2.3 or a 2.7

[nc-hiker]

Legitimate question...why would anyone WANT a smaller, less powerful engine?

Because it's lighter. I'm not religious about it. I have the 2.3 now. I had the 2.7 in my first Bronco. They're both fine. I just like driving around with the top off.

Sponsored

 

[nc-hiker]

I wanted a manual too, but not at the expense of 40hp and nearly 100ft lbs of tq. These stupid bricks are slow enough already. It would be torture to drive a 2.3 as a daily. Sure, crawling is probably barely noticeable until the missing torque is actually needed

The 10-speed automatic makes it barely feel different. I just got a loaner a couple of weeks ago while the dealer did recall work all day and the differences in daily driving feel are negligible.

 

[nc-hiker]

Ah yes...the standard answer. Do you regularly drive on trails where breakover angle and tighter turns would make the use of a 4 door impossible? Typically the answer to that is no, but every once in a while there are actually some folks on forums who do that type of trail running.

Honestly, I'm not knocking it. Drive what makes you happy. Do I "need" 600hp? No...but it makes me happy.

The main thing that kept me out of the 2-door is the smaller fuel tank and low range. It's a shame, really. It's a heavy vehicle that gets 18-22 mpg depending on motor, conditions, and how you drive it. It needs a 20+ gallon fuel tank.

 

[nc-hiker]

I have the 2.3. Love it. Noticeably power increase on 93 octane. Nothing wrong with more power. However with all the gadgets, phasers, hoses, and turbos on these things, I think the 2.7 will be much more expensive to repair if kept long enough.

That's right. It would be interesting to see if drivers can tell a difference between the 2.3 on 93 Octane vs. the 2.7 on 87 Octane.

 

[nc-hiker]

No flappy paddles with the slushbox? That's a bummer. Even some CVT's have paddles.

I don't want paddles in my Bronco.

 

[nc-hiker]

Do you really notice a power difference between 87 and 93 octane. I need to know if its worth it or not

Very noticeable for my 2025 2.3. Fuel prices are down nowadays and I pay for the higher octane.

 

[MilesTeg]

The only correct choice is the 2.3L, because it's the only choice you have for the 7MT.

Manual for life!



In all seriousness, get what you want but I do read a lot that the 2.3L is more reliable. But, you'd want to verify that as I have not. Ford's been making that engine for decades -- only "recently" added a turbo to it -- and it's very refined in terms of reliability.

As far as power, the 2.3L has less juice, but is also considerably lighter so its actual disadvantage is less than it looks on paper. I do, however, run 91/93 because I am spoiled with all my other vehicles that have all been high end engines.

 

[not on the rug]

Come on, some of those are now called "hot hatches", and the kids wax and shine them to the same extent we did with Chevelle's and Camaro's, kinda a modern day El Camino.

I loved the Japanese tuner scene of the 90s and my 240 was one of my favorite cars that I've ever owned. I've seen 1st hand 700hp hondas, nissans and Toyotas so I know what a well-built little hatch can do.

That is definitely not what I was talking about

 

[not on the rug]

The 10-speed automatic makes it barely feel different. I just got a loaner a couple of weeks ago while the dealer did recall work all day and the differences in daily driving feel are negligible.

100 lb ft of torque is definitely noticeable. Noticeable to the tune of 1.5 second difference 0-60 in most tests. 1.5 seconds in a 0-60 is a massive difference.

 

[not on the rug]

That's right. It would be interesting to see if drivers can tell a difference between the 2.3 on 93 Octane vs. the 2.7 on 87 Octane.

I can tell the difference in 87 vs 93 in my 2.7. I intentionally tested them both early on. I also had my wife fill up once for me and she accidentally got 87 and it felt noticeably sluggish.

Side note: I always drive in sport mode and flip back to 2wd too. Most responsive way to drive these vehicles.

 

[Beachin 74]

One thing I learned buying vehicles or boats, power is a good thing. "It's always better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."
2.7 all the way!

 

[Rydfree]

The 10-speed automatic makes it barely feel different. I just got a loaner a couple of weeks ago while the dealer did recall work all day and the differences in daily driving feel are negligible.

On that I would certainly disagree. Different people have different perspectives. When I test drove a Bronco while waiting on my reservation to get delivered, all the dealership had was 2.3s. I had a 2020 Ranger at the time with the 2.3 and the little 2.3 4banger was the only thing I disliked about it. I made some comments about the 2.3 to the salesman and he said don't worry, you're going to love the 2.7. He was right. Night and day IMO. If the Ranger had the 2.7 back then I probably would still be in it.

 

[Area51BS]

Do you really notice a power difference between 87 and 93 octane. I need to know if its worth it or not

It is noticeable, but not a huge amount. I typically do run 93 unless I’m going on long distance drives burning gas. Then use 87. However mine is a 22 with 19k miles. I don’t drive daily so 93 isn’t a cost issue.

 

[Blackcat]

I have the 2.3 in my 2 DR and it suits my needs. Had they offered the 2.7 with a M/T, that’s what I would’ve ordered. I bet the 2.7 is really fun in a Bronco.

 

[Red2000]

Definitely hands down get the 2.7 twin turbo , and if you'd like a manual get the 2.7 twin turbo and pray one day they'll attach a better transmission tremec to the 2.7

I was not thrilled about the shift-by-cable manual transmission design in the bronco.

Sponsored