Jump to content

Bronco reportedly getting 7 Speed matched with 2.7L Ecoboost


Recommended Posts

Why would anyone expect a V8 Bronco? It's a Wrangler competitor, and the Wrangler has never had a V8. The later Jeep CJs had a V8 option, but I'm not sure how popular of an option it was, and the last one was built in 1986 anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, probowler said:

Is this a CAFE thing causing Ford to build all these baby motors? I'm assuming Europe has a similar law or rule pushing smaller motors.

 

They just keep getting smaller and smaller. Not gonna lie, it's disappointing that we won't have a V8 Bronco...

And carbs, bench seats, wood panelling, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, probowler said:

Is this a CAFE thing causing Ford to build all these baby motors? I'm assuming Europe has a similar law or rule pushing smaller motors.

 

They just keep getting smaller and smaller. Not gonna lie, it's disappointing that we won't have a V8 Bronco...

Yes, and it is even worse in Europe where taxes on vehicles with engines over 2.0L are getting prohibitively expensive. Earlier this year I was in the market for an upscale compact/mid-sized crossover (ended up doing a factory order on a Lincoln Nautilus), and discovered that unlike when I did a similar search 3-4 years ago it has become difficult to find crossovers of this size with anything bigger than an I-4. Volvo, in fact, has stopped making any internal combustion engine other than one single 2.0L I-4, combined with three different kinds of boost (turbo, super, or hybrid, with their most expensive trims getting all three, a combination in my view just asking for problems down the line, not to mention creating an iffy power band). Ditto Acura.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2018 at 5:34 PM, Deanh said:

in all sincerity, Im questioning Ford going smaller and boosted...for example , I think there will be a backlash with the Edge going 2.0 eco ( aside from the ST ) rather than the 3.5...which was pretty much bulletproof, and ( at least here ) outsold the 2.0eco by a large margin....( and Im not too impressed with the TC going from the 2.5 to the 2.0 with 2 extra gears either )

Is that because the 3.5 is in the volume trims, though?  Meaning, it's not an "all things equal" choice, as if people chose directly between the 2.0 and the 3.5 and went with the latter?  Just a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Is that because the 3.5 is in the volume trims, though?  Meaning, it's not an "all things equal" choice, as if people chose directly between the 2.0 and the 3.5 and went with the latter?  Just a question.

people preferred the reg aspirated V6 hands down, it was a well known, bulletproof option with excellent mid-range ( passing ) the 2.0 gets to 70mph and runs out of wind in comparison......now they don't have a choice....so, will be interesting gauging sales numbers. Café be damned IMO....it was an excellent drivetrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 3:37 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:

Have you driven the refreshed TC? I haven't seen much written about it in the press, and I haven't driven this generation of it. I did have the first generation one as a work van before I started working for Ford and I LOVED it despite it being a base model and having to drive from the office to Lansing (about an hour 15 drive) once a week with no cruise control....

yes...its more buzzy and you can feel the difference in torque....the 8 speed doesn't pick up the slack...better mileage...yes...worth it...questionable..once again...the 2.5 with the 6 speed was an EXCELLENT drivetrain....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 7:54 PM, jpd80 said:

Good thoughts Deanh, maybe Ford should have considered making the 2.7EB V6 an engine option on traditional volume selling trims instead of just the ST. I think they’re rushing the transition from V6 when buyers still want them

Its also perplexing why TC doesn’t have Dragon 1.5 EB and 8AT,  I guess ford knows best (sarcasm)

IMO...the minimum for the Edge should have been the 2.3 if they want to go the eco route....the 2.3 in the Explorer IMO is also misguided....and the 1.0 literally should NOT have been in anything in the US market....it only worked acceptably in the Fiesta with a stick shift.....and we all know how sticks sell here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Deanh said:

people preferred the reg aspirated V6 hands down, it was a well known, bulletproof option with excellent mid-range ( passing ) the 2.0 gets to 70mph and runs out of wind in comparison......now they don't have a choice....so, will be interesting gauging sales numbers. Café be damned IMO....it was an excellent drivetrain.

