I think for midsize trucks 1 or 2 MPG can be a big deal. I also see that the Chevy Colorado 2.7 liter is a powerful and gas thirsty beast. I think its possible the Ford 2.7 could be in this range.
I can't speak on the brake failure with the 2.3 and a NHTSA investigation. As I'm no mechanic. Regarding the engine itself, I've personally found the 2.3l to be perfectly satisfactory. The 2.3 I drive now sips gas, I can't speak for the 2.7. I don't know how much extra power the 2.7 provides, but I'm sure you looked into it. If you think you need it, then you will probably regret not getting it down the road. If you really don't need it, the 2.3 has been more then satisfactory.
I believe the brake issue he’s referring to is about defective brake boosters in the 2.3L Mustangs.
Awww...I just assumed the OP was looking ahead and referring to a 6G Ranger due to known Bronco issues as they are based on the same platform I believe. Either way, mechanically I still was probably not knowing what I was talking about. I just need to keep my big mouth shut! I'm, going to delete the first half, and stick on the "what engine to pick" opinion where I believe I'm on firmer ground!
It’s not the power difference I’m worried about because I live at sea level and don’t tow often. It’s the engine longevity with respect to carbon build up and the brake issues that are weighing on my mind.
I totally understand those concerns. From everything I've read, they are both overall proven and reliable engines. And, like most well maintained engines should have a long life. I personally pour a bottle of quality injector/carbon cleaning fluid in my gas tank around every five thousand miles. I can only attest to the 2.3 on a personal level. I've had the 2.3 in my prior and current vehicle with no problems. The one I have now almost litterally sips on the gas. I don't have a lead foot so that has something to do with it I'm sure. I think the 2.7 (I read somewhere on this forum is an additioanl $1,849, or something like that option). I also don't like to wait, and have been unlucky enough to get caught in the never ending not getting scheduled loop. As of now, my understanding is the 2.3 is ready to go. Personally, I'm going with the 2.3 again with ZERO reservations. I just have become VERY lerry of anything that can hold my scheduling up. I'm spitballing here, but I think a brake issue would eventually go from bulletin to recall as it would be a safety issue, and cost Ford big if not truly fixed. Of course, I have no knowledge that is the case or not. In looking up the 2.7 these are issues that came up:
Full Time 4WD just means that the engagement of the front wheels to engine torque is electronically controlled, as needed, when the computer sense slip. It is safe to use at all speeds and terrains. Part time 4WD means that torque is applied to both axles constantly. It is technically safe to use on all terrains but at low speeds, but primarily used on loose surfaces, so not for road use. The front and rear lockers are not part of the 4wd system itself, instead they’re independently selected by the driver (or electronically activated by the drive mode). All this does is lock the left and right axle shafts together instead of allowing them to turn at different speed. Lockers can only be used at slow speed and on loose surfaces with minimal turning (aka climbing up a dirt hill). It is not safe to use them on the road or even in a tight turn (because the wheels need to turn at separate speeds to turn). The various drive modes ford includes can change the various transfer case and locker combinations for that task but those functions can be activated manually by the user provided it’s safe and suitable to do so.
the newer 12 injector 2.7's dont have carbon buildup because the normal fuel injectors wash the intake valves like God intended.
According to this guy, the dual injection doesn’t really eliminate the problem but does slow it down. I think a catch can is still a good idea on these.
Like I said, doesn’t eliminate it, I just don’t think it’s wise to assume there won’t be buildup at all. But I do agree, and at 125k a walnut blast is not a huge expense.
