Everglades Or Badlands?

[Glade Runner]

The Everglades does indeed offer a LOT of bang for the buck. It's only sales detractor is the unavailability of the V6, which is ironic given the 2.3L's 300 horsepower has a ridiculous amount of power.
As a career truck engineer, I tend to be particular. I am thrilled with the power, and fuel economy, of the 2.3L (in both of my Broncos).

You misspelled “V8”

Sponsored

 

[MNBigfoot]

Sure, I could build one. But 1) Heritage edition is ugly and looks tacky to me 2)color options suck 3) interior is ugly. I feel like Ford dropped the ball on that model. Either way, appreciate the recommendation. Just know the heritage edition is not for us.

No arguments there, of course the Everglades with the stupid snorkel and decal is no beauty queen either (at least the sticker can be quickly removed). I was simply saying hands down the HE is best value Sas Bronco (non-sas BL), looks aside. And you aren't limited to the 4 banger.

 

[Kevin Scarbel]

Sure, I could build one. But 1) Heritage edition is ugly and looks tacky to me 2)color options suck 3) interior is ugly. I feel like Ford dropped the ball on that model. Either way, appreciate the recommendation. Just know the heritage edition is not for us.

The Heritage Limited is overpriced, and the black rims ruin it.
However, and granted I'm biased as an owner, I like the regular Heritage particularly because of the white rims (designed to mimic the 1st gen white steel disc rims), and the spectacular white grille that uniquely and appropriately says "Ford" rather than "Bronco" (the only model with a "Ford" grille).

 

[mpeugeot]

Here's the big problem I see, you can't get the high/lux package or the 2.7 on the Everglades. So if she wants those features... Everglades is off the list.

That leaves you with few other choices in 2024.

Non-sasquatch Badlands 2.3/2.7 would be that choice.

If mid-package is acceptable, then you have other choices.

Non-sasquatch Badlands 2.7 mid package is $58k.

Non-sasquatch Badlands 2.3 mid package is $54k.

Black Diamond Sasquatch 2.7 mid package is $56k

Black Diamond Sasquatch 2.3 mid package is $54k

Both the Black Diamond and the Badlands can be had with a 2.3. Also the Heritage edition (despite the bukakke interior) is a contender for best bang for the buck.

Personally, I would take the Badlands non-Sasquatch over the Black Diamond Sasquatch most of the time.

Also, I love having the 2.7 - 100k miles and still going strong.

 

[rdg04578]

The everglades is designed with off road in mind first--so if your not spending the majority of your time on dirt or offroad with it your not going to be happy. Off road the lux package, front camera is all bling and not too useful. It's nice going through tall grass and brush and not having all kinds of alarms going of--pain in the ass to back up in tall brush and grass because the sensors are in panic mode. the snorkel is loud with the passenger window down. The 2.3 feels a little winded in deep mud and highway speeds as compared to the 2.7. Ditch the crappy stock good years for tire with aggressive tread and it is more noticeable when you need instant wheel spin. So after reading through this --you should not even consider the everglades--because you will be disappointed. For me the everglades was the only choice since I do not rock crawl and about 80% of my miles involves no pavement

 

[CitrusBronco]

I went with the Everglades, I test drove 3 different V6 variants of the Bronco and when I test drove the Everglades I found the I4 had plenty of power. I never have the feeling that I am without enough power. I wheel often here in FL, lots of sugar sand, water holes and some pretty off camber and full flex areas.
Would I have taken the V6, sure that almost 100 ftlb of TQ is always welcome, but I never feel the I4 is anemic in any way. Huge surprise since I was certain that no any would I get that little I4 in a 4 door.
Everglades is best bang for the buck in the lineup.
Get the V6 if you feel that knowing you have the most power is important. However the I4 has plenty of power, more than many of the V6's of just a few years ago.

 

[SoDak1623]

I drove both and I’m telling ya, the 2.3 is for city/highway driving but won’t perform as good on the trail due to the considerably less torque. You can tune a 2.3 all you want but it’ll always be missing 2 cylinders and the twin turbo. I say go with the 2.7. Try to build a badlands with no lux package and see how much difference the price will be

Lmao what a fallacy. I've never run into a situation where the 2.3 doesn't have enough power off road. These posts are really outing people who don't know what they are talking about. That 2.3 has more horsepower and torque than any previous engine offering in a bronco from 1966-1996. You can also get much lower gearing than you could in any old gen bronco. You don't see people who off road those broncos bitching about not enough power, so IDK why every princess here tells everyone asking for advice that "hurr durr, can't off road with the 2.3 and without sasquatch! Its impossible!"

I'm starting to remember why I hate most forums these days.

