2.3 EcoBoost vs 2.7 EcoBoost - Poll

[KidGorgeous]

As long as the 2.7 isn't an astronomical upcharge, I'm in. I believe it's a $1000 option on the F-150.

Do this poll again after pricing announcements for more accurate results.

I wouldn't be shocked if altogether it came out to about 3 grand if you're going from a 2.3 manual to a 2.7 auto.

Roughly $1000 for the 2.7 (as in the F150) plus another 2k for the transmission (at least that's the up-charge on the Mustang).

Sponsored

 

[Spooled]

I wouldn't be shocked if altogether it came out to about 3 grand if you're going from a 2.3 manual to a 2.7 auto.

Roughly $1000 for the 2.7 (as in the F150) plus another 2k for the transmission (at least that's the up-charge on the Mustang).

For sure. My comment was made before we knew the 2.7 was auto only

 

[Phil_68w10]

I gotta go with the 2.7 for that added torque. Hoping to utilize those GOAT modes, mainly sand and mud since I live in Texas.

 

[BroAD]

One of my biggest concerns regarding the 2.3l versus the 2.7l is the type of injection. The 2.3l has direct injection but the 2.7l has both direct & port injection. And, since the M/T only comes on the 2.3l engine, it makes this decision even more challenging.

With direct injection engines only, there is a huge concern for carbon deposits on the valves. Since direct injection only injects fuel into the cylinder, it doesn't "clean" the valve stems which causes buildup.

This is big problem with my 2012 F-150 Ecoboost 3.5l engine where I have to spray CRC Intake Valve cleaner into the engine every oil change to ensure I don't have to use an aggressive technique such as walnut blasting to remove the carbon deposits. With a direct & port injection engine, fuel is both sprayed directly into the cylinder as well as the chamber before the valves.

Jason from Engineering Explained has a great video on the differences between direct injection and direct & port injection:

Why New Cars Are Using Both Direct & Port Fuel Injection

Hope this helps everyone or just adds more questions to your overall decision.

 

[CumminsWayne]

2.3 then Cummins Swap. Hahaha.

 

[Visioneer]

I want the power of 2.7

 

[Mopar2Bronco2021]

2.7L because:

Power and torque. It’s hard to turn down 400 lbft of torque. That extra power will help through some mountains down in southwest Texas running through Big Bend. I like being able to pass people easily too. Especially on 75+ mph roads.

 

[aabsalon]

2.7L because:

Power and torque. It’s hard to turn down 400 lbft of torque. That extra power will help through some mountains down in southwest Texas running through Big Bend. I like being able to pass people easily too. Especially on 75+ mph roads.

Doesnt the 2.3 get better miles per gallon? I am going for the 2.3 because of the manual transmission.

 

[Mopar2Bronco2021]

Doesnt the 2.3 get better miles per gallon? I am going for the 2.3 because of the manual transmission.

Most likely but I bet highway mileage won’t be much different. Probably about 3 mpg difference, but even if it was 5 I wouldn’t mind for the extra torque.

 

[toymaster]

I'm ordering the 2.7. I have a 2018 3.5eb out of a burned F150 (seal belt issue) with less than 10K miles on it. Got it for another project but will investigate putting it in the Bronco.

 

[BigLig]

My wife has a 2017 Ford Edge Sport with the 2.7. We love it! Have had zero issues with it. The 2021 Bronco is rated for more power, so I’ll sold!

 

[BroAD]

Doesnt the 2.3 get better miles per gallon? I am going for the 2.3 because of the manual transmission.

I’m not sure you’ll get better mileage with the 2.3l and the manual since they are gearing the Bronco down to get a better crawl ration. With gears that low and the smaller engine, RPMs are going to be higher on highway drives.

 

[Bronco Eagle]

2.7. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it lol.

Amen!

 

[CMar]

2.3 with tune if towing capacity stays the same for the two.
2.7 if towing capacity gets bumped to 5K plus.

 

[Spudly]

2.7... though @Ford needs to up their game and the HP. 310 seems LOW for the 2.7. Torque seems spot on though.

Sponsored