Manual or the 2.7

[Darforce]

manual is a gimmick for boomers come at me

Not a boomer, but maybe an automatic is a crutch for millennials who are too lazy to learn to drive the right way hahahha

Sponsored

 

[Rick Astley]

FYI: Here is the forum page from the Ranger forum for engine issues. The only real concerns for Ranger, that i've seen there over the past 2 years are:

• Fuel dilution in oil, this has been mostly routed to an issue with the high-pressure fuel pump or injector seals and pops up on a small number of Rangers
  
  
• Driveshaft phasing causing vibrations: This won't be an issue with Bronco due to the transfer case and entirely different rear end and drive shaft.
  
  
  2.3 ltr Ranger TSB's and engine issues

 

[Darforce]

Pretty shocked manual is that high. I thought 20% tops

 

[Rick Astley]

Here is an interesting link on the 2.7 cast iron block - why that footstomps the reasons why I am going with the 2.7.
https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/2-7l-cast-iron-block-why.3032/

Meh, if i'm building an engine, it will be something between 250 cubic inches and 433 cubic inches (the 2.7 in F-150 is about 165 ci) these days.

Modern engines are built to such tolerances and have astronomical reliability and power handling. That the block is cast iron will definitely help it handle twin forced induction.

My '06 Evo (blue one on the dyno) used a 2.0 ltr cast iron block and was setting records for wheel horsepower on the stock turbo at over 400 whp before stepping up to a bigger snail and going over 20 psi all day long at the track. Point is: The 2.3 with a single turbo and lower psi handling is suited for it's purpose and build very well. The 2.7 will have to be built to handle more boost, especially as it's the block Ford developed to go in the next Raptors (F-150 and Ranger). Economies of scale that the block will be nearly identical across all 2.7's with lots of ansulary and rotating assembly changes between applications.

The 2.3 is plenty strong for what it's design thresholds are. If you wanted a competition rock crawler, then you're tube-framing that beehotch and throwing in an EFI V8 anyway and this thread isn't for you anyway.

 

[Broncocito]

Meh, if i'm building an engine, it will be something between 250 cubic inches and 433 cubic inches (the 2.7 in F-150 is about 165 ci) these days.

Modern engines are built to such tolerances and have astronomical reliability and power handling. That the block is cast iron will definitely help it handle twin forced induction.

My '06 Evo (blue one on the dyno) used a cast iron block and was setting records for wheel horsepower on the stock turbo at over 400 whp before stepping up to a bigger snail and going over 20 psi all day long at the track. Point is: The 2.3 with a single turbo and lower psi handling is suited for it's purpose and build very well. The 2.7 will have to be built to handle more boost, especially as it's the block Ford developed to go in the next Raptors (F-150 and Ranger). Economies of scale that the block will be nearly identical across all 2.7's with lots of ansulary and rotating assembly changes between applications.

The 2.3 is plenty strong for what it's design thresholds are. If you wanted a competition rock crawler, then you're tube-framing that beehotch and throwing in an EFI V8 anyway and this thread isn't for you anyway.

That is a sweet T-bird.

 

[Rick Astley]

That is a sweet T-bird.

That's the '63 that tried to kill me while street tuning the built 7.1 ltr (up from the stock 6.4).... Photo taken about 4 hours before nearly dying wrapped around a telephone pole. The new one (1961 vintage) is more of a pussycat with that same engine transplanted over.

Overall I just don't see people being disappointed with the 2.3, it's a phenomenal engine for a truck or off-road application. And with the crawler gear that thing is going to be putting down about eleventy-thousand foot lbs of baby-making thrust so the overall hp/tq is even less important when you have an obscene 95 crawl ratio!

Here's the "new" Thunderbird. Saved it from Houston mere months before hurricane Harvey absolutely WRECKED the extended families home and destroyed their garage along with all their cars. from 1st gen corvette's to Bel Airs, all gone in a night.....

