2.3 Shaping up to be the better Engine?

[Oneand0]

few months ago we talked about the brakes going weird on freeway w your brother-in-law driving w cruise
- how did it turn-out w dealer service - was it related cruise-control, or maybe some other problem, did they get it resolved

It was definitely covered under warranty, they found it was faulty, just like everyone else was complaining about. They replaced the part. I guess the mechanics have their own forum they refer to, or some type of database.

Sponsored

 

[VailBronco]

Absolutely hated the 2.3 with the 10 spd automatic when I had it for a 24hr. test drive last year. I had high hopes based on what others were saying about it in the Ranger and other applications (just like they are saying in this thread) but I can't believe people think it is anything but anemic. Drove it up and over the mountain passes at elevation and on highways... everywhere I could think of within reason for 24 hrs. Drove and sounded like a rental Nissan Sentra. I was so disappointed I considered cancelling my order all together. Then I took delivery of my 2.7 BL and couldn't have been happier ( I suppose the 3.0 Raptor might make me happier). If anyone says it's close to the 2.7 they have not driven the the 2.7 enough. It is night and day! Can the 2.3 "keep up"? Kind of I'm sure if you are all just doing trail rides or cruising on the highway in a group. It is just a different lackluster driving experience.

That said, I have zero experience with the 2.3 and manual transmission. That could be an entirely different beast! People seem to love that combo for sure. But based on my experience there is no way I'd put hard earn $$$ into the 2.3 with automatic transmission.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but this is pretty disparaging to anyone who has ordered a 2.3 and is excitedly waiting for it to arrive.

For anyone waiting for your 2.3 and my fellow 2.3 owners here's my 2 cents...

I have put around 3,500 miles on my 2.3 Bronco with 10 speed auto and have never, NOT ONCE, felt that it was under powered or anemic. We live at 6,500 feet and have travelled over passes in excess of 10,000 feet. We've done a 1,000 mile road trip with 5 people and about 500 pounds of gear, and it never felt weighed down or anemic then either. Even loaded up, it would get up to speed very quickly on highway ramps and easily cruise along at 75 at 1900 rpm.

The 2.3 feels faster, sportier, and more responsive than just about any naturally aspirated V6 with similar horsepower ratings and that is because of the generally higher torque that is available at low RPM.

For comparison it is more responsive and quicker than a V-6 Wrangler/Gladiator. For anyone coming off of a family hauler like the Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, or GMC Acadia yes this 2.3 FEELS sportier and more responsive than those naturally aspirated engines. Those may actually eeak out slightly faster 0-60 times but they don't give you the same seat of the pants rush that the turbo does. Compared to a 4.0 Liter 4Runner/Tacoma, the 2.3 Bronco is hands down more powerful and you don't have to ring it's neck like you do that engine. It's not as quick as an Acura MDX, but it's not far off.

Of course it's not as powerful as the 2.7 but you do pay the MPG penalty and for anyone who says they don't care about gas mileage when gas is $4-$6 per gallon, I don't know what to tell you.

I have owned an F-150 with the 3.5 ecoboost and to me, that thing felt fast. When that truck broke they gave me a loaner F-150 with the 2.7 ecoboost and that felt great too. It's the same situation here, some people will want/need the extra power, but you don't need to take a dump on those who don't.

 

[pakrat]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but this is pretty disparaging to anyone who has ordered a 2.3 and is excitedly waiting for it to arrive.

For anyone waiting for your 2.3 and my fellow 2.3 owners here's my 2 cents...

I have put around 3,500 miles on my 2.3 Bronco with 10 speed auto and have never, NOT ONCE, felt that it was under powered or anemic. We live at 6,500 feet and have travelled over passes in excess of 10,000 feet. We've done a 1,000 mile road trip with 5 people and about 500 pounds of gear, and it never felt weighed down or anemic then either. Even loaded up, it would get up to speed very quickly on highway ramps and easily cruise along at 75 at 1900 rpm.

