Debating on 2.3 vs 2.7 engine?

[DriveAllNight]

That'll preach. The number of people who spent $7k for bigger tires is astonishing.

I don't have first hand knowledge of this because I never drove or rode in a NonSasquatch Bronco, but I was told the ride is a lot smoother in Sasquatch and a lot harder in a non.

One of the reasons I went with the WildTrak over the Badlands was an effort to get the best ride possible, which to me meant the Fox shocks or swap out day one.

So I don't agree that people just want bigger tires.

Sponsored

 

[Arrowbear Rider]

There's a point of serious off-roading where the pendulum swings back too. By the time I'm done every single component that Sasquatch includes will have been upgraded. I should have started with a plain base.

Nope, lockers and gear ratios. Can't really find a solution for that on the 3.73 gearing that doesn't cost more than the sas package.

I've seen Mike wheeling and he's right. And you're right too. I'm a moderate wheeler with thousands of miles of off road, but that was in trucks with 30" tires and only a LSD in the back, if that, and the Sasquatch package has allowed me to up my experience right out of the box and do trails that I've never done before. In Moab I was comfortable doing trails rated 6 or so and my Bronco could have done more; that gave me the confidence to do trails like Hell's Revenge on day one. The fact that a manufacture offers 35" tires with oil reservoir shocks, front & rear lockers and... And it all comes with a warranty, is pretty great for most of us.

Mike goes harder and farther than me and was out on the "you can break stuff" trails and many of those guys have already had to replace components; not only do they wheel hard, they carry a lot of weight in tools (to also help others, thanks guys!) and some spare parts...

Like I said, they go harder than most.

The gear ratios are a good argument too, but Mike & I have manuals so the gear ratio would have been the same with or without Sasquatch. The advance transfer case better. And some of those guys upgrade so much regarding rack & suspension that adding air lockers make sense over the e-lockers.

I love my 2.3 with the manual and it's got more power than any of my previous mid size trucks; when those turbos kick in, merging on to the hwy is fun and the power is more than adequate for a brick.

 

[SoCalBroncoMan7]

Here's my write-up on why I love my 2.3

1. I wanted the manual so this was my only option but it steered me in right direction and for the better
2. I get 19.3 MPG and have 12,000 miles into my HE (Sasquatch package). When I use 91 octane I consistently get over 20mpg
3. It has PLENTY of power... I drive a canyon to work everyday, I cruise at 75mph on the freeway, and if you really feel like scooting around you can throw in in sport mode.
4. Whether you have the 10spd automatic or the manual transmission the bronco allows you to efficiently use that power. I have taken my bronco off road and with the low gears (Crawler for me) and you have all the power you need.
5. Engine reliability vs. the 2.7 is unmatched compared to issues reported!
6. Only downside I could see is if your pulling a trailer but either way you have a 3500lb limit and I wouldn't be surprised if the 2.3 would do the job anyway.

my 2 cents..

 

[Boostedblues]

I love my 2.7 in my Bronco! I believe they are good engines. my buddy has a 2.7 in his F-150 that has 80k miles and its doing just fine. Mine has 23k and so far so good. I can get 18-19mpg out of it going 70-73 mph That said, I really love the 2.3 in my Focus RS. I love all the turbo noises and the backfires. Makes you feel like you are driving a true rally car. Both are great engines. All the problems and failures are put under a microscope and blown out of proportion in my opinion. I really believe it the luck of the draw sometimes. But hey that's why there are warranties.

