2.3 vs 2.7 compromise

[Bronco2021RV]

Don't forget to add the cost of replacing two turbos. If you're going 2.7, do it because you believe it's the better motor for your needs. The 2.3 has been proven out to be a great motor, adequate for most peoples needs. If you plan on towing with a 4 door on a regular basis, I would say a 2.7 is a necessity. If you're like us empty nester 2 door freaks, the 2.3 has plenty of power to get the job done. Fords record of V6 powerplants doesn't compare to their I4 and V8. I'm not knocking the 2.7, but the reliability of the 2.3 ECO is what made our final decision.

Thanks for posting this it helps make me feel warm and fuzzy. Also I thought I needed the 2.7 just because bigger is always better I know in reality maybe not. But the big thing stopped me in my tracks from going to the 2.7 was the fact that Ford is going to put the10R60 trans in the bronco and I’m just not up for the gamble so the 2.3 is it for me

Sponsored

 

[Brianstrange]

This argument goes well past potato shaped when you're comparing engines with a total difference of LESS THAN 25 cubic inches. (2.3 ltr = 140 cubic inches. 2.7 ltr = 164 cubic inches)

The 7.2 ltr FE in my Thunderbird displaces 439 cubic inches. The 2.3 in Ranger will thoroughly destroy it all over town, especially on the race to a gas station.

The 235 cubic inch (3.8 ltr) in my '51 Fleetline topped 100 hp when new. (Single barrel carb FTMFW!)

Viable replacements for displacement here in 2021:

1. tuning
2. forced induction
3. direct injection
4. strong tailwind
5. better arguments than "there's no replacement for displacement"
6. Bronco with 2.3 comes with a manual transmission, this should end all arguments
7. fuel injection
8. proper gearing
9. Ditching anything with a torque converter

.....and then there's the "I only have one working leg" Do you have any better suggestions?

 

[havingfunyet]

Your math works for me. I switched to the 2.7 yesterday. I always want more power, but I had ordered manual transmission on the base. My husband said he wants me to get automatic for the few times he might drive it because he has bad knees and doesn't like driving manual. Well once I added that on I could get the 2.7 and sasquatch, neither of which I need, but will enjoy for the many years I keep a car for.

 

[mpeugeot]

So I've been giving the 2.3L vs 2.7L engine a lot of thought and I think that I may have come up with a way in which the 2.7 may wind up actually being cheaper, and yes, this is me totally trying to justify the bigger engine to myself. Let's say, just for the sake of simplicity that I'm going to drive the Bronco for 100k miles.

Thanks for patronizing me on my quest to justify my decisions to myself.

Let me make the math easier for you. Absent any savings at all. Let's say that you put 20k miles per year on the vehicle for 5 years (100k miles). It's roughly $1/day, $31/month, and $372 per year for the 2.7 liter motor.

To me, that's easy, sign me up for the 2.7 every time, every day!

 

[mpeugeot]

When Ford released the 3.5, it only has direct injection. Why do you think Ford redesigned the 3.5L to give it dual injection now?

As the owner of a 3.5 ecoboost with 230k miles, you are making a bigger deal of this difference than is appropriate. If you don't want your valves to be caked over, then don't drive like a kitty. My Ecoboost still runs hard.

 

[Raptor911]

yet they changed the designed tough guy.

As the owner of a 3.5 ecoboost with 230k miles, you are making a bigger deal of this difference than is appropriate. If you don't want your valves to be caked over, then don't drive like a kitty. My Ecoboost still runs hard.

 

[AZMikeL]

As the owner of a 3.5 ecoboost with 230k miles, you are making a bigger deal of this difference than is appropriate. If you don't want your valves to be caked over, then don't drive like a kitty. My Ecoboost still runs hard.

Every gas engine needs a good old Italian tuneup on occasion. Getting the internals nice and hot will blow off a lot of the carbon buildup. I try to do that to the wife's Beamer every chance I get

Deisels do too - but I prefer to call that a redneck tuneup - strap 5 tons to the back and pull it up a nice, long, steep grade with your foot in the floor!

 

[TransporterG]

Why would anyone choose the 2.3L engine? Just get a Polaris. You can easily tow it behind your F-150.

 

[TripleB]

I’ll put premium in my 2.7 L.

 

[Killed By Death]

"The most expensive thing in life is regret" ~ VanHagar

 

[Rick Astley]

Don't forget to add the cost of replacing two turbos. If you're going 2.7, do it because you believe it's the better motor for your needs. The 2.3 has been proven out to be a great motor, adequate for most peoples needs. If you plan on towing with a 4 door on a regular basis, I would say a 2.7 is a necessity. If you're like us empty nester 2 door freaks, the 2.3 has plenty of power to get the job done. Fords record of V6 powerplants doesn't compare to their I4 and V8. I'm not knocking the 2.7, but the reliability of the 2.3 ECO is what made our final decision.