 

[MaximuNashville]

Chiming in since I’ve owned both although others seemed to have nailed it. I just got back into a bronco after getting rid of my 2.7 loaded out badlands and went with an Everglades this time around. I just couldn’t personally justify the price difference between the two. Two things I loved about the badlands for my use cases/driving habits were the 2.7 and the 360 cameras. Personally the disconnect wasn’t a big deal but totally get that it is for some. I’d say the 4 cylinder vs the 6 is a big difference in driving. The 2.7 purs and is clearly more powerful in real life. The 4… not so much. I prefer the 2.7 hands down but it wasn’t a deal breaker for me. Whenever I get bummed I just crack the passenger window and listen to the turbo noises accentuated by the snorkel and I’m taken to a happy place. I think if you want the 2.7, leather, and the other lux items you have to go badlands or you’ll regret it. If (like me) you’d prioritize the winch, pull out, marine vinyl, and Everglades look you can save a ton of cash.
All stuff you already knew/said so maybe not helpful in the end but man…. That’s some serious money difference right!?

 

[TXBronco1313]

Lmao what a fallacy. I've never run into a situation where the 2.3 doesn't have enough power off road. These posts are really outing people who don't know what they are talking about. That 2.3 has more horsepower and torque than any previous engine offering in a bronco from 1966-1996. You can also get much lower gearing than you could in any old gen bronco. You don't see people who off road those broncos bitching about not enough power, so IDK why every princess here tells everyone asking for advice that "hurr durr, can't off road with the 2.3 and without sasquatch! Its impossible!"

I'm starting to remember why I hate most forums these days.

I’ve owned both Broncos and drove both engines and this was my experience. If you’re comparing the old 90s Bronco to the new one then you totally missed the point of this thread. The 2.7 is more capable than the 2.3 and that’s just a fact. The dude is trying to get ppls advise on what works best for him so chill out

 

[SoDak1623]

I’ve owned both Broncos and drove both engines and this was my experience. If you’re comparing the old 90s Bronco to the new one then you totally missed the point of this thread. The 2.7 is more capable than the 2.3 and that’s just a fact. The dude is trying to get ppls advise on what works best for him so chill out

Yeah, and you're giving bad advice by saying that the 2.7 is the only good option for off road and that the 2.3 will be lacking power. That's flat out wrong and is easily disproven. Your experience driving both doesn't mean anything compared to the hard data given the power figures, gearing, etc... especially compared to the competition in say a jeep with a non turbo 3.6 v6 that makes less power and torque than both Ford offerings and at higher RPM. Those people seem to get along fine off road as well.

 

[TXBronco1313]

Yeah, and you're giving bad advice by saying that the 2.7 is the only good option for off road and that the 2.3 will be lacking power. That's flat out wrong and is easily disproven. Your experience driving both doesn't mean anything compared to the hard data given the power figures, gearing, etc... especially compared to the competition in say a jeep with a non turbo 3.6 v6 that makes less power and torque than both Ford offerings and at higher RPM. Those people seem to get along fine off road as well.

The “hard data” obviously shows the 2.7 makes more torque than a 2.3. I never said the 2.3 wont be good for off-roading, I said “won’t perform as good” given the hard data you’re talking about….

 

[SoDak1623]

The “hard data” obviously shows the 2.7 makes more torque than a 2.3. I never said the 2.3 wont be good for off-roading, I said “won’t perform as good” given the hard data you’re talking about….

The 2.7 isn't going to do OP any better in the rock crawling and general off roading he specified in his post. That's how it is.

 

[Oldhippie]

I

Yeah, and you're giving bad advice by saying that the 2.7 is the only good option for off road and that the 2.3 will be lacking power. That's flat out wrong and is easily disproven. Your experience driving both doesn't mean anything compared to the hard data given the power figures, gearing, etc... especially compared to the competition in say a jeep with a non turbo 3.6 v6 that makes less power and torque than both Ford offerings and at higher RPM. Those people seem to get along fine off road as well.

prety sure no one said a 2.3 is “lacking power” or can’t offroad…but yes it does have less power than a 2.7…and yes more power is better almost every time…and speaking of complaining about gen 1 power is a thing, I put a 400 in mine and there are plenty of built 351s and coyotes in them…glad you are happy with your 2.3 but it is not for everyone…different strokes for different folks…

 

[rdg04578]

The 2.7 isn't going to do OP any better in the rock crawling and general off roading he specified in his post. That's how it is.

now if you were Baja blasting or or Dune jumping then....................................

 

[userdude]

The “hard data” obviously shows the 2.7 makes more torque than a 2.3. I never said the 2.3 wont be good for off-roading, I said “won’t perform as good” given the hard data you’re talking about….

Personally, I just feel like you'd have to really pack your rig down and/or do some really tough lines to even see a difference e.g. getting through the obstacle. I haven't yet found a place where my 2.3 can't go without issue, but it's not like I'm doing Slick Rock or Fordyce. Full disclosure, 2dr, maybe that does make a difference but a guy I go out with hasn't had an issue either.

In fact, one time I did little red obstacle in Baja mode by accident and pushed the rock over cuz it had too much power (wait baja?!?!). Every time I go back to Northwest now, the guy gives me a ribbing. Last time, "hey I got some spray paint you wanna put your name on that rock." Har har. lol

Sponsored