The 2.3 feels faster, sportier, and more responsive than just about any naturally aspirated V6 with similar horsepower ratings and that is because of the generally higher torque that is available at low RPM.

For comparison it is more responsive and quicker than a V-6 Wrangler/Gladiator. For anyone coming off of a family hauler like the Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, or GMC Acadia yes this 2.3 FEELS sportier and more responsive than those naturally aspirated engines. Those may actually eeak out slightly faster 0-60 times but they don't give you the same seat of the pants rush that the turbo does. Compared to a 4.0 Liter 4Runner/Tacoma, the 2.3 Bronco is hands down more powerful and you don't have to ring it's neck like you do that engine. It's not as quick as an Acura MDX, but it's not far off.

Of course it's not as powerful as the 2.7 but you do pay the MPG penalty and for anyone who says they don't care about gas mileage when gas is $4-$6 per gallon, I don't know what to tell you.

I have owned an F-150 with the 3.5 ecoboost and to me, that thing felt fast. When that truck broke they gave me a loaner F-150 with the 2.7 ecoboost and that felt great too. It's the same situation here, some people will want/need the extra power, but you don't need to take a dump on those who don't.

Wow. This is unhinged! Ur taking the whole thing kinda personally I'd say. It's an OPINION based on experience.

The point was to give a personal viewpoint from someone who has had experience with both. You have not apparently. Totally different in a F150 vs a Bronco. I stated the caveats with my experience and they still hold true. There are many things that can affect the end experience, including but not limited to trim level, transmission type, and gearing.

If someone is on the fence you should probably test drive them both. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of happy customers with both engines. As far as mileage goes...see below. The first pic is of my most recent 2000 mile road-trip going Death Valley, 100 degree temps for hours in the desert, over a dozen major mount passes, and a big majority of it at 80mph + in some of the most remote locations this country has to offer. The second pic is my lifetime mileage with a 2.7L 4dr Sasquatch Badlands. Judge for yourself people. I can't be any more factual than this.

You'd think I called your kid ugly or something.

 

[tourproto]

I have the 2.3 with manual and I am very happy with it. Not just from an oomph perspective, but just the overall driving experience. The clutch is un-stallable IMHO, and the gear shifts are a pleasure with very well defined "gates".

I did test drive the 2.7 auto and it had lots of oomph, but the time gap between that test drive and when I got my Bronco was several months, so not really a back-to-back comparison.

I am not going to drag race my Bronco and probably won't be taking it much over 75-80mph. On the hills I have been on so far, maintaining speed or accelerating hasn't been an issue for me.

My main complaint is how "unexciting" the 2.3 motor sounds. I didn't expect a Mustang V8 rumble, but I would have liked something a little more throaty.

 

[Jhuff]

Wow. This is unhinged! Ur taking the whole thing kinda personally I'd say. It's an OPINION based on experience.

The point was to give a personal viewpoint from someone who has had experience with both. You have not apparently. Totally different in a F150 vs a Bronco. I stated the caveats with my experience and they still hold true. There are many things that can affect the end experience, including but not limited to trim level, transmission type, and gearing.

If someone is on the fence you should probably test drive them both. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of happy customers with both engines. As far as mileage goes...see below. The first pic is of my most recent 2000 mile road-trip going Death Valley, 100 degree temps for hours in the desert, over a dozen major mount passes, and a big majority of it at 80mph + in some of the most remote locations this country has to offer. The second pic is my lifetime mileage with a 2.7L 4dr Sasquatch Badlands. Judge for yourself people. I can't be any more factual than this.

You'd think I called your kid ugly or something.

Um. Nothing unhinged there at all.

That guy was simply giving his completely different opinion to counter your own overwhelming biased opinion (based on a limited 24hr experience). These are all opinions, which can't be proven right or wrong; but for anyone on the fence out there, I would lean towards the pro-2.3L as being more useful.

Why? I'm glad I didn't come across the original blistering negative opinion before ordering, as I might have been incorrectly swayed from getting my own 2.3L Badlands (whether manual or automatic); an engine which has been amazing and has more power than a Bronco will ever need. Additionally, I'm always over 20mpg except on the interstate.

