All arguments for the Broncos features

[Rogues Gambit]

I could, yes. I dont need this to be any faster than it needs to be since I already have other toys.

I already built a 2.3 before, Just this time, I'd stick with a dedicated shop

Also, I'm starting to understand the obsession with Godzilla

Sponsored

 

[Jalisurr]

Curious, on the off chance the stick's only available on the 2.3, would you be willing to settle?

I would

I'd rather have the 2.7 and an auto than the 2.3 and a manual, personally. If the only options were 2.3 (with manual available) or complicated 3.0 hybrid stuff, I'd probably go for the 2.3 but not be super happy about it.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

I'd rather have the 2.7 and an auto than the 2.3 and a manual, personally. If the only options were 2.3 (with manual available) or complicated 3.0 hybrid stuff, I'd probably go for the 2.3 but not be super happy about it.

Well, I'm with you with not being happy, but then swapping in a Coyote or Godzilla would be easier since I'd already have the transmission, and they'd just offer a tremec upgrade

 

[Randy92Fox]

I would be extremely disappointed if the 2.7 wasn't offered but if it came down to 2.3 auto/manual or 3.0 auto for big $ it would make it an easy decision for me personally...give me the manual!

Honestly I think not offering a NA engine would be a huge mistake and the 5.0 would have probably grabbed more sales that would be on the fence over Jeep/Bronco but that's completely my own opinion.

 

[SpursFan]

The 2.3 has plenty of power and keep in mind (at least around here) the majority of Jeeps sold are with the new 4T which I believe underperforms the 2.3 (been in both, Rubicon vs ranger...ranger felt quite a bit quicker but not apples to apples). The2.3 would satisfy a high percentage of the market, if that's the base and 2.7 or even better 3.0 is offer I'll be stoked and Jeep will need to rework it's engine/options.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

I'll buy the Jersey/NY members a round of Ford offers a Coyote with a manual

One mistake Jeep makes is not offering a Hemi, whether it's the 5.7 or 6.4

 

[Randy92Fox]

The 2.3 has plenty of power and keep in mind (at least around here) the majority of Jeeps sold are with the new 4T which I believe underperforms the 2.3 (been in both, Rubicon vs ranger...ranger felt quite a bit quicker but not apples to apples). The2.3 would satisfy a high percentage of the market, if that's the base and 2.7 or even better 3.0 is offer I'll be stoked and Jeep will need to rework it's engine/options.

On paper the 2.3 is great and awesome with tuning. I've only driven one and it was in an auto Mustang convertible rental and I hated it. However I have a bit of seat time in a 2.0 fusion before and after tuning and it's just fine. Maybe the Mustang was a lemon?

I'd take a 2.3 Manual over any of Jeep's current drivetrain combos though.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

On paper the 2.3 is great and awesome with tuning. I've only driven one and it was in an auto Mustang convertible rental and I hated it. However I have a bit of seat time in a 2.0 fusion before and after tuning and it's just fine. Maybe the Mustang was a lemon?

I'd take a 2.3 Manual over any of Jeep's current drivetrain combos though.

Ditto.

I wanted to get a manual GT to replace my Audi, but my dad had decided to help me out... Big mistake as I wound up with an auto 2.3.

Wasn't bad, it moved, but the automatic combined with the added weight of the soft top numbed it and at that point, I did everything short of a Catback at that point and was already bored of the power (275whp on HD Rollers, 311 prior to a few additional mods on a regular Dyno)

If it were manual, I'm convinced I wouldn't of minded hitting the bolt on limit, but there's no Delorean to go back to the future, now is there?

 

[SpursFan]

Being a mustang guy I refuse to drive a 2.3 mustang (other than my SVO) so only experience was in new ranger. Tunes on all EB engines can make a huge difference especially when you factor in changes to shift modes. I haven't been on the ranger forums much but I'd be curious to hear how the 2.3 handles 35's.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Being a mustang guy I refuse to drive a 2.3 mustang (other than my SVO) so only experience was in new ranger. Tunes on all EB engines can make a huge difference especially when you factor in changes to shift modes. I haven't been on the ranger forums much but I'd be curious to hear how the 2.3 handles 35's.

