like a dream and accelerates to highway speeds flawlessly. That's with 33s on it too. I should add this is my 5th manual vehicle I've personally daily driven and it's far away my favorite.

Completely agree. Been driving a long time with numerous manuals over the years starting back when there were top loaders and factory Hurst Shifters and by far the Bronco MT is the easiest and smoothest shifting of them all.

 

[KillerPenz]

It was the 3.5 TT that was compared to the V8. The 2.7 was compared to the old 3-valve Triton 5.3, which had 300hp and 360 lb./ft. I test drove the 2.7 and 3.5 at an introductory event when they were first released and found the 2.7 every bit as peppy, if not moreso, than our 5.3. The 3.5 felt like a rocket.

Maybe that's what you saw compared, but I've always said give me a nice big V8 over this turbo crap. Everyone else always said "Turbos will smoke your V8... blah blah blah". So you can compare it to whatever you want, but I'd still take the V8 any day of the week. Even the old 351 out of my '94 Bronco.

Anyways, I'm done hi-jacking the thread. We aren't going down that rabbit hole again.

Sponsored