Sponsored

4 cylinder 4 door? Really?

FirstOnRaceDay

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Devin
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Threads
35
Messages
1,503
Reaction score
2,938
Location
Toledo Ohio
Vehicle(s)
17 Civic, 19.5 Silverado
Your Bronco Model
Base
Like I said, I'm hopeful. But let's just say that if they took the 310HP engine from an STI and put it in a car that weighs half a ton more than the Impreza, I would NOT be impressed. At 4950lbs for a loaded 2 door 2.3L, a mere 120ftlbs of torque @ 2000RPM is... Well, disappointing. I've already got one car that can't accelerate going up a hill. I don't want another. All the dynos I've seen suggest that I need to get cheeks in seat before forming an opinion. So that's my plan right now.
120 lbft at 2000rpm but 200+ at 2500 and 300lbft before 3000rpm.

That’s pretty quick. Jeep only has more torque from 0-2750 rpm. After that the bronco had a lot more.
Sponsored

 

BroncoMike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
681
Reaction score
1,167
Location
Upper Norwegia
Vehicle(s)
'71 Bronco, '02 Excursion
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Really?

I've always wondered why people complain about having options, especially when it is an option they aren't interested in. I just don't understand the point. If you don't feel the 2.3 liter is for you, move along. "Cloth interior? WTF are they thinking!? That isn't going to cut it Ford! <rageragerage>"

Really?
 

FirstOnRaceDay

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Devin
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Threads
35
Messages
1,503
Reaction score
2,938
Location
Toledo Ohio
Vehicle(s)
17 Civic, 19.5 Silverado
Your Bronco Model
Base
I was with you until here. That’s just not true.
5.0 doesn’t hit 380+lbft till almost 4000rpm.
2.7 hits 380+ at 2250rpm. That’s a massive difference
 

teejayhoward

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
32
Reaction score
32
Location
CO
Vehicle(s)
BRZ
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
I've always wondered why people complain about having options, especially when it is an option they aren't interested in. I just don't understand the point. If you don't feel the 2.3 liter is for you, move along.
The problem is that there's nothing to move along TO. Sure, you have options, but the options suck.

You're handed a high-school cafeteria steak when what you want is a nice porterhouse. The porterhouse is an option, sure... But you can only get the porterhouse if you eat it on a plate made out of human feces. Or you could have the filet mignon you know you'd love, but you're going to have to go kill the cow, butcher it, and cook it yourself. Meanwhile, the forum is full of people saying, "It's still a steak. Suck it up and be thankful it's not a sloppy joe! If you add A-1 to it, it's not that bad!"

Personally, if I'm paying $60,000 for a steak, I want it to be a damned nice steak, not a compromise.

120 lbft at 2000rpm but 200+ at 2500 and 300lbft before 3000rpm.
Yeah, once the turbo's spooled, it looks to be perfectly adequate. I'm just worried about that half of the RPM band up until that point.

edit: And at this point, I guess I'm just whining. Time to unwatch this thread and let it get back on-topic... Is the 2.3L adequate for a 5226lbs vehicle?
 
Last edited:

Rogues Gambit

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Threads
45
Messages
2,456
Reaction score
2,931
Location
Eatontown, NJ
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ram Rebel, '07 A4 Quattro
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
Here's the second Dyno sheet, from JDM

Again, it's a Mustang on F150 rollers, so take that into account with the decrease in power compared to the last one, as I do have a Downpipe there now
Ford Bronco 4 cylinder 4 door? Really? IMG_20200718_150603
 

Sponsored

Jhuff

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
J
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Threads
26
Messages
617
Reaction score
877
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Toyota Tacoma and DR650
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
I can understand the OPs fears, as I4 engines bring to mind ford escorts we trashed as kids in high school. I too had similar reservations before my first (2nd Gen) I4 Tacoma.

That 2.7L I4 produced mush less power than the 2.3Eco and is widely known for its durability and capability. That little engine pulled my similarly weighted Tacoma (and often a trailer) on 32's perfectly fine, for 130,000 miles, despite the factory gearing being a little too tall.

As long as Ford's engineers did a reasonable job, this 2.3 should be more than capable of moving the weight quickly, without strain or effect on reliability.
 

Blksn955.o

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
2,581
Location
Wentzville, MO
Vehicle(s)
17 Ford Escape Ti, 94 Ford Mustang GT, 21 BL
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
The twin scroll turbo should help with the lag on the 2.3. Keeping consistent exh. with the 1/2 scroll paths to me means that there is some lower rpm gains to be had from the factory setup. But then again with me going with a manual the crawler gear is going to make that boost/trq take of line feel like idle if need be.
 