Weak link for the Ecostang was the Intercooler, fortunately I had mine in the fall and upgraded it in winter

Gotta find the thread, but according to it, they used one designed for 250hp, or essentially a FoST/Escape

 

[BAUS67]

I'm sure I will end up with one just to replace the wife's Explorer. Just want to see what comes around as far as other models. I'm sure by the time it is released we will have updates on other models. So I won't be the first to own one but I can see one in the stable.

In a perfect world all I would look for would be 5.0, wouldn't care auto or crashbox, when 'ya 'gotta V-8 sometimes auto ain't so bad, and SFA. …...

But I will say that since it's IFS , and if they DON'T make an SFA option one day, this thing better has some serious programming, sway bar disconnect's, lockers, etc. to enable it to perform off-road. The one thing I don't want to happen is for it to be cool, all the mall crawlers are happy and it is a flop with the hardcore crowd because the Wrangler will spank it off road. BUILT FORD TOUGH used to be the motto let's not forget that aspect.

Thought I was reading about maybe a 5 cyl. diesel from the Transit ?? Did it get shelved ??? Not a big diesel fan but I see alot of guys that use a diesel with success in crawlers 'cause of the torque !!!! Think the have diesel Wrangler now. Hell if I gotta have IFS then why not a diesel to boot !!!

 

[Tslater1989]

I would love the 3.5 NA, thats whats in my wifes explorer. Its a very reliable engine, and although its not a powerhouse. The HP liter is pretty good. It could easily be tuned for 300hp and 260ft lbs or more. In a vehicle weighing under 5k, that would be a good setup. I'm not against ecoboost engines. But the long term ownership is important. Replacing turbos after 100k miles is not an expense I want to deal with. Keep in mind I put 200k miles or more on a vehicle before I get rid of it.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

I'll be honest, especially as I'm in that gray area between tipsy and drunk as sometimes, I drink when I work on my stories

I don't off-road enough to care about SFA vs IFA, all I'm interested in is driving it topless and rowing through the gears, an experience i never got to have with my old 225 TT nor my old EB Mustang.

Don't know any trails besides Reed Road in Jackson (@OX1 's neighborhood), and been too busy with work and stuff to explore (though this year, going with Remy, my Ram), but I miss convertible's and despite not off-roading often enough, it was my drug of choice as I can't afford another ticket, plus it feels adventurerous as hell to.me

Just the two cents of the forum's wiseass

 

[BAUS67]

I would love the 3.5 NA, thats whats in my wifes explorer. Its a very reliable engine, and although its not a powerhouse. The HP liter is pretty good. It could easily be tuned for 300hp and 260ft lbs or more. In a vehicle weighing under 5k, that would be a good setup. I'm not against ecoboost engines. But the long term ownership is important. Replacing turbos after 100k miles is not an expense I want to deal with. Keep in mind I put 200k miles or more on a vehicle before I get rid of it.

Before my wife had the Explorer she drove a 98 Taurus DOHC as her daily. When I would drive my buddies around in it they were all SHOCKED how much that thing would "shit and git" for Ford family care. It would peel rubber on command from EVERY stoplight. the thing would just fly. Impressive !! . The 3.0 DOHC in the car was the predecessor for the 3.5.

 

[SpursFan]

I would love the 3.5 NA, thats whats in my wifes explorer. Its a very reliable engine, and although its not a powerhouse. The HP liter is pretty good. It could easily be tuned for 300hp and 260ft lbs or more. In a vehicle weighing under 5k, that would be a good setup. I'm not against ecoboost engines. But the long term ownership is important. Replacing turbos after 100k miles is not an expense I want to deal with. Keep in mind I put 200k miles or more on a vehicle before I get rid of it.

Replacing turbos is rare and more like in the couple to few hundred thousand mile range. These aren't turbo systems on the 70s and 80s with no cooling, poor oiling and shielding.

Sponsored