I have driven vehicles in every range of power, of all types, and if all weights. I honestly can't believe anyone truly hates a 2.3L, if it was in proper working order.

Again, this is my opinion, posted only to help future buyers.

 

[Jhuff]

My main complaint is how "unexciting" the 2.3 motor sounds. I didn't expect a Mustang V8 rumble, but I would have liked something a little more throaty.

I agree that it isn't throaty, but are you mostly hearing the piped-in noise?

When my Bronco first arrived, it had a bad connection to the DSP module which muted all sounds, including the "fake engine" sounds (apparently).

I found myself asking what people were complaining about, until I had that connection fixed. As soon as I had volume in the cabin, the engine noise immediately sounded 100% worse to me.

I'm definitely looking into muting that particular noise.

 

[tourproto]

I didn't

I agree that it isn't throaty, but are you mostly hearing the piped-in noise?

When my Bronco first arrived, it had a bad connection to the DSP module which muted all sounds, including the "fake engine" sounds (apparently).

I found myself asking what people were complaining about, until I had that connection fixed. As soon as I had volume in the cabin, the engine noise immediately sounded 100% worse to me.

I'm definitely looking into muting that particular noise.

I didn't know the Bronco had "piped in" sounds. I read that the Mustang did that. Regardless the engine sound is not very exciting/appealing. But it is what it is. Not gonna sell the car because the engine sounds anemic

 

[sic5pointslow]

My decision was based on more power. Thats pretty much all the thought I pit into it. So just enjoy what you got no matter what it is.

 

[TopRecon]

From what we’ve seen out of third party tuners as well as Ford’s own power packs, it seems like the 2.3 can be tuned with relative ease to striking distance of the 2.7. I think the only factors that remain to be seen are: Will the 2.3 be overstressed in the long-term with tuning for more power? And will the 10R60 be able to handle the output of a tuned 2.7, because its stated power ratings are very close to what the 2.7 is putting out already. On one hand, it’s possible they’ve just underrated the transmission to err on the side of caution, but on the other, Ford’s had a pretty awful reputation regarding transmissions in the last decade and they may well have simply detuned the 2.7 to keep it just under the operational limits of the 10R60.

As someone who does most of their own mechanical work, and who forsees owning their Bronco for the next few decades potentially, the 2.3 is appealing to me simply for its more compact packaging. Both engine bays look cramped, but the fact of the matter is, the 2.3 has half as many headgaskets, overhead cams, turbos, intake/exhaust manifolds, etc. If I can get 95% as much power with 40% less engine to maintain, I feel like it’s a better choice for my quality of life, nevermind the extra money saved initially. Of course I could be entirely wrong and the overburdened engine wears itself out from highway driving on 35’s, remains to be seen but I suppose that’s the one silver lining of waiting so long.

 

[BroncoBuster86]

Well as someone who has a 4dr 2.3, I can say it has plenty of power. I only got that engine because I wanted the 6sp instead of the auto. I drove it this past weekend from SoCal to Vegas and back and gave me 0 problems, I even took it through the mountains on the way back and had 0 issues. I drove a buddies 2.7 and it has power as well but for what the 2.3 is out the box you simply can’t beat IMO.

 

[heynow14]

3500 miles on my Badlands SAS 7spd. I would change nothing. I drove a 2.7L SAS at Vegas Off-roadeo a week ago - which obviously had the 10spd auto. Yawn. It was fine....but not the same.

As I expected, the manual trans is the belle of the ball. Any 2.3L vs 2.7L comparison pales in importance.

 

[Saltlife4shore]

I've been towing a 5X8 enclosed trailer roughly 1500-1800lbs 300 miles every other day for the past 2 weeks and getting 18.2mpg. And this is with a 2" rough country lift, sasquatch wheels and tires, and 3.73 rear. No trailer I'm getting 21mpg's. Plus I can't even tell I'm towing a trailer, it's smooth and still have good acceleration. Unless the turbo wastegate sensor acts up, then I have no power.