Jook13

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Josh
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
350
Reaction score
1,132
Location
Prescott az
Vehicle(s)
Suzuki samurai
Your Bronco Model
Base
I'll just talk about my own personal experiences. I have a Suzuki samurai on 32 inch tires. Stock, the thing is a bit under 60 hp and around the same terqs. After the lift and big tires, I was topping out at around 45 mph unless I was going downhilll. I added a turbo bringing the hp to around 100 and can now cruise the speed limit almost everywhere. I am satisfied, my samurai can literally out-offroad this bronco and almost any Jeep. I can go the speed limit to my trails. The thing is well under $10k total. Most fun I've ever had in a vehicle.

The 2.3 is more than double the hp and triple the TQ. It will be fantastic with keeping up with traffic and passing and all that. I feel if you want something fast, you gotta pony up the bigger dollars and possibly wait for the raptor. I was hoping for a manual 2.7, it's a bummer but manual is more important than horsepower for me. It's still a ways off before the bronco is on lots for sale, maybe Ford will hear our feedback and make adjustments (mansquatch!!), But they will offer what they offer and hopefully one of their combinations will be better than we can get with Jeep or Toyota or land Rover or whatever (I bet it will be better)
 

codydb19

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
Cody
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
18
Messages
978
Reaction score
5,097
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Silverado
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
Clubs
 
Or, I could ask what other peoples thoughts are.
Ok you say that, but everyone here is giving you their thoughts and you’re still stuck on decades old engine tech. Turbo-charged engines have been around for awhile now, and they will continue to be the way of the future until ICE isn’t a thing anymore. Just because it’s a small displacement, turbo-charged engine doesn’t mean it’s made out of aluminum foil.

I love the GMC Canyon with the diesel my parents have.
And that diesel engine you love also happens to be a 4 cylinder, turbo charged engine ?‍♂

Edit to say: there is a reason that the Raptor went from a 6.2L V8 to a 3.5L twin-turbo v6. Other than sound I don’t see anyone complaining about that engine.
 

BroncoMike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
681
Reaction score
1,167
Location
Upper Norwegia
Vehicle(s)
'71 Bronco, '02 Excursion
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
The problem is that there's nothing to move along TO. Sure, you have options, but the options suck.

You're handed a high-school cafeteria steak when what you want is a nice porterhouse. The porterhouse is an option, sure... But you can only get the porterhouse if you eat it on a plate made out of human feces. Or you could have the filet mignon you know you'd love, but you're going to have to go kill the cow, butcher it, and cook it yourself. Meanwhile, the forum is full of people saying, "It's still a steak. Suck it up and be thankful it's not a sloppy joe! If you add A-1 to it, it's not that bad!"

Personally, if I'm paying $60,000 for a steak, I want it to be a damned nice steak, not a compromise.
The 2.7 sucks? Because you want the stick with it, I guess? I agree that part is unfortunate, BUT to complain the the stick isn't available with the 2.7 has a point: Ford should have engineered the 7-speed to be compatible with the 2.7 as well as the 2.3. I personally don't care for a stick anymore, but I won't complain that it is available for those who want it. See how that works? To complain that the 2.3 is available at all is entirely pointless. Don't check that box when you buy it, just like I won't check the manual box when I buy mine (if I buy one at all).

I also agree it IS a cryin' shame that every manufacturer won't build a completely custom car for each of us, but I guess their stockholders prefer that the company actually makes some money and that unfortunately means designing/marketing to the largest audience possible. Yes, that means compromises, and some people won't be satisfied with the options. Sorry you fall into that category - I do also - but my guess is that no major manufacturer could make every single consumer 100% satisfied no matter how much money corporate was okay with losing in the effort.

Me, I'm unhappy that Bronco ever left the lineup and I couldn't have a new one every 5-6 years or so. I'm unhappy what we do have now isn't an exact Early Bronco duplicate aesthetically with modern materials/engineering, drivetrain and conveniences. I'm unsatisfied that it won't have the 3.0TT or a crazy torquey little turbo Diesel, with portals, two low ranges with twin-stick control, and variable-rate magnetic/hydraulic 16" travel suspension with adjustable ride height, central inflation, run-flat tires, maybe rear steering. And it won't come in Medium Calypso Green/Metallic Pearl White two-tone, with a Medium Latte waterproof leather interior and Line-X floors. But I don't start threads moaning that an option I don't want is available - that is the definition of *pointless*.
 