 

[LOMartin]

Whoa. Surprised it’s so close. I would have expected the automatics to be winning by a mile.

sticks are for my sports cars. A daily truck is auto. Live on the East coast so wheeling all the time ain’t a thing for me.

also having multiple cars allows you to DD an auto for confort and ease of having other drive if needed; while having a other stick cars for fun.

 

[Broncocito]

That's the '63 that tried to kill me while street tuning the built 7.1 ltr (up from the stock 6.4).... Photo taken about 4 hours before nearly dying wrapped around a telephone pole. The new one (1961 vintage) is more of a pussycat with that same engine transplanted over.

Overall I just don't see people being disappointed with the 2.3, it's a phenomenal engine for a truck or off-road application. And with the crawler gear that thing is going to be putting down about eleventy-thousand foot lbs of baby-making thrust so the overall hp/tq is even less important when you have an obscene 95 crawl ratio!

Here's the "new" Thunderbird. Saved it from Houston mere months before hurricane Harvey absolutely WRECKED the extended families home and destroyed their garage along with all their cars. from 1st gen corvette's to Bel Airs, all gone in a night.....

That sucks. There is just something I like about the birds. I want to get a 66.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the performance of the 2.3. You know where I am coming from, but let's just see how it works out.

 

[rapidredbronco2021]

Comparing them back to back, the 2.7 is sure to feel stronger with that much more torque. The question is really if the 2.3 is a slouch and should disqualify itself as a "penalty box" engine instead of a viable power plant for this application?

The answer to that question is a resounding NO! The 2.3 has plenty of torque for the application, it is also refined and smooth (if you take the automatic transmission out of the conversation). Having driven a Ranger with the 2.3 for about 5,000 miles I will confirm what those on the Ranger forums have been saying for the past few years: This is a more-than-capable engine even if you're at max load (7,500 lbs towing, and another 1.2K lbs in the bed) the Ranger hauls it without drama and feels that it has more to give. It's tow rating is frame-dependent in the same way that Bronco is stuck with a class 2 hitch (3,500 lbs). They can't have it compete against the F-150. The 2.3 engine stands on it's own merits and is PLENTY of engine for the Bronco.



The take-rate for Sasquatch will be higher in the pre-sales than regular retail sales will be in 2 years time. It's essentially a package which removes the vehicle from daily driving duties for many people. My guess is that they will be special order for most dealerships once the initial rush on Bronco dies down.

As for feeling the 2.3 engine in the Ranger, I strongly suggest you do so.
If your goal is to compare a potential Bronco 2.3/MT against the 2.7/AT then you absolutely MUST put the ranger transmission into sport mode and I also suggest locking out the 7th - 10th gears. This will give you a drastically more accurate comparison against how a human might shift gears as the 10AT in the Ranger will basically "sprint" to 10th gear as fast as possible and you will wonder why the engine feels down on power and torque. The engine has tons of torque at 3,000-4,000 RPM, but that transmission will have you shifting at 2,800 RPM all the way up to 10th gear.... Which is why, IMHO, the NON-Sasquatch 2.3 paired with AT for the Bronco should be the lowest selling drivetrain combination in existence.

Hope you enjoy the drive and I encourage you to give your honest feedback via a dedicated thread on your experience. There are a LOT of people here who just want to buy the larger engine because it's larger and therefor the smaller engine won't be sufficient. That is not the case here.

I appreciate your input and will be doing more reading into owners opinions on living with that engine in the Ranger. Obviously there would be differences in the performance comparing the Range to both the four door and two door. I could see the two door preforming good with the inline four paired with the manual. But I honestly want the manual because its a dying trend and I would like to help keep them around. It's just the under power aspect that has me questions which way to go, which is why a started this thread. It's not that I want the 2.7 just because its the biggest engine option but because I driven cars in the past and felt there just enough power but nothing more. There's nothing worse than a under powered car or SUV or truck. I fear the Bronco feeling under power in both transmission options. I do have to say if the manual was an option on the 2.7, I don't think it would be a hard decision for me to make. But I want peoples opinions and hear what other future 2021 Bronco owners are planing on building their Bronco.

