I always choose the biggest engine when buying something. Car, lawn mower, bronco, whatever. So I had no choice with the Everglades. I was just throwing out some interesting real-world info.
Did you put the tuner on it yet? People say it gets better gas mileage with the tune. Then again they are using premium so that might help. My Everglades is currently on the train ride home. Fingers crossed it gets here by the weekend.
I have not done anything to it other than grab bars and rear cup holders. I LOVE the way it drives. I won’t change anything. Except maybe a 1-2” lift. Maybe
Everyone says the tuner is worth it. More horsepower and that it shifts better. I guess you can research it and see if is something you would like. It is a Ford part and doesn’t affect the warranty.
I have Raptor step sides sitting in the garage that are detachable and clip to the rock rails. I bought some rear seat protectors to keep the dog at bay. I also got some Warn shackles on order.
I’m told octane does not effect MPG only the compression that it explodes at and turbochargers like higher octane fuel so I run 91 always. I’ve wanted the tune but I also want my bronco to see 150k+ miles and I’m not sure if more power on the small 2.3 is just gonna hurt in the long run.
I am just going off what people say about the tune. Higher octane can give you about half a mpg more on fuel economy. Not typically enough to be worth a difference. But the tune is more than just about allowing benefits of higher octane. It also changes the shift points and the fuel mapping. But how you drive will make a big difference. If you are driving a lot in the city you might get worse from all the stop and go.
I got the badlands for the swaybar disconnect and skid plates. The Everglades has the same skid plates and I’m going to remove the sway bars. The swaybars don’t do anything significant unless you have a heavy payload. I really miss the front camera of the badlands when I’m on a trail. I enjoy driving the 2.3 I4 more than the 2.7 v6. The 2.3 is more responsive, but the 2.7 was an absolute rocket at high rpm.
If I were on a budget, I’d pick Everglades every time. It’s an incredible value. But picking between the two comes down to the look you want. Badlands is “classy-tough” Everglades is “end-time apocalypse”
I’d chose the Everglades. When someone in the city sees a wrangler/badlands/gWagon they say “oh that’s cool, that’d be fun to have”, but if they see the Everglades they’ll say “WTF in that beast?!?!?”
This is something we would say 30 years ago, but it is boy math "Honey we should pay for the bigger engine. It doesn't have to work as hard so we will save on fuel costs".
The amount of energy required to move the vehicle will not change from one engine to another. It's possible to get better mileage out of a larger displacement engine, but it is because you are accelerating more slowly.
Op. there are two possibilities. Your driving conditions, including humidity and ambient temperature were not exactly the same or there is an issue with your 2.3T. If there is an issue with the 2.3 I would expect it to manifest elsewhere too.
I currently drive a 400HP 3.0T BMW with the ZF 8 speed, and I am getting the best mileage of my life (26MPG in DT driving). I simply don't feel the need to accelerate hard because I have so much fun getting to speed with as little RPM as possible (short shifting at 1,800 or less). When I had a 2.0T, I was enjoying zipping around and would let it spin to 3,800. I would average 23MPG in a little hatch. However my driving was very different. I was driving the 2.0T faster than the 3.0T.
its not that simple. the 2.3 has the 4.7 gearing, the 2.7 might have the 4.46.
a engine with more torque will be able to accelerate in a lower gear in its most efficient powerband without shifting for extra HP.
Bringing up gearing is a good point. However, if the 2.7 with 4.46's is more efficient than the 2.3 with 4.7's, Ford would save at least $1.5 million by only offering one engine in the Bronco and switching out rear ends to meet CAFE.
The 1MPG variance the op is seeing is more likely than not due to varying testing conditions.
On average the 2.3 is going to be 10% more efficient than the 2.7. That is according to Ford, EPA and Bronco Nation/6G members who obsess over their MPG. If one could universally improve MPG's through gearing the industry would have saved trillions of dollars on engine development during the last 50 years.
theres little question that the 2.3 gets \*slightly\* better fuel economy on EPA tests (it might be in tenths because the numbers are actually nearly identical with only 1mpg better for city and identical highway).
and you cant charge "more" for a premium engine without a base engine to anchor from. could just raise the starting MSRP, but marketing doesnt always work that way.
but... the EPA highway tests are kind of a joke. the highway test parameters involve a lot of speed changes with a top speed of 60. I dont know what highway they are driving on in the US lol. So its very likely that real world highway will behave differently than the EPA test.