Completely agree with your turbo replacement assessment.

However, the part about needing the 2.7 to tow with is as un-informed as it is an outright lie.

2020 Ford Ranger has a maximum Gross Combined Weight Rating of 12,500 lbs.

Bronco will have a GCWR of 8,780 with the 2.3 engine or 8,840 lbs with the 2.7 engine. In Amurika terms where there's no replacement for displacement, that's a total difference of 3 racks of Bud Light (60 lbs).

Now, I don't smoke crack for a living, but in my line of work as an accountant I can tell that 12,500 lbs is a lot more than 8,840 lbs.

So what about Bronco with 2.3 is incapable of towing (regardless of door count)?

Ranger GCWR source:

https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...ral/pdf/guides/20Towing_Ford_Ranger_Oct15.pdf

Bronco GCWR source:

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...iler-weight-from-2021-ford-towing-guide.9944/

 

[Brianstrange]

Completely agree with your turbo replacement assessment.

However, the part about needing the 2.7 to tow with is as un-informed as it is an outright lie.

2020 Ford Ranger has a maximum Gross Combined Weight Rating of 12,500 lbs.

Bronco will have a GCWR of 8,780 with the 2.3 engine or 8,840 lbs with the 2.7 engine. In Amurika terms where there's no replacement for displacement, that's a total difference of 3 racks of Bud Light (60 lbs).

Now, I don't smoke crack for a living, but in my line of work as an accountant I can tell that 12,500 lbs is a lot more than 8,840 lbs.

So what about Bronco with 2.3 is incapable of towing (regardless of door count)?

Ranger GCWR source:

https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...ral/pdf/guides/20Towing_Ford_Ranger_Oct15.pdf

Bronco GCWR source:

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...iler-weight-from-2021-ford-towing-guide.9944/

I’m not suggesting the 2.3 can’t tow, but you’re not going to tell me that a 2.3 4 door fully packed passengers and gear, pulling a 17’ camper with gear is going to hold strong thru hilly terrain. That’s when you need the torque. I’ll be towing a small enclosed trailer or snowmobiles /atv’s. But as soon as a standard height trailer is catching the wind with full passengers, I’m sure it will suck. My friends Ranger does, there’s no reason this will be better

 

[indio22]

You can't put a $ figure on regret

Regardless of vehicle config 4/6 cyl, regret will be buying this adventure vehicle, and not having any adventure with it.

 

[Rick Astley]

I’m not suggesting the 2.3 can’t tow, but you’re not going to tell me that a 2.3 4 door fully packed passengers and gear, pulling a 17’ camper with gear is going to hold strong thru hilly terrain. That’s when you need the torque. I’ll be towing a small enclosed trailer or snowmobiles /atv’s. But as soon as a standard height trailer is catching the wind with full passengers, I’m sure it will suck. My friends Ranger does, there’s no reason this will be better

Not sure what he's towing weight wise, what you list above is massively over what Bronco's chassis could handle. So, again, apples to oranges. Bronco does not need the 2.7 to tow it's meager 3,500 max load.

My '19 Ranger (Scab, 4x4) has hauled a 5K# trailer with 1,500# in the bed with >350 lbs of human plus more gear across the rockies without issue.

I've done the same trip with the same gear in a F350 Super Duty Dually and, yes, the F350 absolutely did it "faster" and without the driver to have any comprehension or understanding what they are doing.

However, the Ranger did just fine and there's no reason to go larger than Ranger for this annual trek (F350 was rented for the '18 pilgrimage before we took delivery of Ranger in '19).

The ability to look further than 50' ahead and understand weight in motion should be basic minimum skills whenever you've got a load capable of crushing everyone in your vehicle, plus others, to death.

 

[Jdc]

Or maybe....
Lets say you drive conservatively with the 2.3, but really want the extra power of the 2.7 so you always use premium with the V6.
Gas in California is 4.15 for regular and 4.46 for premium.
Light-footing a 2.3 for 100K miles on regular will be $23,056.
Drive it like you stole it with a 2.7 for 100K miles with premium will be $26,235, a delta of $3,179 plus the cost of the 2.7 initially.
Don't let the math drive you crazy. If you wanted to get good mileage you would be on the Prius thread.
Get the 2.7

I loved living in California but I don't miss those gas prices

Sponsored