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

[Rick Astley]

I was just trying to confirm if you were making openly homophobic comments on these digital pages.

So please do clarify, when you said " Some one sounds as if their "significant other" bitch slapped them, and are now having a little tantrum, calm down sunshine.", what you truly meant. You're "adult" enough to back up what you meant and said. If you feel like you need to go into a tirade privately, or insult me directly, please use PM.

Sponsored

 

[frinesi2]

In reality, you have created this opinion of the engine characteristics and capabilities without A. experience or B. input from those who actually have a vehicle with that motor.

As somebody who has driven ~5K miles in a 2019 Ranger, nearly a ton in the bed and with a trailer adding over 5K lbs in addition to vehicle weight, and my fat ass, and it drove as if it didn't even have a single pound over it's dry weight, I see absolutely zero reason why the 2.3, when geared as it is with the manual transmission, won't be perfectly capable of having 35" tires.

While Bronco is heavier than Ranger, it's very doubtful you are able to get your Bronco over 10,000 lbs to match what i've already driven (including adjusted weight for the unsprung mass of ridiculous 75 lb tires).

Got up to 70 mph on a freeway with a short on-ramp. Zero drama and torque for days. Did it haul it as easily as the 6.2 ltr in the F-350 Super Duty? No. But then again, the 2.7 won't be doing anything like that either....

It can also pass just about anything you'll want to pass on a freeway, assuming you don't let the worthless automatic choose for you, because it will be downshifting from 10th gear down to an adequate passing gear by the time you miss your opportunity.... That's the nature of small turbos. And not going to be much different in the 2.7. But, since this is America, you can freely plan even 5 seconds ahead and freely downshift from 6th to 5th, and pass at will..... Assuming you're American enough to drive a manual transmission!

Lets pull eyeballs out of arseholes here for a minute, you're looking at a total displacement difference from 140 cubic inches (2.3 ltr) to 164 cubic inches (2.7 ltr). Every single pony and torques you're needing to justify your engine preference comes down to the turbos... Which are the horses which breath the heaviest when worked hard

When we're all down at the taco truck with the gang in a circle doing high fives and that loooooooooooooong ruler comes out where we all have to slap our meat on the stick and stand toe-to-toe with Big John Stud, you can shout out "BUT MY ENGINE HAS AN EXTRA TWENTY FOUR CUBIC INCHES!!!!!".

That's cool and all, but you're probably going to still need a few adult beverages to be comfortable with who you're waking up with because of those extra twenty four cubic inches.....



There are already well over 100,000 Rangers putting miles down on US roadways. I agree with you that the Mustang and Focus 2.3 mills cannot be directly compared to Ranger due to their unique tuning and setups. But the Ranger's only glaring issue so far (assuming you ignore the transmission) is fuel diluting the oil. This is fairly common with direct injection and a nod to the dual port injection on the 2.7. However, it is also not without simple fixes. Ford had what seems to be a bad batch of injector seals with their early Rangers, and installation of an oil catch can essentially removes this issue altogether. So overall, for $100 and a hour of your time, you remove the only known fault of this motor.

The "shudder" which is reported will happen to essentially every single Bronco optioned with the automatic transmission as the transmission is the primary issue for this. disabling the auto stop/start on the 2019 Ranger i've been driving has cured most of that fault. There is another shudder on about 4 Rangers (out of over 100,000) which has been attributed to driveshaft phasing and what appears to be hastily balanced drive shafts. This is a non-issue for Bronco as that part will not carry over anyway.

Saying this as somebody who actually drives a 2019 Ranger, I am genuinely shocked at some of the perceptions of the 2.3 motor.

Lets just be honest with ourselves, as Americans, you simply want the biggest motor because it's the biggest and this is America and you are American so you want the biggest motor possible as you're American. Yes, worded exactly like that.

And i've got a FE 390 up over 7 liters (433 cubic inches to be precise, that's about 2.5 TIMES more displacement than the 2.7 offered in Bronco.....), and yea, it causes swelling of the groin area. It also makes a statement, sounds effinnnnnnngggggggg awesome, and drives exactly like a early 60's car should, with your eyes burning due to fuel and the reak of carbonated horses firming your summer sausage to the tune of 8 glorious American freedom miles per gallon.... Your 2.7 will do literally none of that. Not a bit. Not even a spare inch for just such an occasion. You probably won't ever even revv that 2.7 up for friends because it's going to sound like you need to turn the truck off and go grab a beer while praying the ruler of justice doesn't make it's way around the bar.