Sponsored

MallCrawlinBranco

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
stevo
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
74
Reaction score
246
Location
CO
Vehicle(s)
Subaru Forester MT
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
ecoboost engines have VERY small turbos. (Relatively speaking) 2.7 spools up by 2250rpm and 2.3 by 2750. That’s absolutely nothing. Especially if your on the highway your already at 2000+
Problem with my forester is it has 0 torque down low. From the very limited offroading I've done, down low torque is everything when it comes to moving forward. If the 2.3 is spooled at 2750, and I am in crawler mode ("The crawler gear offers up an extremely steep 6.588:1 gear ratio, resulting in a crawl ratio of up to 94.75:1 with the optional two-speed electromechanical transfer case" - TFL)

So if my math is right (and I am by no means an expert)

2750 Engine rpm / 94.751 = 29.023 rpm to the wheels.

29.023 * pi * 35" = 3,191.245 in/min = 265.937 ft/min = 0.05036mpm = 3.022 mph

And this is assuming we can get the sasquatch.

If we had the 2.7. on the other hand:

2250 Engine rpm / 94.751 = 23.746 rpm to the wheels

23.746 * pi * 35" = 2,611.058 in/min = 217.588 ft/min = 0.04120mpm = 2.472 mph

So we're moving 22% faster with 75% of the torque.

shamelessly stealing math from marlincrawler

On a tacoma
If you have 33" tires, a 3.50:1 automatic 1st gear, and a 4.88:1 ring and pinion ratio, then your automatic truck will look like this in first gear... 1.79 MPH

and that is making 171 lb/ft at idle. whereas we get 120 at 2k.

That tacoma on 35"s would be running around 2.016 mph (don't trust anything past the first zero on that number)

I've got no concerns with the Bronco on freeways, I think it will excel (accel?) there. I definitely want the 2.7 for the slow stuff. Less lugging for lower speeds.

Now if someone who knows what the heck they are talking about (I can do math, but don't have real world experience) says this all checks out fine and will be great I'll take it. I've no doubts the bronco will kick the shit out of my subaru for slow stuff, but watching the marlincrawler videos, they've got me hook line and sinker on slower = better, and engineering explained says not to lug turbos. So optimal slow speed with low effort means the 2.7 is a no brainer over the 2.3 and I think the question of "is the 4cyl enough" is still valid (but again, subaru owner here. I'll defer to someone who has gotten out with a proper 4wheeler)
 

WuNgUn

Banned
Badlands
Banned
Banned
First Name
Eric
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Threads
195
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
6,870
Location
Ontario Canada
Vehicle(s)
2 door Squatched
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
The Bronco looks big and heavy - even as a 2 door - is anyone actually interested in the 4 cylinder in the 4 door?

I just don't see a turbo 4 cylinder holding up for 100k plus miles. I actually love 4 cylinders as I'm not concerned about horsepower and speed, and more interested in economy and so when I saw you could only get a 7 speed with the 4 cylinder I didn't think I'd want the V6 anyway.

Even though I'm only interested in the 2 door, now I'm second guessing if the 2.3 turbo is enough. With the ergonomics and all the off-road running gear I'd bet that the fuel economy between the 4 and 6 cylinders won't be a tipping point one way or another.

I'm really hoping between now and December Ford decides to offer the V6 with a manual transmission - I can't imagine its and engineering issue. Only thing I can think is with a manual trans there would be no point in the GOAT modes so it's more of a marketing issue.

I'd like a Base 2door, V6, 7 speed, 'squatch, with the LED headlamps.

If I have to get an automatic to get the V6 then I do want the GOAT modes and then I'm looking at a Wildtrack? Or a badlands (which I don't think comes with the V6)?
Don't forget, the Bronco has aluminum doors, fenders and swing gate. It'll be okay in the 2 door, but 4 door, I'd be more comfortable with the V6
 

bbostic5

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
294
Reaction score
748
Location
Alpharetta, GA
Vehicle(s)
'19 4Runner, '08 Civic, Waiting on a 2DR Badlands
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
5.0 doesn’t hit 380+lbft till almost 4000rpm.
2.7 hits 380+ at 2250rpm. That’s a massive difference
And what’s the redline? For the record, I like the engines the Bronco offers. Saying you need to redline a V8 to make torque is ridiculous though.
 

FirstOnRaceDay

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Devin
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Threads
35
Messages
1,503
Reaction score
2,938
Location
Toledo Ohio
Vehicle(s)
17 Civic, 19.5 Silverado
Your Bronco Model
Base
And what’s the redline? For the record, I like the engines the Bronco offers. Saying you need to redline a V8 to make torque is ridiculous though.
Red line is 6500-6750 on the 150 (so 60%) and 6000 on the 2.7 (37%)

My point was. People complain “a turbo engine has to work harder” sure if you look at lbft per cylinder.... but what about RPM? A n/a motor has to run 2x as fast to generate the same torque. So what’s worse? 30% more force per cylinder or 100% more movement
 
 


Top