Anyone else wish there were normally aspirated engine options?

[Havoc1]

I picked up my Bronco Base 2.3L one month ago and love it, but I wish there were normally aspirated engine options. I'm not talking about a big guzzling V8 Raptor, but a NA V6 as an entry level option would be my choice. Have to be honest, seeing the complexity and that enormous mess under the hood doesn't do a lot for my confidence this engine go the 300K miles I expect, or even 200K. Ford isn't alone, the Jeep 2.0T and other turbo engines are just as bad cover removed. All modern engines are complex, but these turbo engines much more so. Its not like there is a significant MPG or power improvement going turbo over a larger NA engine. Again I love my Bronco, but would be happier with a NA V6. I notice even Jeep is forcing customers to the 2.0T, as the 3.6L is only available with manual transmission.

Absolutely.
Although I agree with @Felix808 never eliminate the V8.

Thanks to CAFE standards though we're forcing manufacturers to squeeze every MPG out of an engine in the smallest carbon footprint possible. Hence the constant push to these small turbo engines. I'm not a fan, but we're unlikely to roll that back.

Not true.

2022 F-150
3.3 NA V6: 290hp/265ft-lb
2.7 EB V6: 325hp/400ft-lb

So the EcoBoost gets better city and highway mileage, makes way more torque, and is about 2 seconds quicker 0-60.

Or let's look at the 2.3:

2016 Mustang:
3.7 NA V6: 300hp/280tq
2.3 EB I4: 310hp/320tq

Once again the turbo engine gets significantly better city and highway mileage, while continuing to make more power AND torque.

A V6 NA Bronco would be, by far, the slowest of all the Broncos and get the worst mileage.

And that's just for the V6's. Why would they waste time and money (literally have to pay for "non fuel efficient" vehicles) creating an 8 cylinder when the boosted option puts out just as much, if not more power.

I'm all for the V8, but from a manufacturer standpoint it's not logical anymore unfortunately. That's why the raptor got rid of the 6.2L unfortunately.

Sponsored

 

[lenitech]

You made a mistake in getting the 2.3. The 2.7 is a noticeable difference.

 

[AZ_Liberty]

Absolutely. I tend to keep a new vehicle for around a quarter million miles.

I have absolutely no doubt that the old but reliable Triton 5.4 will do that (only pucker factor is spark plug changes). I get 16-19 mpg in my 6000 lb Expedition. Mileage in my wife's F-150 with the 2.7 is no better, and it weighs a good 1500 lbs less.

 

[broncobase1]

I would like a 4 cylinder turbocharged diesel. Sadly, due to the emissions strangle hold, it will never happen.

Jeep and Ram have the 3.0 diesel. I used to think diesel was the way to go, but not anymore. With the much higher purchase cost, DEF, and the much higher fuel cost its hard to justify.

 

[broncobase1]

You made a mistake in getting the 2.3. The 2.7 is a noticeable difference.

I'm not interested in more power, the 2.3 is plenty.

 

[HBTFD]

Jeep and Ram have the 3.0 diesel. I used to think diesel was the way to go, but not anymore. With the much higher purchase cost, DEF, and the much higher fuel cost its hard to justify.

A few years ago it was easy to get around the DEF, EGR and filter cleaning. Going forward it’s going to be about batteries. From cubic inches to amp hours……..

 

[Havoc1]

I would like a 4 cylinder turbocharged diesel. Sadly, due to the emissions strangle hold, it will never happen.

False.

German cars have that option in the U.S.
GM is working on putting on in the ATS. Ford has the v6 diesel, who's to stop them from putting an i4 in?

 

[JT58Bronc]

I am quite happy with the 2.7. I was initially concerned about the under hood and appearance of the 2.7 being complicated although is does not seem to be that bad now that I have studied the engine bay. And it seems to have good power to me. A V8 (5.0) might not be a bad option but if it were offered it would probably priced out of sight- like the Jeep 392. I also don't think that the MPG would improve- probably be slightly worse.

The 3.3 NA engine, I think the Bronco would be under powered. I test drove an F150 regular cab with the 3.3, 2WD and an extended cab F150 with the 2.7. I thought the 3.3 was sluggish- especially down at the low end. The 2.7 had so much more power than- even in the larger and heavier extended cab.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

1-4 MPGs isn't what I would consider "significantly better" mileage, but I guess we have different scales.
But those 1-4 gains are what CAFE is designed to squeeze out.

Fine, if expensive gas dont matter, what about the torque rise then???

N/A engines are laughably prehistoric now. So funny when I read these boo-a-hoo posts.