 

[Brian_B]

So here's another way to look at it, by the numbers:
Stock tuning, premium fuel
2.3: 300 hp/325 ftlbs
2.7: 330 hp/415 ftlbs
3.0: 418 hp / 440 ftlbs

ProCal tuning, premium fuel
2.3: 330 hp/385 ftlbs
2.7: 355 hp/433 ftlbs
3.0 (no procal tune for this yet)

Curb weight (we don't really care about the actual weight, looking more for the delta between engines, at least as best we can tell - numbers are pulled from Base model for consistency)
2.3 Manual: 4286 lbs
2.3 Auto: 4306
2.7 Auto: 4458
3.0 Raptor: 5,733

Power/weight ratio Stock
2.3 Manual: 300 / 4286 = 0.07000 hp/lb
2.3 Auto: 300 / 4306 = 0.06967
2.7 Auto: 330 / 4458 = 0.07402
3.0 Raptor: 418 / 5733 = 0.07291

Power/weight ratio ProCal
2.3 Manual: 330 / 4286 = 0.07699 hp/lb
2.3 Auto: 330 / 4306 = 0.07664
2.7 Auto: 355 / 4458 = 0.07963
3.0 Raptor: 418 / 5733 = 0.07291 (no change since no tune)

With respect to power - the 2.3 and 2.7 are really very closely matched - kinda makes sense I guess, their displacements aren't that far apart either (0.4 liters). The Raptor nano is a big jump up. Where the 2.7 really shines is torque output, that displacement and second turbo really help with the lower end and max torque in general, whereas the 2.3 has to rev to get there and still won't quite get to the same torque value.

ProCal really helps the 2.3, and it's no slouch on the 2.7 but gains are somewhat muted there. You can see, with ProCal, even the lowly 2.3 engine actually exceed the power/weight ratio of the Raptor by a good margin. And the general consensus of 2.3 + ProCal = 2.7 Stock is not far from the mark

Granted, bigger wheels, armor, metal bumpers, etc. are going to detract from that ratio as they add overall weight to your package, so these hp/weight ratios don't universally hold true, especially across all the different packages, but this was more an exercise to try to get a feel for the differences in the engines rather than all the variations of all builds. Will be exciting to see what the tune on the 3.0 nano ends up doing.

To the question "2.3 vs 2.7" - there is definitely a personal preference there, and a clear torque difference which you can see while wheeling, or going up to much larger tires (37's+), or throwing on a lot of aftermarket armor / upgrades - although a good bit of that can be mitigated by gear ratio (and portals, in the extreme). The towing capacity is so low on all Broncos the torque difference is inconsequential for that regard - you are so limited on capacity by the suspension the extra torque won't really matter that much (in my opinion).

But as far as sheer power and the ability to move the Bronco around - all the options, even the Raptor, are pretty well matched. Especially when you throw ProCal into the mix.

 

[JEMSA]

In my mind 2.3 with manual peppier than 2.7 auto.

The point being, they aren’t very different and isn’t worth the cost in terms of your delay. Unless your plan is to race, 2.3 will do whatever is needed.

I’ve never been in the wild or pavement including towing a moving uhaul from east coast to Phoenix chock full including. 500 lb motorcycle where I felt the 2.3 was limiting.

It’s more of a self-satisfying “I got the biggest” than it adds any meaningful capability.

 

[MNBigfoot]

I know they aren't meant to be drag cars, but the fact that the little 4-banger makes the Bronco slower than the wife's 4800# Toyota minivan puts things into perspective. I used to wheel in a 105 hp XJ and a Tocama with a 4 banger, so I realize on the trails the 2.3 can get it done.

 

[CarmeloS]

About to leave work, so I'll look at the other pages later.

Comes down to this imo, do you want a manual or not?

 

[Patrickgault]

I'd go for the 2.7. I would rather wait the months in order to get the extra power plus I'd imagine the resale would be better. My 2.7, 2door rips down the road and sounds pretty good too. The only reason I'd get the 2.3 is if I wanted the manual Trans.

