Looking for 2.3 owners input

[arwhite]

I bought a 2.3 because I wanted manual trans. At the time I felt like I was having to compromise. Three months later and I'm a huge 2.3 fan.

I've got the Ford tune on it and I run in Sport mode all the time. I love it.

My wife has the 2.3 in her Explorer. I much prefer it with the manual trans in the Bronco vs the 10spd auto in the Explorer, but in either case this motor loves to go!

Sponsored

 

[Tankbig19]

2.3 has plenty of power, probably the more ‘proven’ engine as far as reliability goes. I also get 21 mpgs combined and pull about 24mpg on the freeway with 33” KO2s (about same weight as the sas 35s). Most annoying thing I’ve found about the 2.3 is the oil filter location for basic maintenance but not really that big of a deal. If Ford would have offered the 3.5 liter or Coyote v8 those would have been tough choices for me, but I’ll take the 2.3 with manual all day over the 2.7. I’ve driven every Bronco trim/powertrain combination at this point…having the stick increases the fun factor of the vehicle much more than which engine you pick IMO.

I agree. I also added the Ford Performance 2.3L Ecoboost Performance Calibration and S&B high performance oiled air filter. The HP & Torque gains was 35 & 88 respectively. And I went up on tire size with 33” KO3’s installed. 2024 2.3L Black Diamond

 

[Tankbig19]

Just bought a 2.3 2 door BB Sasquatch, coming from 2.7 4 door. I put the Ford tune on it, swapped in some 37s, and it’s got plenty of giddy up even with the big tires. Only downside is being locked in to 93 octane but I’m not missing the 2.7 at all.

You only have to run 93 Octane if you want the maximum horsepower output. You can still use lower octane. But the Ford tune is awesome I agree

 

[JerryC]

Before the BRaptor I had 2dr Badlands 2.3 manual and 4dr Wildtrak 2.7 auto.

2.3 was good enough with the manual but the 2.7 was noticeably better.

FWIW, I got better mpg in the Badlands by a couple on average.

I loved the manual but if it was a choice of 2.3 or 2.7 with the auto, 2.7 hands down. If buying one I would pass on the 2.3 auto.

 

[Copperhorse73]

You only have to run 93 Octane if you want the maximum horsepower output. You can still use lower octane. But the Ford tune is awesome I agree

Once you install the tune, FP instructions specifically say only 93 octane

 

[Brian_B]

I will say - for those of us who like manuals. The choice between getting a manual and a 2.7 isn’t a choice at all. You either get a manual (and the 2.3) or you don’t. I would have got the 2.7 in a manual in a heartbeat - but you just can’t.

Not to say the 2.3 is bad - it’s a great engine. But I admit the 2.7 is better, that low end torque it brings would be nice. But not giving up the manual when I can just rev the engine a bit more and get there and keep my clutch pedal.

 

[userdude]

Once you install the tune, FP instructions specifically say only 93 octane

This has been hashed over repeatedly. Ford advertises the 93 octane because that gets the most amount of benefit. You can still run 87-92, you just won't get the benefit (or as much). To get advertised hp and torque, go 93.

 

[Brian_B]

This has been hashed over repeatedly. Ford advertises the 93 octane because that gets the most amount of benefit. You can still run 87-92, you just won't get the benefit (or as much). To get advertised hp and torque, go 93.

I don’t think I’d run 87 with the Tune as a daily. I think it’s more than just the Hp that Ford Requires 91+

Sure it probably won’t hurt anything for a tank. Maybe not ever, maybe it’s fine. But for the same reason I wouldn’t run 83 or 85 without the tune, I wouldn’t run less than 91 with it. Especially if you have a heavy foot and love to hear that turbo whistle — the detonation degradation does build up over time.

 

[userdude]

I don’t think I’d run 87 with the Tune as a daily. I think it’s more than just the Hp that Ford Requires 91+

Sure it probably won’t hurt anything for a tank. Maybe not ever, maybe it’s fine. But for the same reason I wouldn’t run 83 or 85 without the tune, I wouldn’t run less than 91 with it. Especially if you have a heavy foot and love to hear that turbo whistle — the detonation degradation does build up over time.

I guess this is going to get relitigated again. I see what you're saying, but someone whose driving aggressively with the tune is likely to use 91/93 anyway (why have the tune? it doesn't do a lot else anymore except change tire rotations for the speedometer or screw up steering rack installs... lol). Also, doesn't a periodic "Italian tune up" knock off the carbon buildup anyway? Are you worried about bent rods?