I completely understand peoples arguments of opting for the bigger engine and also the disappointment in Ford not having the 5.0 as an engine option (even though we all knew Ford wouldn't give it to us). People love the 5.0 in the Mustang and F-150, mainly for the power but you can't argue with the amazing sound that comes from it (especially with an aftermarket exhaust). However, I could see a future Bronco with a manual paired to the 2.7 maybe when they want to draw more attention to the Bronco after a few years of it being on sale. But who knows maybe the manual would just be the better transmission option for the 2.3 inline four.

People love their engine options and I don't doubt or disbelieve the owners that say they love that engine in the Ranger. But I'm curious how the take rate would be or would've been if there was a bigger engine option in the Ranger and maybe this 2.7 with be in the redesigned Ranger.

I'm just here to look for more opinions and discussions on the matter until we get to build our Broncos.

 

[Broncocito]

That is a good question if the Ranger offered the 2.7...

 

[Hkak45]

I really miss having a manual trans as I was talked into going auto with my current car... that was a mistake so I won’t make this mistake with the bronco! Plus if the manual ends up sucking we can always sell it for auto as Auto will always be around but no one knows if they will always have manual.

 

[rapidredbronco2021]

Whoa. Surprised it’s so close. I would have expected the automatics to be winning by a mile.

sticks are for my sports cars. A daily truck is auto. Live on the East coast so wheeling all the time ain’t a thing for me.

also having multiple cars allows you to DD an auto for confort and ease of having other drive if needed; while having a other stick cars for fun.

I do think in that mind set, manuals in sports cars and autos in trucks or SUVs. If I was building a Mustang the engine and transmission choice would be an easy pick for me, 5.0 with the manual just because it would be more fun to drive. But I think the Bronco could still be fun with a manual.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

There are a LOT of people here who just want to buy the larger engine because it's larger and therefor the smaller engine won't be sufficient. That is not the case here.

I've been burnt by the "smaller motor should be fine" bug a few times over the years, primarily in trucks and sports cars.
I've been DD-ing this measely 2.5L, NA Outback 4 banger for a few years and I have to say, it gets the job done, really well. It's not a rocketship, but I have never had concerns merging on to a highway....and I prefer to merge high speeds. A big thing is Subaru has been getting the gearing right for decades now, which really helps. The math seems to show that Ford has gotten theirs down also.

I'll also add, I test drove a fresh off the truck 4 banger Outback and it was a SLUG. Swore I'd get a sixer. Then I test drove this one used and it drove TOTALLY different.... it was ALL in the learning tranny.

But the manual Bronco, I'm not hard core wanting a manual and would probably be happier with the auto in my daily, BUT , the daughter (14) wants to learn on one and she is excited about this thing also. I'm not about to deny her that memory!

I am however, VERY disappointed that Squatch4man cannot happen. I was happy as hell to read in the comments of that article that I am not the only one that who cannot compute this illogic ....not pairing the most capable low geared, offroad tranny with the most capable suspension/tire set up.
10: Print "DOES NOT COMPUTE"
20: go to 10
30: end

 

[rapidredbronco2021]

I am however, VERY disappointed that Squatch4man cannot happen. I was happy as hell to read in the comments of that article that I am not the only one that who cannot compute this illogic ....not pairing the most capable low geared, offroad tranny with the most capable suspension/tire set up.
10: Print "DOES NOT COMPUTE"
20: go to 10
30: end

I am as well, I have a feeling they're holding off to add more in the future new year models just bring back more hype for the Bronco. Obviously after the hype dies down and they need to stir up attention back to the Bronco

 

[HoosierDaddy]

That is a good question if the Ranger offered the 2.7...

I see it happening with the next make over ....2023 is it?

People keep saying that the Bronco is using a frame from the Ranger, whereas, early on in this forum, it was stated that the Bronco is being designed with an eye towards the Ranger sharing the same platform .....IE, the Ranger is being redesigned to fit the Bronco, not the other way around.
They're putting A LOT into this Bronco platform and basing other existing vehices around IT, if that says anything.

Sponsored