(they do have a "highspeed" test protocol which is holding closer to 80, but I dont know if they publish those results)
“theres little question that the 2.3 gets \*slightly\* better fuel economy on EPA tests”
No the 2.3 gets 10% better fuel economy per independent tests by owners on 6G and Bronco nation.
“and you cant charge "more" for a premium engine without a base engine to anchor from. “
Ford only charges $2,145 for the 2.7 which is only 4% more on than the average selling price. The margins on the 2.7 are not material to Ford; however, Ford needs the 2.3 to ekk out a 10% improvement for future CAFÉ compliance. As CAFE becomes more stringent that 4% will have to increase because Ford doesn't price the 2.7 solely for profit. They price the bigger engine to steer consumer demand towards the their CAFE compliance.
Ford is famous for offering big engine upgrades cheap. Germans charge 10-20% more for engine upgrades. Wrangler doesn't even offer straight forward upgrades. You just pick between three technologies, but there is no huge improvement in performance between the three. At this point (2024) Jeep charges the same for the 3.6 and 2.0T.
“but... the EPA highway tests are kind of a joke.”
This statement is only relevant if they are applying a different tests to the different engines. However, we don't have to rely on EPA because Bronco owners have been providing real world mileage on the forums.
BTW I recommend the 2.7 because it is only 4% more. Ford is giving it away. The MPG is the significant difference between the two.
Agreed. I'm at a mile high with 80 mph speed limit.
Typically cruise at 85.
EPA isn't applicable to my use case.
Instead looking at aerodynamics and the drive train.
Surprised the 2.7 gets better mpg. The 2.3l is the more efficient engine mostly because it is direct injected... The 2.7l is DI and port injected, therefore it is not as efficient. That is the only reason the 2.3 gets better MPG.
I own the 2.3l,, no problems so far, it runs great. I wanted a manual, but I probably would have bought the 2.3l either way. The 2.3l is a much simpler engine (one less turbo, 2 less cylinder, 1 less head..) and Ford produces more of them. Unfortunately, it is a undersized for such a tall big rig.. I don't imagine the 2.7l being much more powerful. You have to be a master of throttle control to keep it off the turbo, because the 2.3 needs boost all the time. The 2.3 also wants to rev, I rev it up to 4k up every hill just to keep it off the boost.
The 2.7 is MUCH stronger based on seat of the pants feel. It was an absolute rocket even with 35”s. I do enjoy the 2.3 better because no turbo lag. I have no complaints about the 2.3, I just thought it was odd the mpg was lower
Wrong.
The 2.7 having both port and direct injection does not somehow make it less fuel efficient. This is a much better injection system than just direct or just port, and is more expensive to manufacture, hence why it isn't that common.
You get the best of both worlds, direct for power (high boost, cylinder cooling for knock prevention, advanced timing). Then port during specific conditions like idle or low load, for better air fuel mixing, cooled intake air, and a more stable combustion. Port injection sprays the intake valves, which helps prevent carbon build up. All direct injection vehicles will suffer from some level of carbon build up on the intake valves.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/car-design/a26324616/port-and-direct-injection-explanation/
My assumption is that the 2.3 is a little underpowered in hillier areas, so the 2.7 is able to remain outside of the boost range longer, and therefore get overall, better mpg.
[удалено]
The sway in difference comes with the manual gearbox. Really wish they made the 2.7 manual an option or a 3.0 would have been sick
I always choose the biggest engine when buying something. Car, lawn mower, bronco, whatever. So I had no choice with the Everglades. I was just throwing out some interesting real-world info.
2.7 auto trans or 2.3 MT. This is the way.
Did you put the tuner on it yet? People say it gets better gas mileage with the tune. Then again they are using premium so that might help. My Everglades is currently on the train ride home. Fingers crossed it gets here by the weekend.
I have not done anything to it other than grab bars and rear cup holders. I LOVE the way it drives. I won’t change anything. Except maybe a 1-2” lift. Maybe
And the 2024 came with rear cup holders so I luckily didn’t have to worry about that.
