Anyone else wish there were normally aspirated engine options?

[MnLakeBum]

I’d love for the Bronco to have the option for the Ford Lion 3.0 Diesel that we get 29 mpg with in my wife’s 2018 Range Rover. It’s the same size as my Bronco(100 pounds lighter) but the diesel has way more torque and better throttle response and real world acceleration. 443 ft/lbs at 1,700 rpms makes it a great tow vehicle for my 7,200 pound boat/trailer.

Sponsored

 

[myrealname123]

Everything is just so danged complex these days...

 

[fr8ycat]

Got lucky with spark plugs not breaking too.

Same here, until I tried to remove the last plug.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Your making an assumption. I'm not boo-hooing, I'm the kind of guy that's been blessed and doesn't care about MPGs. Don't care about CAFE, and certainly am unimpressed with a low grade turbo engine. Some of us actually find the music from a big 8 enjoyable. Sure beats the pffft sound from a BOV.

I got the Bronco for it's fun factor off road and topless. I knew up front it will be a turtle on the road.

What part or design makes this engine (2.7) low grade in your mind?

I do love the way the ford GT sounds with a V8, BUT I think ALL newer engines should be force fed!!! For example the 5.2 supercharged engine is in my crosshairs for a someday Bronco swap, and is highly likely that I'll accomplish it in a few years based on my previous engine swaps I've done, this one is no biggie either.

V8s sound great, I don't care about fuel prices either, as long as it has plenty of power and enough fuel capacity, I'm happy.

 

[PrepVet]

no.

 

[navi]

Yes, I love a V8, I still have 2 that I don't drive very much. but I'm fine with the better mileage, more efficient options, the 2.7 is my daily driver.
I mean, in my youth the air in LA was like Beijing is today.
It's a small price to pay IMO.

 

[atimberwolf]

What part or design makes this engine (2.7) low grade in your mind?

I do love the way the ford GT sounds with a V8, BUT I think ALL newer engines should be force fed!!! For example the 5.2 supercharged engine is in my crosshairs for a someday Bronco swap, and is highly likely that I'll accomplish it in a few years based on my previous engine swaps I've done, this one is no biggie either.

V8s sound great, I don't care about fuel prices either, as long as it has plenty of power and enough fuel capacity, I'm happy.

I dropped all the way to the 2.3 to row gears. So I can't really speak to the 2.7. Would have loved to get the 6 with a manual but they won't sell it. Low grade may be unfair, but we're still cutting corners to meet CAFE standards.

We've had better technology available for a long time. My 95 Vette is a great example of what we could do with an 8 but the tech was never pushed down into the other cars. I know this is apples to oranges, but in town it will pull 19 mpg, on the highway 31. Real world calculations, not the on board cpu. The only mods to get there were me opening up the breathing front and back. As a commuter it's a great toy (until winter comes).

So, you can put an 8 in something and still get good mpg and hp/tq numbers that make it fun without boosting. That said I can't argue with the better numbers once it's force fed either. Look at what Dodge is putting out, the 392, Demon, and TRX are big number vehicles.

Here's where I think it's all lip service. The 2.3, and 2.7 both put out decent power from a small engine thanks to the boost they receive. And people argue at much better numbers than an 8. But like most engines there's still an MPG hit over the slower NA engines. I'd rather just have the 8 and accept the lower MPGs but that's not where our country is. Even the last hold out, Dodge, is talking about dumping the big engines in 2023. CAFE standards demand even those 3 or 4 MPGs.

If it was just about power and MPGs slap four electric motors on the corners and run. Those are instant torque and nearly infinite MPGs. There's a group that loves the e-cars (and they are driving the national discussion) but I'm older and remember the smell of half burnt fuel exiting a loping-cammed V8. I'd take a 69 Mach 1 over a Mach-E any day of the week.

Those choices are what make us a great country.

Pretty long, but I'll close with this... According to the fueleconomy dot gov site, the 2022 Bronco SAS with the 6cyl auto pulls 17mpg across the board. The 2022 Wrangler 392 pulls 13/17 for a combined 14. Both are obviously force fed. Comparing hp/tq we get 330/415 on the Bronco and 470/470 from the Wrangler. In my mind, it's hard to argue we have to drop all the way down to a 4 or 6 cylinder engine if we embrace the tech available. It's a 3ish mpg hit to go with the giant engine. Shoot even my eight year old Raptor is pulling 13-14mpg on a tank of gas.

If you do the engine swap, please post it up. I'd love to learn from your experience and upgrade my Bronco if I keep it long enough.

 

[Sooner]

i have always wanted to turbo an old 300 I-6. I think it would make some great torque. Turbos are great, they make cheap HP without killing a engine. We have been running them for decades on big natural gas engines and getting 100,000 hours of life.

 

[mcinfantry]

I’d love a manual choke, mechanical fuel pump with points and a condenser and a mechanical advance distributor

I’d really love non power brakes
Probably too much to wish for individual carburetors I can adjust for altitude and keep jets in the glove box with a couple fuel filters

nostalgia. There’s a reason it’s in the past

 

[bigblueboing]

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.

The sound of spooling turbo with a tuned exhaust is just as good as a rumble of a NA v8

 

[Bender]

If less moving parts and more power is the goal, gimme an electric Bronco. Then I can put a Yeti cooler in the frunk, fuel up at home, hit 0-60 in 3 seconds, and drive to work for 20 cents. Bonus points if I can do a 360 degree tank spin like a Rivian.

 

[DogHauler]

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.

Turbos last long enough to outlast the factory warranty, they will give you trouble long before anything would fail on a 5.0

Fuel economy on any turbo gasoline engine is overly sensitive to driver behavior. Unless you drive like Mr Magoo your fuel economy will be awful, it's the way the factory meets CAFE requirements.

In real world driving the larger displacement NA engine will likely do better, that's why lots of 2.7L owners are seeing 13mpg, nearly the same fuel economy as a 6.0L H2 Hummer from 15 years ago.

 

[tourproto]

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.

I would have gladly paid thousands more for a NA engine instead of a turbo. My dad had turbo-charged cars back in the 80s and 90s and they all died before the car got to 100k miles.

I know they have gotten "better" and "more reliable" since then but I would still prefer to NOT have the additional plumbing and complexity in my engine. But it is what it is as stated above. Turbos for ICE engines will not go away due to CAFE pressure.

Sponsored