2.3 in Squatched 2-Doors Sufficient?

[Mr. Nice]

On this note; vacuum assisted brakes have been around forever and anyone who grew up driving with them knows if you need heavy braking you give a quick double pump and they’re there. If you give a single stab you’re going to be sorely disappointed. It’s all about the technique, not the brakes. The brakes are fine.

Ok you got me started. I not talking about vacuum brakes in general just the 2.3’s in the Bronco/Ranger.
If you don’t think the 2.3’s brakes are deficient you haven’t been doing your research. They are known for mushy pedal, poor modulation, long stopping distances along with well known documented catastrophic failures. Not to mention they don’t come with one pedal drive.
Don’t shoot the messenger here. Research this forum, Ranger forum, Car and Driver and so on and you will get a education.
Just saying…

Sponsored

 

[NC_Pinz]

Ok you got me started. I not talking about vacuum brakes in general just the 2.3’s in the Bronco/Ranger.
If you don’t think the 2.3’s brakes are deficient you haven’t been doing your research. They are known for mushy pedal, poor modulation, long stopping distances along with well known documented catastrophic failures. Not to mention they don’t come with one pedal drive.
Don’t shoot the messenger here. Research this forum, Ranger forum, Car and Driver and so on and you will get a education.
Just saying…

I drive one every day and the brakes are fine and slow down 35s quite well. Hard stops or easy ones, I have no issues modulating the brakes and I have plenty of spare stopping power. The pedal travel is a little long for my taste but it is similar to other vehicles I've driven. Better than the ultra short travel my Tacoma had. You can double tap them as previously said and you do change the feel and power of the brakes.

Better than the manual drums in my '75. On par with the compressed air assisted brakes in a former vehicle and that had drums slowing 44s.

 

[Rick Astley]

Ok you got me started. I not talking about vacuum brakes in general just the 2.3’s in the Bronco/Ranger.
If you don’t think the 2.3’s brakes are deficient you haven’t been doing your research. They are known for mushy pedal, poor modulation, long stopping distances along with well known documented catastrophic failures. Not to mention they don’t come with one pedal drive.
Don’t shoot the messenger here. Research this forum, Ranger forum, Car and Driver and so on and you will get a education.
Just saying…

As someone who owns a 2019 Ranger and has towed max weight over multiple mountain passes multiple times, i'll just say that any vehicle can have issues. And that being said, we've had absolutely zero brake issues (anecdotal evidence counting for 100x more than any other evidence!). I've never experienced this performance related softness you're referencing.

There is no magic cup you sacrifice the souls of virgins into which makes the 2.7 a magically better motor and immune to issues....

There are more documented 2.7 failures on this site (44 now?) than there are documented brake issues on the 5th gen Ranger, so according to the sole data-point you referenced, all 2.7 engines are total garbage and every owner is going to die in a terrible accident!!!! OH NOES, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

And in NEITHER case, is there a documented number of issues which indicate the design as a whole, and the implementation as a whole, is compromised.

FWIW, the vacuum actuated wipers, power windows and brakes work fine in my '61 Thunderbird (not all at the same time, obviously. What are you, crazy?). Although I did switch from a generator to alternator.

 

[Mr. Nice]

As someone who owns a 2019 Ranger and has towed max weight over multiple mountain passes multiple times, i'll just say that any vehicle can have issues. And that being said, we've had absolutely zero brake issues (anecdotal evidence counting for 100x more than any other evidence!). I've never experienced this performance related softness you're referencing.

There is no magic cup you sacrifice the souls of virgins into which makes the 2.7 a magically better motor and immune to issues....

There are more documented 2.7 failures on this site (44 now?) than there are documented brake issues on the 5th gen Ranger, so according to the sole data-point you referenced, all 2.7 engines are total garbage and every owner is going to die in a terrible accident!!!! OH NOES, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

And in NEITHER case, is there a documented number of issues which indicate the design as a whole, and the implementation as a whole, is compromised.

FWIW, the vacuum actuated wipers, power windows and brakes work fine in my '61 Thunderbird (not all at the same time, obviously. What are you, crazy?). Although I did switch from a generator to alternator.

Oh my...

 

[Primm907]

Wow. Catching back up on this thread today. Lots of great responses. I'm thinking the 2.3 should be fine based on the application. We have other vehicles if I just wanna go fast.

Sponsored