 

[Lucky Green]

Just curious what people think about both the 2.3 and the 2.7 since the Broncos release out into the wild.

I have no first hand experience with driving either engine in the Bronco but I did own the 2.3 in my Ecoboost Mustang. In short it was great in the Mustang.

So I ask this for a couple of reasons. It's seems in a lot of You tube reviews both the 2.3 and the 2.7 get similar 0 to 60 times when testing acceleration. Of course the 2.7 is a little faster but not by much. The reason being even though the 2.7 is more powerful it also weights more which negates the power advantage and makes the front end heavier. So it makes sense.

Another reason I ask is because for some still waiting for their Broncos order to be filled it seems the 2.7 is a major constraint and is the hold up. Switch to the 2.3 and boom your order will be filled faster and your Bronco will get built.

The biggest and most important reason I ask this is because of the recent issues with the 2.7s dieing. I don't know if this is because of the pandemic and Ford had to switch to a different 3rd party supplier for critical parts or what but it seems it's definitely a thing. Plenty of people on this very forum had their 2.7 engines fail. Reliability is pretty dam important when it comes to your engine.

I should note that my Bronco reservation and order is for the 2.7 as of now so I'm not cheerleadering the 2.3 or biased.

So with all this in mind is the 2.3 shaping up to be the better choice for the Bronco?

I just got my Big Bend 2 door with the 7 speed and I think it is a great engine (1200 miles as of this post) I’ve driven the 2.3 in the Ranger and thought it was great but the manual really makes the engine come alive, mostly back and forth to work. I plan on using it as a daily driver so it is more than great for me. I’ve been watching the MPG average gage and it has been around 21-23 about 80% highway and keeping it in ECO mode.

 

[Mr. Nice]

From what we’ve seen out of third party tuners as well as Ford’s own power packs, it seems like the 2.3 can be tuned with relative ease to striking distance of the 2.7. I think the only factors that remain to be seen are: Will the 2.3 be overstressed in the long-term with tuning for more power? And will the 10R60 be able to handle the output of a tuned 2.7, because its stated power ratings are very close to what the 2.7 is putting out already. On one hand, it’s possible they’ve just underrated the transmission to err on the side of caution, but on the other, Ford’s had a pretty awful reputation regarding transmissions in the last decade and they may well have simply detuned the 2.7 to keep it just under the operational limits of the 10R60.

As someone who does most of their own mechanical work, and who forsees owning their Bronco for the next few decades potentially, the 2.3 is appealing to me simply for its more compact packaging. Both engine bays look cramped, but the fact of the matter is, the 2.3 has half as many headgaskets, overhead cams, turbos, intake/exhaust manifolds, etc. If I can get 95% as much power with 40% less engine to maintain, I feel like it’s a better choice for my quality of life, nevermind the extra money saved initially. Of course I could be entirely wrong and the overburdened engine wears itself out from highway driving on 35’s, remains to be seen but I suppose that’s the one silver lining of waiting so long.

You may be right about the 2.3's durability. It's on Consumer Reports list of most likely needing a rebuild. But then again a Bronco only weighs 600-1500 pounds more than a Mustang...

2015 Ford Mustang

Chrome
2015 Ford Mustang 4-cyl.
Typical mileage: 76,000-85,000

 

[Oneand0]

I've been towing a 5X8 enclosed trailer roughly 1500-1800lbs 300 miles every other day for the past 2 weeks and getting 18.2mpg. And this is with a 2" rough country lift, sasquatch wheels and tires, and 3.73 rear. No trailer I'm getting 21mpg's. Plus I can't even tell I'm towing a trailer, it's smooth and still have good acceleration. Unless the turbo wastegate sensor acts up, then I have no power.

I think you just talked me into replacing my 33” stock Badlands with 35”s and getting an RC 2” lift when the rubber goes down enough to replace. I love my 2.3! Thanks!

Sponsored