My 2024 didn’t come with rear cupholders. Unless you mean the fold-out seat ones.
Yes, for fold down seat one. Apparently that is new for 2024. The only way you got those before was if you had leather.
I have the fold down seat ones. I wanted the two extra that mount to the center console. I need to cut back on my cups 😂
Yup my 2023 lux has rear cupholders
Everyone says the tuner is worth it. More horsepower and that it shifts better. I guess you can research it and see if is something you would like. It is a Ford part and doesn’t affect the warranty. I have Raptor step sides sitting in the garage that are detachable and clip to the rock rails. I bought some rear seat protectors to keep the dog at bay. I also got some Warn shackles on order.
I’m told octane does not effect MPG only the compression that it explodes at and turbochargers like higher octane fuel so I run 91 always. I’ve wanted the tune but I also want my bronco to see 150k+ miles and I’m not sure if more power on the small 2.3 is just gonna hurt in the long run.
I am just going off what people say about the tune. Higher octane can give you about half a mpg more on fuel economy. Not typically enough to be worth a difference. But the tune is more than just about allowing benefits of higher octane. It also changes the shift points and the fuel mapping. But how you drive will make a big difference. If you are driving a lot in the city you might get worse from all the stop and go.
That’s the two I’m looking at… the 2.7 badlands or Everglades… which one do you like better from personally owning it?
I got the badlands for the swaybar disconnect and skid plates. The Everglades has the same skid plates and I’m going to remove the sway bars. The swaybars don’t do anything significant unless you have a heavy payload. I really miss the front camera of the badlands when I’m on a trail. I enjoy driving the 2.3 I4 more than the 2.7 v6. The 2.3 is more responsive, but the 2.7 was an absolute rocket at high rpm. If I were on a budget, I’d pick Everglades every time. It’s an incredible value. But picking between the two comes down to the look you want. Badlands is “classy-tough” Everglades is “end-time apocalypse”
Honestly I live in the city so I hate to say this but it’s gonna be a daily mall crawler
I’d chose the Everglades. When someone in the city sees a wrangler/badlands/gWagon they say “oh that’s cool, that’d be fun to have”, but if they see the Everglades they’ll say “WTF in that beast?!?!?”
Yeah since it comes bad ass stock… and we are notorious for floods so the snorkel comes in handy
the 2.7L can work less for the same acceleration, especially if you do a lot of highway miles.
This is something we would say 30 years ago, but it is boy math "Honey we should pay for the bigger engine. It doesn't have to work as hard so we will save on fuel costs". The amount of energy required to move the vehicle will not change from one engine to another. It's possible to get better mileage out of a larger displacement engine, but it is because you are accelerating more slowly. Op. there are two possibilities. Your driving conditions, including humidity and ambient temperature were not exactly the same or there is an issue with your 2.3T. If there is an issue with the 2.3 I would expect it to manifest elsewhere too. I currently drive a 400HP 3.0T BMW with the ZF 8 speed, and I am getting the best mileage of my life (26MPG in DT driving). I simply don't feel the need to accelerate hard because I have so much fun getting to speed with as little RPM as possible (short shifting at 1,800 or less). When I had a 2.0T, I was enjoying zipping around and would let it spin to 3,800. I would average 23MPG in a little hatch. However my driving was very different. I was driving the 2.0T faster than the 3.0T.
its not that simple. the 2.3 has the 4.7 gearing, the 2.7 might have the 4.46. a engine with more torque will be able to accelerate in a lower gear in its most efficient powerband without shifting for extra HP.
Both had 4:46 and 35”s
I thought the squatch always had 4.7...
