You seasoned Ford Guys: your opinion on the 2.3 Turbo?

[The Driving Viking]

Also, this is only if you stick with Ford Performance's tunes, which while they're attractive for warrantying purposes...there are going to be other options that will net better gains on 91 and 93 octane gas. Obviously, the best tunes will be protunes, i.e; having a reputable tuner actually strap the thing to a dyno, and properly tune it themselves measuring horsepower at the wheels.

Considering people like Cobb and Livernois are making tunes for these engines already in the Mustang and the Ranger, I'm not super worried about wanting for power. The question is, are people gonna do the right thing and put in supporting modifications for them if they want more power and don't mind putting in the legwork? That means new intercoolers, AOS's/catch cans, intakes, better charge piping and bypass/recirculating valves, or even *gasp* a bigger turbo someday...

Not that I'm advocating anybody do any of this on a new vehicle, mind you...but, if you've only got a 3yr/36k warranty and you're keeping the vehicle "forever..." 3 years or 36k miles isn't a long time.




This. It's gonna be fine, y'all.

Oh yeah absolutely. Thats just a simple Ford performance premium Octane tune. Nothing crazy. Very conservative. Your Basically only switching fuel types with it.

If you go aftermarket your going to get waaay more power.

Sponsored

 

[Fuzion2Bronco]

Hey guys,

So I have to say I'm pretty disappointed about the powertrain options, and lack of manual available in the V6 and forcing everyone to upgrade $10,000 (basically) if they want a Sasquatch package.

My question to seasoned Ford guys, how do you think this 2.3 turbo would handle 35 inch or greater tires as far as:

- Pep on the road with 35's
- Performance on the trails with 35's ( I want that crawler gear)

Reason I ask is because I see the video where the guy has a Badlands running around the Bronco Offroad thingie they created, and it has plenty of pep (it seems) in that and those videos, but that's rolling on 33's.

My thought now is evolving, into getting a Badlands now, instead of my original choice, and then getting whatever required lift for 35 inch tires.

Thought? and THANKS!

My Season ended after 3 years with 2.3 L on a 2015 Mustang, all I can say is That Engine drives and makes some serious power. I enjiyed it every bit. Now I have a 2.0 on my Fusion. A bit slower than 2.3 but hanging in there. Looking forward for 2.3 again the Bronco.

 

[Ajusaf]

Plenty of good points that you all have made. Mine is based on logic and I’m also a previous owner of two 4 banging turbo vehicles (2.0 Eco boost fusion and 2.5 turbo Mazda CX-9 suv). The 4 cyc turbo performed well and did well with fuel economy, so it’s a win with either engines you decide to purchase. Here are some of my input that many agree and disagree.

* if you’re planning to do heavy towing and tuning with the 2.3 to get better performance, it would be better to use that money towards the 2.7.

* 2.7 will have a better resale value

* 2.7 is built a little better and can take a beating compared to the 2.3, from all the readings and reviews I’ve read.

* if you want/wish you could have a raptor Bronco, the 2.7 will bring you closer to that performance Level than the 2.3 could ever do as stock and post tuning.

 

[BearWithMe]

The manual is absolutely critical for me -- I wouldn't even be looking at the Bronco without it. Also super stoked to get in a turbo vehicle again. Naturally aspirated is...tolerable at 6500 feet where I live, but the horsepower loss I experience heading up into the mountains to camp at 11,000 is aggravating as hell.

On the 2.3 I'll be swapping the intercooler and turbo before the warranty is up. If the 2.7 was available with the manual I'd be glad to pay the premium instead of putting that money towards engine mods.

 

[Tdifonzo]

The real question is although a tune on the 2.3L will give you comparable power to the 2.7L, will that tune hurt fuel economy and make you wish you just went with the 2.7L in the first place?

 

[RedHotLava]

The real question is although a tune on the 2.3L will give you comparable power to the 2.7L, will that tune hurt fuel economy and make you wish you just went with the 2.7L in the first place?

I honestly am not concerned about MPG at all. I'm getting a big SUV and throwing big ass tires on it. ? ?

 

[RedHotLava]

So basically the 2.3 in the Mustang has 310hp and 350tq.

Bronco 2.3 270hp and 310tq.

The difference is the tune from the factory. Thats it. They are identical engines. Ford performance will have a tuner for the 2.3 Bronco available. They already have it for the Ranger.

Basically with the tune all your doing is switching it from an 87 octane tune to a 93 premium fuel tune. Thats literally it. Nothing major. You'll get about 310hp and 360tq.