But to claim Bronco "needs" the 2.7 is to grossly overestimate the girth, breadth and length of your situation.

Wait I thought you were English?

 

[AZHUND]

I saw this thread excited it would give me an answer for something high on my list: whether 2.3L with manual is going to be fun to drive and I should look forward to it a ~year from now (versus give up that idea and just be happy with the 3.6L I have today). But instead not really sure what is going on here...

 

[ragingclue]

Man, do I have some bad news for you about modern diesels especially when used in predominantly (and/or extended duration) off-road excursions (a big reason I got rid of mine)....

Also, this is about the 2.3 at 270/310. It'll be fine. Either put a catch can in (can you put two legos together without issue? If so, you can install a catch can yourself) for a nominal amount or get it walnut blasted for $300ish every 40k-ish miles, as has been discussed ad nauseam here and everywhere else on the Internet.

Another thing to consider is weight, which has been mentioned as well. The 2.3 isn't particularly heavy. And I wouldn't be surprised if it offered room to put some accessories under the hood that the 2.7 won't allow (although I could be wrong about this... it was nice to be able to mount a compressor under the hood in the ZR2 though).

 

[MaverickMan]

It'll blow if you don't address any weak links and overboost it, or if you're just unlucky

Then again, while it wasn't necessary, I did add a Radiator and hoses as well, just because why the hell not

Mishimoto: Coolant Expansion Tank
Radiator
Radiator Silicone hoses
Oil Cooler

I also recommend a catch can, went with UPR for that.

That said, would a 500ci fit?

Im gettiing that 2.3 for the manual it'll blow when i tell it too lol.

And sure a bigblock will fit just fine. If it fits a 1 gen ranger itll fit in anything with a frame.

 

[ragingclue]

Not sure what your point is here. I specifically stated "modern diesels" in the context of road-legal options in the new Bronco era. You said you'd choose a diesel for the Bronco, well guess what...? If you had the option for a diesel in the Bronco, it'd be saddled with all the issues that modern USA-on-road-legal diesels come with these days. Regs that the military is exempt from (oh hey the LWN is relevant here as well, guess what the new ISV won't have to deal with specifically?), or other countries are exempt from, are really a moot point here entirely. If you want to say you'd like an old diesel under the hood, or one exempt from emissions regulations, then yeah I'd love one of those too. I think we all know how great diesels used to be for this stuff, but that's just not the case with anything manufactured from here on out with a VIN in the States, and hasn't been for years.

As far as your question at the end of your post, "why would [insert manufacturer here] offer such a huge punch...". Ummmmm because people will pay for it and they are confident there's room to maneuver under whatever headroom their engineers say they've got. Just a guess.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Im gettiing that 2.3 for the manual it'll blow when i tell it too lol.

And sure a bigblock will fit just fine. If it fits a 1 gen ranger itll fit in anything with a frame.

Ecoboom's aren't common, so unless you're adjusting the boost yourself and going past the limits of the internals, should be fine.

Unless you meant that as you're just gonna purposely blow it the fuck up

 

[ragingclue]

Did you even read what I wrote? I know all these things and it doesn't change what I said.

Heck, why don't you look up why Toyota doesn't bring their excellent diesels here? They've covered that too....

 

[DrewBronc21]

why exactly is the 2.3 not good for off-road use? Plenty of 4cyls, 6cyls and even V8 4x4s with less horse power and torque than the 2.3 are great off-road. Ford has posted vids of the manual(badlands) 2.3 Bronco rock crawling.... I don’t think they would use the 2.3 if it weren’t capable.

 

[NY Bronco II]

I want a manual. Had the 2.9 V 6 in my Ranger. Loved that truck. I miss that truck, I think the 2.3 will be fine. At least I hope so. I’m sticking with 33’s so no wish to go bigger

 

[wavydave]

Ooh. Another thread thrust into a frenzy of bickering. *following*

Sponsored