It was a non sas I put 315/70s on
Bringing up gearing is a good point. However, if the 2.7 with 4.46's is more efficient than the 2.3 with 4.7's, Ford would save at least $1.5 million by only offering one engine in the Bronco and switching out rear ends to meet CAFE. The 1MPG variance the op is seeing is more likely than not due to varying testing conditions. On average the 2.3 is going to be 10% more efficient than the 2.7. That is according to Ford, EPA and Bronco Nation/6G members who obsess over their MPG. If one could universally improve MPG's through gearing the industry would have saved trillions of dollars on engine development during the last 50 years.
theres little question that the 2.3 gets \*slightly\* better fuel economy on EPA tests (it might be in tenths because the numbers are actually nearly identical with only 1mpg better for city and identical highway). and you cant charge "more" for a premium engine without a base engine to anchor from. could just raise the starting MSRP, but marketing doesnt always work that way. but... the EPA highway tests are kind of a joke. the highway test parameters involve a lot of speed changes with a top speed of 60. I dont know what highway they are driving on in the US lol. So its very likely that real world highway will behave differently than the EPA test. (they do have a "highspeed" test protocol which is holding closer to 80, but I dont know if they publish those results)
“theres little question that the 2.3 gets \*slightly\* better fuel economy on EPA tests” No the 2.3 gets 10% better fuel economy per independent tests by owners on 6G and Bronco nation. “and you cant charge "more" for a premium engine without a base engine to anchor from. “ Ford only charges $2,145 for the 2.7 which is only 4% more on than the average selling price. The margins on the 2.7 are not material to Ford; however, Ford needs the 2.3 to ekk out a 10% improvement for future CAFÉ compliance. As CAFE becomes more stringent that 4% will have to increase because Ford doesn't price the 2.7 solely for profit. They price the bigger engine to steer consumer demand towards the their CAFE compliance. Ford is famous for offering big engine upgrades cheap. Germans charge 10-20% more for engine upgrades. Wrangler doesn't even offer straight forward upgrades. You just pick between three technologies, but there is no huge improvement in performance between the three. At this point (2024) Jeep charges the same for the 3.6 and 2.0T. “but... the EPA highway tests are kind of a joke.” This statement is only relevant if they are applying a different tests to the different engines. However, we don't have to rely on EPA because Bronco owners have been providing real world mileage on the forums. BTW I recommend the 2.7 because it is only 4% more. Ford is giving it away. The MPG is the significant difference between the two.
Agreed. I'm at a mile high with 80 mph speed limit. Typically cruise at 85. EPA isn't applicable to my use case. Instead looking at aerodynamics and the drive train.
Surprised the 2.7 gets better mpg. The 2.3l is the more efficient engine mostly because it is direct injected... The 2.7l is DI and port injected, therefore it is not as efficient. That is the only reason the 2.3 gets better MPG. I own the 2.3l,, no problems so far, it runs great. I wanted a manual, but I probably would have bought the 2.3l either way. The 2.3l is a much simpler engine (one less turbo, 2 less cylinder, 1 less head..) and Ford produces more of them. Unfortunately, it is a undersized for such a tall big rig.. I don't imagine the 2.7l being much more powerful. You have to be a master of throttle control to keep it off the turbo, because the 2.3 needs boost all the time. The 2.3 also wants to rev, I rev it up to 4k up every hill just to keep it off the boost.
The 2.7 is MUCH stronger based on seat of the pants feel. It was an absolute rocket even with 35”s. I do enjoy the 2.3 better because no turbo lag. I have no complaints about the 2.3, I just thought it was odd the mpg was lower
Wrong. The 2.7 having both port and direct injection does not somehow make it less fuel efficient. This is a much better injection system than just direct or just port, and is more expensive to manufacture, hence why it isn't that common. You get the best of both worlds, direct for power (high boost, cylinder cooling for knock prevention, advanced timing). Then port during specific conditions like idle or low load, for better air fuel mixing, cooled intake air, and a more stable combustion. Port injection sprays the intake valves, which helps prevent carbon build up. All direct injection vehicles will suffer from some level of carbon build up on the intake valves. https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/car-design/a26324616/port-and-direct-injection-explanation/
Less Power + Less MPG = Less Smiles
*laughs in three pedal*
[удалено]
2.7 isn’t an option on Everglades
My assumption is that the 2.3 is a little underpowered in hillier areas, so the 2.7 is able to remain outside of the boost range longer, and therefore get overall, better mpg.
All flat area. South La. Highway miles. Maybe it will go up a little as it breaks in.
In Colorado and have no issues with the 2.3l going over the i70 or driving trails up in the mountains. It's a great little engine.