I'm the guy that sent ford letters and drawings when I was a kid, 35 yrs ago telling them to put a 2.7 twin turbo in a Bronco production vehicle, along with multi-speed trans and 20" of wheel travel. I still have the old drawings around somewhere...
Don't underestimate the value of sending a letter to a CEO of big companies.
( I also called hummer and helped light a fire under their asses to get the civilian version of the H1 produced.)

Now that the twin turboed, twin injected, engines finally here I'm flabbergasted that they actually built it!
These are the engines car and driver magazine was dreaming of 30 yrs ago, with the editors explaining back then how it would some day all be possible and affordable!
Fantastic little engine that makes as much power per CC as porsche!

Turbos last and last. The bugs were worked out when we were in diapers by our forefathers.

So NO, I wouldn't even have bought a bronco if it was N/A antiquated engine.

 

[acetdeucy]

I picked up my Bronco Base 2.3L one month ago and love it, but I wish there were normally aspirated engine options. I'm not talking about a big guzzling V8 Raptor, but a NA V6 as an entry level option would be my choice. Have to be honest, seeing the complexity and that enormous mess under the hood doesn't do a lot for my confidence this engine go the 300K miles I expect, or even 200K. Ford isn't alone, the Jeep 2.0T and other turbo engines are just as bad cover removed. All modern engines are complex, but these turbo engines much more so. Its not like there is a significant MPG or power improvement going turbo over a larger NA engine. Again I love my Bronco, but would be happier with a NA V6. I notice even Jeep is forcing customers to the 2.0T, as the 3.6L is only available with manual transmission.

Not necessarily NA, but I would rather take an Inline 3.0d. Damn the bad luck!

 

[Laminar]

Absolutely. I tend to keep a new vehicle for around a quarter million miles.

I have absolutely no doubt that the old but reliable Triton 5.4 will do that (only pucker factor is spark plug changes). I get 16-19 mpg in my 6000 lb Expedition. Mileage in my wife's F-150 with the 2.7 is no better, and it weighs a good 1500 lbs less.

Getting 19mpg in a 5.4 Expedition is the top 5% of the expected outcome, definitely a huge outlier. Driving a 2.7 in the same manner would net you well into the mid-20s.

 

[HBTFD]

False.

German cars have that option in the U.S.
GM is working on putting on in the ATS. Ford has the v6 diesel, who's to stop them from putting an i4 in?

No one except the people in the Glass house, they are going electric. Ford pulled the v6 diesel from the f150. Plenty of options in non US vehicles but only the superduty has a diesel for US retail.

 

[MayhemMike]

My only concern with the Bronco was the engine options. I have the 2.3. So far so good, but I have to say, just the appearance alone of my 2D BL “ screams” the need for a V8. Being a certified geezer, I have lived my entire life with Ford V8’s. It would have been nice to have that option in this version Bronco.

 

[sniffHound]

Everyone stop. Please. I want an aspirated V8.
Next thread.

I picked up my Bronco Base 2.3L one month ago and love it, but I wish there were normally aspirated engine options. I'm not talking about a big guzzling V8 Raptor, but a NA V6 as an entry level option would be my choice. Have to be honest, seeing the complexity and that enormous mess under the hood doesn't do a lot for my confidence this engine go the 300K miles I expect, or even 200K. Ford isn't alone, the Jeep 2.0T and other turbo engines are just as bad cover removed. All modern engines are complex, but these turbo engines much more so. Its not like there is a significant MPG or power improvement going turbo over a larger NA engine. Again I love my Bronco, but would be happier with a NA V6. I notice even Jeep is forcing customers to the 2.0T, as the 3.6L is only available with manual transmission.

 

[HotdogThud]

I'm not interested in more power, the 2.3 is plenty.

It really is, and to your original post about a naturally-aspirated V6 being a thing...

the NA V6 in the tacoma is the single biggest reason I opted not to get one instead of a bronco. Could have had it way sooner, Toyota quality, and damn near bulletproof for 300k miles or more.

And they'd be the slowest 300k miles anyone has ever dealt with. anything under 250tq in a vehicle that's over 4000 lbs is rough. Compound that with the fact that it's not even going to make that max torque rating until the engine is revved up past 4k or higher, and you're gonna have a bad time.

I've got a codgery next door neighbor with a '98 K3500 that still has the stock V8 in it. His stock v8 makes the exact same power as my lightly modified VW GTI, and I have half the cylinders and 1/3 the displacement. We drink beers and laugh about the demise of 'classic' engines, but he drove semis for 40 years, he knows what turbos have done for society.

Sponsored