 

Until the water pump leaked water into the oil and destroyed the engine.  Outside of that it was a good engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, akirby said:

My bad.   220 lb/ft versus 310 lb/ft.   The point is the same.

I'm probably showing my age here, but I miss the days when a publication like Trailer Boats Magazine would drop 5000# trailers on the balls of matching, competitive trucks, and run them up & down the Grapevine Hill in CA.  For Fords sake, I hope the public like the results of the 2.3 , although in your own vehicle, you opted for the larger displacement 3.5 rather than the 2.7

HRG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

I'm probably showing my age here, but I miss the days when a publication like Trailer Boats Magazine would drop 5000# trailers on the balls of matching, competitive trucks, and run them up & down the Grapevine Hill in CA.  For Fords sake, I hope the public like the results of the 2.3 , although in your own vehicle, you opted for the larger displacement 3.5 rather than the 2.7

HRG

 

I only opted for the 3.5L because there were exactly TWO F150s outfitted the way I wanted in the state of GA and both were at the same small dealer and both had the 3.5L.  Had I ordered one I would have gone with the 2.7L.

 

And there is a truck website (can't put my finger on the name) that does exactly the kind of test you're talking about towing up grades and over mountains.  I'm sure they'll do the same with the Ranger 2.3L.   These engines tow very well because they produce so much torque at lower RPM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

I only opted for the 3.5L because there were exactly TWO F150s outfitted the way I wanted in the state of GA and both were at the same small dealer and both had the 3.5L.  Had I ordered one I would have gone with the 2.7L.

 

And there is a truck website (can't put my finger on the name) that does exactly the kind of test you're talking about towing up grades and over mountains.  I'm sure they'll do the same with the Ranger 2.3L.   These engines tow very well because they produce so much torque at lower RPM.

Is it pickuptrucks.com?

That doesn't sound right, but I can't seem to find anything else.  I know what you're talking about though - they always have their tests on that big road that's like "the" test for trucks - can't remember what that's called either lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Funny how the 160 hp 4.0L V6 in the early 90s explorer was just fine but now a 300+ Hp engine is misguided......

drive it,,,it sucks compared with the regular 6 cylinder. And dare I say it...worse than the old 4.0, but that may be power to weight...I had a 4.0 in my Ranger...it was fine....GOOGLE...curb weight of prior Ranger 3030 - 4700, 2018 Explorer 4443 - 4900.....the eco runs out of steam over regular freeway speeds....

Edited by Deanh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Deanh said:

drive it,,,it sucks compared with the regular 6 cylinder. And dare I say it...worse than the old 4.0, but that may be power to weight...I had a 4.0 in my Ranger...it was fine....

Weight is a factor, but I owned a 93 and 97 Explorer and 95 Ranger with the 4.0L.  

I drove a 2.0L Fusion Titanium for 5 years and we've had the 2016 MKX with the 3.7L for almost 3 years now.   I think I'm qualified to discuss the differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, akirby said:

Weight is a factor, but I owned a 93 and 97 Explorer and 95 Ranger with the 4.0L.  

I drove a 2.0L Fusion Titanium for 5 years and we've had the 2016 MKX with the 3.7L for almost 3 years now.   I think I'm qualified to discuss the differences.

?....not a valid comparison....the 2.0 eco in the sedan is fine...the 3.7 in the MKx is fine...the 2.0 in the porky edge isn't, and the 2.3 in the overweight Explorer also isn't....you may be "qualified" but that comparison is mis-construed... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

I suspect the Tacoma would be a little faster but I think the Ranger would still beat it slightly.

would be interesting for sure, but the Ranger would also benefit from the higher density air as well....comments that caught my ear, was ingress and headroom....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...