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

[MaverickMan]

Nice. I think my name on there is MauiEagle80. I have the 4.0 in my comanche and while its a good reliable motor, without a 5 speed I dont think it will be a shocking difference in my eagle. Atleast like it was when I swapped the 74 302 in my maverick for a built alum headed 306. But every time I drive the 5.2 zj it gets up and goes even at higher speeds. Then I think well the eagle is like 400lbs lighter and to swap it I will put an aluminum intake demon carb headers with no cats on it. If it blows up eventually a $1800 remanufactured 5.9 will be a bolt in direct swap. At which point I will have almost as much power as the 2.3eb in the new Bronco! ? ?

Sponsored

 

[RedHotLava]

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

mmmm blasted walnuts.... Awesome, thanks for that little nugget of info. Looks like I need buy some legos and see how this works... : P

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).

Good points, thanks again.

 

[RedHotLava]

The combination of low end torque, 4.7 gearing and lighter weight should make the 2.3L engine the best available option for technical/rock crawling off-roading(if that’s what you’ll be using the Bronco for). The engine has been used successfully in multiple Ford vehicles and the manual transmission has been improved.

I appreciate your view on it, thanks.

 

[attworth]

I have no issues with the 4.0 Rover V8 in my D2. It was rated at 180hp/300lb ft, 20 years ago. It’s got 150k on it now, has been through 2 sets of head gaskets and tons of other random stuff. It gets 11mpg on 93 octane. Weighs over 5,000 lbs and I usually have a couple hundred pounds of crap in the back of it. And it rolls my 33’s just fine on stock 3.55’s and a 4 speed auto.

I think the 2.3L is gonna be just fine. I actually think it sounds way better with an exhaust than the 2.7 does too, but I’m one of those Millenials and grew up watching F&F movies. .

Nothing will sound as good as a healthy V8 though. Even my old Rover without a center muffler sounds amazing.

 

[DrewBronc21]

I have no issues with the 4.0 Rover V8 in my D2. It was rated at 180hp/300lb ft, 20 years ago. It’s got 150k on it now, has been through 2 sets of head gaskets and tons of other random stuff. It gets 11mpg on 93 octane. Weighs over 5,000 lbs and I usually have a couple hundred pounds of crap in the back of it. And it rolls my 33’s just fine on stock 3.55’s and a 4 speed auto.

I think the 2.3L is gonna be just fine. I actually think it sounds way better with an exhaust than the 2.7 does too, but I’m one of those Millenials and grew up watching F&F movies. .

Nothing will sound as good as a healthy V8 though. Even my old Rover without a center muffler sounds amazing.

I generally don’t care much about a couple MPG here and there but 11mpg on 93 is a Guzzler!

 

[attworth]

I generally don’t care much about a couple MPG here and there but 11mpg on 93 is a Guzzler!

It sure is! But it’s paid for so I can’t complain much. Plus it’s just a blast to drive and romp in the dirt. 100” wheelbase and like 20+“ to any of the body work makes it pretty nimble even with its heft.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It sure is! But it’s paid for so I can’t complain much. Plus it’s just a blast to drive and romp in the dirt. 100” wheelbase and like 20+“ to any of the body work makes it pretty nimble even with its heft.

I used to average 12mpg with my '94 RRC 3.9... lifted with 33's but it wasn't much better before that. Miss my rover though.

 

[attworth]

I used to average 12mpg with my '94 RRC 3.9... lifted with 33's but it wasn't much better before that. Miss my rover though.

Id love a RRC, but my disco is fun. I think I’m gonna keep it, but I’m not sure what I’m going to do with it. Maybe turn it into a real buggy some day.

 

[MaverickMan]

I used to average 12mpg with my '94 RRC 3.9... lifted with 33's but it wasn't much better before that. Miss my rover though.

I get 12 mpg avg on my 96 Bronco with 351/5.8, 210 hp, 330 lb-ft. 200k on motor and driveline. Its only got 31s but I added 500lbs of bumpers and roof racks. And I live offroad you have to drive a mile plus 300ft elevation change upill on a twisty unimproved 15 mph road just to get to real pavement. Sooo go Bronco!

 

[RedHotLava]

Full disclosure here:

A.) I'm new to Ford
B.) I'm new to turbos

With that said, Ford's bumper to bumper on this vehicle is 3/36, and the powertrain is 5/60, if you get the factory tune, is the factory tune shortening the warranty of the powertrain to 3/36 as well?

 

[Foordbrawnco]

Full disclosure here:

A.) I'm new to Ford
B.) I'm new to turbos

With that said, Ford's bumper to bumper on this vehicle is 3/36, and the powertrain is 5/60, if you get the factory tune, is the factory tune shortening the warranty of the powertrain to 3/36 as well?

This is from 2015, but I’m thinking it’s still the same.

 

[RedHotLava]

This is from 2015, but I’m thinking it’s still the same.

Thank you!

 

[Stitches1974]

This is from 2015, but I’m thinking it’s still the same.

Thanks so much for this! I just asked this same question in the 2.7 section a few days back, but never got a satisfactory answer.

 

[Austin26]

My only experience and comparison to this are both of my 2005 Nissan Xterras.

Their curb weight reported back then was between 4,081 to 4,392 lbs depending on options, V6 @ 265 HP.

One has 33's on 3.36 gears.
The other has 35's on 4.56 gears, after market, both auto trans.

That engine tugs on both and I would definitely kick the other one up to 36 or 37 on the next round of tire purchasing. I'm confident in that engine.

I know the 2.3 is stated @ 270 HP stock, but again, I have no experience with it, so I appreciate your replies.

Random side note, for a year or two that same generation Pathfinder (shared body on frame and bunch of other stuff) had an optional 5.6L V8. Holy balls it was fast. I'd wager the fastest "third row" SUV ever made. Loved the Xterra, drove them when I could! Worked for Nissan.

 

[Stitches1974]

Random side note, for a year or two that same generation Pathfinder (shared body on frame and bunch of other stuff) had an optional 5.6L V8. Holy balls it was fast. I'd wager the fastest "third row" SUV ever made. Loved the Xterra, drove them when I could! Worked for Nissan.

The Durango of that time period most likely holds that record. 5.7 335 HP to the 5.6 310 HP of the Pathfinder. Not 100% sure, but the Hellcat Durango definitely holds that title today. 710 HP and 645 TQ.

Sponsored