The knock sensors and computer can adjust, and that's been said by others who seem to know what they're talking about. But if you're cautious, it's not a problem either. I run the highest I can get because I prefer how it drives, and that's a 60-80 center per gallon hit. If someone doesn't want to do that, don't get the tune.

 

[JVS6124]

2.3 has plenty of power, probably the more ‘proven’ engine as far as reliability goes. I also get 21 mpgs combined and pull about 24mpg on the freeway with 33” KO2s (about same weight as the sas 35s). Most annoying thing I’ve found about the 2.3 is the oil filter location for basic maintenance but not really that big of a deal. If Ford would have offered the 3.5 liter or Coyote v8 those would have been tough choices for me, but I’ll take the 2.3 with manual all day over the 2.7. I’ve driven every Bronco trim/powertrain combination at this point…having the stick increases the fun factor of the vehicle much more than which engine you pick IMO.

2.3 has plenty of power, probably the more ‘proven’ engine as far as reliability goes. I also get 21 mpgs combined and pull about 24mpg on the freeway with 33” KO2s (about same weight as the sas 35s). Most annoying thing I’ve found about the 2.3 is the oil filter location for basic maintenance but not really that big of a deal. If Ford would have offered the 3.5 liter or Coyote v8 those would have been tough choices for me, but I’ll take the 2.3 with manual all day over the 2.7. I’ve driven every Bronco trim/powertrain combination at this point…having the stick increases the fun factor of the vehicle much more than which engine you pick IMO.

Hi all,
I am looking for 2.3 owners input that have the Sasquatch package and 10 speed automatic. I am trying to decide on the 2.3 vs 2.7 and would like to hear what owners have to say about the power of the 2.3 using 87 octane. I am looking at a 4dr Badlands and wonder how the 2.3 performs as a daily driver and light off road use. Reliability vs the 2.7.
Thanks for your input.
Steve

If it’s any help: 2024 Badlands 7 speed Man. With 2.3 L turbo. Plenty of power no issues accelerating to highway speeds on both 2H and 4H..the 2.3 is a very good build no issues at all. I was skeptical as well coming off a Bud Moore 302Ci but I love my 2.3 !!

 

[Snacktime]

Either engine is fine as they have tons of torque down low. I think its more of a choice of power and serviceability. The V6 is easier to do oil changes and the 4 banger has more room under the hood.

I like my 2.3 but my order was built based on constraints and price.

 

[Brian_B]

what you're saying, but someone whose driving aggressively with the tune is likely to use 91/93 anyway

“Is likely to drive” and “you’ll be fine” are two entirely different things though.

I’m just saying I wouldn’t go out claiming it’s safe - the engine will retard itself to keep from immediately grenading, but that’s only after it already deflects that knock is occurring. The pinging may cause minor damage that builds up over time.

So you can get away with it for a tank. Maybe even 100,000 miles? But don’t expect that engine to be showcased on the 500,000 Valvoline test video.

I see way too many detonation issues with our gensets at work (big CAT engines with 70psi turbos) to know that it absolutely is not a myth, and that the risk isn’t so much that your engine immediately explodes (although I have seen that), but lots of small things that build up over time until you finally hit that last straw.

 

[userdude]

“Is likely to drive” and “you’ll be fine” are two entirely different things though.

I’m just saying I wouldn’t go out claiming it’s safe - the engine will retard itself to keep from immediately grenading, but that’s only after it already deflects that knock is occurring. The pinging may cause minor damage that builds up over time.

So you can get away with it for a tank. Maybe even 100,000 miles? But don’t expect that engine to be showcased on the 500,000 Valvoline test video.

I see way too many detonation issues with our gensets at work (big CAT engines with 70psi turbos) to know that it absolutely is not a myth, and that the risk isn’t so much that your engine immediately explodes (although I have seen that), but lots of small things that build up over time until you finally hit that last straw.

Alright, I take your point. I'll calibrate my advice accordingly. My point is, if you're not using the tune for the octane performance, you shouldn't use the tune. If you're worried about it making it to 200k with virtually no issues, I doubt a tune is on your mind anyway.

 

[Brian_B]

My point is, if you're not using the tune for the octane performance, you shouldn't use the tune.

That is a very good point.

 

[JVS6124]

Not going to break out the calculator on that one but the manual is equipped with 2 low gears to compensate. If it gets me out of the snow and mud and up the trail its enough for me.

Sponsored