Yeah, I had a question about this. I saw a video where they were doing a review on the Mustang and Ranger and the guy says "and if you want 40 more HP to take it to 310 HP, you can simply use 93 octane".

I was like, "huh?" So, this is a tune that's required for the HP gain? (I apologize in advance for my ignorance on this)

 

[Tdifonzo]

I honestly am not concerned about MPG at all. I'm getting a big SUV and throwing big ass tires on it. ? ?

Neither am I but if a tune to the 2.3L is nearly half the cost of just upgrading to the 2.7L and gets worse MPGs then I think just rolling the price of the 2.7L into the loan makes much more sense.

 

[ATLBronco75]

For me the biggest difference is that the 2.7 is a next generation engine. It has an amazing architecture and was built from the ground up for turbo charging. I'm a bit of an engineering geek and for me the amount of innovation in the 2.7 is hard to pass up.

 

[D K]

People don't understand how insanely powerful and efficient the new turbo engines are.
Once they figured out direct injection it was like a free for all.
That, and the infinitely tuneable characteristics of variable boost (turbo) gives a tuner a blank canvas.
I really like the idea of a manual because of the crawl gear - I bet you can do 90% of your off roading without going to 4 low.

I just wonder how many options you give up going with the manual - one pedal driving and the trail turning for sure. What else???

 

[The Driving Viking]

Yeah, I had a question about this. I saw a video where they were doing a review on the Mustang and Ranger and the guy says "and if you want 40 more HP to take it to 310 HP, you can simply use 93 octane".

I was like, "huh?" So, this is a tune that's required for the HP gain? (I apologize in advance for my ignorance on this)

Yes. But you have to flash the computer to run 93 octane to get the best performance.

Most Trucks and SUVs come with the 87 octane setting from the factory. I guess the motor company's figure people don't want to have to buy premium fuel to run them. And it saves them money.

On the flip side the motor company's sell the performance cars like the Mustang with the 93 premium fuel setting from the factory because people want the most performance from those vehicles. So there set up that way right from the start.

Thats why the 2.3 in the Mustang comes from the factory with 310hp and 350tq.

And the 2.3 Bronco comes with 270hp and 310tq.

There exactly the same engine just set up to use different fuel from the factory. So if you want your Bronco to use 93 Octane and get the higher performance numbers you have to buy the tuner to flash the engine and reset it.

 

[The Driving Viking]

For me the biggest difference is that the 2.7 is a next generation engine. It has an amazing architecture and was built from the ground up for turbo charging. I'm a bit of an engineering geek and for me the amount of innovation in the 2.7 is hard to pass up.

So is the 2.3 they are both impressive engines. With the 93 octane setting the 2.3 make 310hp and 350tq from the factory with no mods. Thats more then the last generation V8s on only 4 cylinders. Thats amazing.

And there's tunes out there for the 2.3 that can boost it up to ridiculous power.

To be honest I'm actually more impressed with the 2.3 getting that power with only 1 turbo and 4 cylinders is awesome. The V6 has 2 more cylinders and 2 turbos.

With that said i like both engines. Im still on the fence on which one im going to chose. It's a coin flip for me. Basically it will be a game time decision and what my finances look like at the time if I need to save $2k or not.

 

[ATLBronco75]

So is the 2.3 they are both impressive engines. With the 93 octane setting the 2.3 make 310hp and 350tg from the factory with no mods. Thats more then the last generation V8s on only 4 cylinders. Thats amazing......... more

It's a nice engine but the 2.7 is much more advanced. I see a really long development path for the 2.7. We're likely to see pretty basic 400+ hp builds and eventually they'll stroke it or bore it and we'll see 3.0L variants. It's an exciting engine to me. The block technology alone is fascinating.

 

[The Driving Viking]

It's a nice engine but the 2.7 is much more advanced. I see a really long development path for the 2.7. We're likely to see pretty basic 400+ hp builds and eventually they'll stroke it or bore it and we'll see 3.0L variants. It's an exciting engine to me. The block technology alone is fascinating.

Like I said I like both engines. But don't sleep on the 2.3 it has amazing possibilities. Plenty of kits out there for it for people who want power. The sky is the limit

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/make-600-hp-ecoboost-read-find/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopn...00-hp-ecoboost-mustang-for-und-1794414216/amp

 

[RedHotLava]

Neither am I but if a tune to the 2.3L is nearly half the cost of just upgrading to the 2.7L and gets worse MPGs then I think just rolling the price of the 2.7L into the loan makes much more sense.

half the cost of 3500 + 1600....??? because that's the cost for us not wanting an auto...

How much does a damn tune cost???!!! lol

Sponsored