 

[bigblockfox545]

cant go wrong with either one. really depends on how fast you need it and whether you want a manual or not

both engines were introduced at similar times in 2015 model vehicles. both are some of fords best gas engine's.

i work at a ford dealer and we service alot of fleet f150's and most of them have the 2.7. for every 1 bronco with a 2.7 their is 100 f150's. they have next to no issues. work trucks with 150000 miles. great fuel economy and power. dont let the computer warriors tell you about oil pump belt and what not. ford didnt slap in a traditional belt thinking it would be oil friendly. this is not a new technology. yes they had a batch of bad valves in a few 2021 models but that was a part that was not manufactured properly and not the fault of the engines. also in 2015, earlier f150's had an oil pan problem. the 2.7 shares the same compact graphite iron (cgi) as the 6.7 powerstroke. it has the most robust bed plate design i have seen in a production engine. both direct injection and port injection. if ford desgined it to power the f150 while towing a 8500lb trailer, it will do just fine in a bronco.

2.3 is another excellent engine with very few issues. if fuel economy is an priority this one be my choice. definitely simpler in design and layout. not as robust as the 2.7. it was first design to replace the 3.7 from the mustang in 2015 and then later made its way into the ranger and explorer. the 2.3 was never meant to be 1/2 ton truck engine. i would imagine the 2.7 would out number the 2.3, 2 : 1 in overall engine production #'s. I really doubt one is more reliable then the other. will the 2.7 cost more to repair, for sure because their is 2 of everything.

knowing all of this, i went with the 2.7. not because i thought it was "better", but because it suited my needs better. knowing i was going sasquatch, 37's, not be my daily and the wife isn't interested in a manual, the choice was easy.

 

[the poacher]

2.3 for the win, because it is the only engine you can get the MT with.

 

[Alanp970]

That'll preach. The number of people who spent $7k for bigger tires is astonishing.

It is so much more than just bigger tires. The capability it provides IS pretty astonishing. But yes if you’re just planning on mild wheeling (or never wheeling) it’s a waste of money.

 

[Owl]

I ordered a 2 Dr 2.7, but took a Ranger out with a 2.3 and tried to change my order because the Ranger with 4 cyl/auto was plenty good enough. I also think the 2.3 under-the-hood looks better (not so cluttered and probably easier to work on), and there is one less turbo to break down.

However, I ended up with the 2.7/auto in my Base as the dealer said I'd be back of the line (just like you).. I swapped my 16" tires for OBX rims/tires. I'm happy enough with that also.

I don't think you can go wrong either way. The only thing I'd really change is I wish I had ordered either SAS or a Big Bend with the 4.27 rear eLocker. However (again) -- I like my gas MPG. About 22-24 on the highway.

I don't think the engine should be used to make or break your decision. I think either one would be a good pick.

In your Outer Banks I'd definitely go with the 4.27 + eLocker unless you plan on doing a lot of offroading. That's what I told my daughter to get in her Oute rBanks (and she did)... as she might on occasion go offroading, but not really that much. She has a pretty hefty commute so the gas savings over SAS will be pretty great (out here in high-priced-gas California).

 

[broncobase1]

I've had both engines. The 2.3 is a good motor for most applications. I will say that oil changes on the 2.7 are alot easier imo. Mileage is identical between the two, if that's a concern. I prefer the 2.7 just a little more. I've had both tops as well. Prefer the hard top, but the soft top wasn't horrible.

The oil filter on the 2.3L is not in the best location, but its simple enough once you figure out how to reach in there. I much prefer spin-on filters over the euro-trash cartridge type.

 

[BradAd]

My 2dr 2024 Badlands just came in last month . . . I only have 641 miles on it so far, but I am very happy with gearing/power. The manual was a non-negotiable for me, so I have the 2.3.

I waited . . . because rumors were all over these forums , that Ford was finally going to offer the 7 speed with the 2.7. That didn't happen. I decided that 30 hp was not going to keep me from waiting any longer. In-line engines have less moving parts than V engines. Also, the vertical movement has less wear on internal parts than everything being at an angle . . .

As for the Sasquatch, if you can afford it, skip the Sasquatch and order a Badlands instead. I promise you that it will be less headaches (and probably less money) to try to add lockers, lifts, skid plates, etc later on.

Badlands has everything that the Sasquatch pkg does except 35's . . . I think it looks better with the 33's and a little more space between the tires and fenders. PLUS, you get a 94.75:1 crawl ratio!

Sponsored