Ford explains why no manual with 2.7L Bronco

[BreakingBadlands]

My turn to rant...

I still think it’s a technical problem because this seems like the easy answer to a softball question from a Ford interviewer.

It is hard for me to believe that, when Ford sat down to develop this idea, they did not recognize that the type of person who wants a stick shift manual (9 times out of 10) is the type of person who wants the more powerful engine option. This is what makes it so ironic when he refers to it being the best decision to provide “technical” “rock climbing” crowds with what they want.

Nobody I know who hangs out in the woods is ever like, “thank god I had that four cylinder with less torque and not as much power on that challenging part of the trail.” This was an obvious misstep by Ford in the preliminary planning of this (should have been paired only with the 2.7 from the get-go) and now they’re trying to explain it away because they’re too far invested in the bad decision.

Sponsored

 

[mrxg78]

If the manual is being offered to the “traditional” User who wants to do “technical” things off-road with a “creeper” gear then why not offer manual with the 2.7 only and not the 2.3?

totally agree why not the 2.7 only

 

[The Pope]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.......

When the MT was originally designed, it Should Have Been Designed With A Bolt On Bell-housing.

PERIOD!

I'm going to be one of the buyers who will have to wait to see what FoMoCo offers for 2022, as I will not buy a Direct Injection Only Engine. So, either give me the MT with the 2.7L or Redesign the 2.3L to have the Direct AND Port Injection.

I want a MT, but I will not buy any engine that it Direct Injected Only.

 

[kodiakisland]

The 2.7 would be great, but I think most who actually do take the MT will be happy with the 2.3. I’m excited about the mansquatch and find little to complain about.

Lots of complainers, sure, but how many of them were really going to get the MT or even a Bronco at all? I’m all in because of the MT.

 

[BroncoTPA]

I agree about the 350Z.

I bought and restored a 2003 350Z two years ago, it is currently my daily driver (not that I drive with Covid). Did you attend in ZFEST in Orlando back in the early days of the 350Z? Going to the ZDAYZ event in NC next week! I will be going to the Bronco East event the next week to finally see the new Bronco.

I am getting a FE with the 2.7L Auto. I will miss a manual; however I think the fact that ford provided a manual at all and fixed the Squash package is awesome for the community. Developing a manual for the 2.7L does not make financial sense for Ford at this time, hopefully down the road.

Sounds like you have a wonderful week planned!

I lived in Missouri back when I had my 350z (2003 through 2008) and I wasn't able to attend the events as easily. I imagine that the roads in Tennessee would be wonderful for the Z.

Everytime I catch myself thinking that I "need" the power of the 2.7L I remind myself that the 2.3 will make more power earlier in RPM than the Z and the Z was a blast to drive.

The only reason that would keep me from getting a manual in the Bronco at this point would be if they announce all manual orders will be late 2021 delivery. In that case I will switch to the auto 2.7 immediately. I did not go through the stress of reserving on the night of the reveal to not get one of the first Broncos off of the line.

 

[vrtical]

MT is now a niche market. I will always have a MT sports car laying around, it just might not be new. I would have no issues downgrading to a 2.3/MT even though its not really a downgrade,. Smaller displacement turbo engines make a boat load of power at better rpm range, this isnt the 80s/90s anymore.

 

[JT1]

My turn to rant...

I still think it’s a technical problem because this seems like the easy answer to a softball question from a Ford interviewer.

It is hard for me to believe that, when Ford sat down to develop this idea, they did not recognize that the type of person who wants a stick shift manual (9 times out of 10) is the type of person who wants the more powerful engine option. This is what makes it so ironic when he refers to it being the best decision to provide “technical” “rock climbing” crowds with what they want.

Nobody I know who hangs out in the woods is ever like, “thank god I had that four cylinder with less torque and not as much power on that challenging part of the trail.” This was an obvious misstep by Ford in the preliminary planning of this (should have been paired only with the 2.7 from the get-go) and now they’re trying to explain it away because they’re too far invested in the bad decision.

As someone who rock climbs in a jeep, power is way less important than gearing, tire size, wheelbase and flex. There has never been a time in the rocks where I needed more power. More lift, bigger tires, more traction or a locker, sure.

 

[Lcubed]

basically, ford is blaming it on the fact that americans aren't required to learn how to drive a stick to get a license (unlike most of europe where manual transmission take up rates are far higher).

our educational system fails us again ...

 

[zaki]

Only 41 or 13% of the 327 car models sold in the US in 2020 are offered with the manual transmission. That is down from 37% less than a decade ago.



Shockingly, by 2018 only 18% of Americans were capable of driving a manual and that percentage is definitely lower now.



The automatic transmission may be easier, more convenient and more “logical” a choice but it does not connect the driver and the vehicle to the same degree.



A manual makes the driver an integral part of the machine.

There is the engine with its power figures, the transmission, the driver (your name here)and your abilities, the suspension and the tires and so on.



The ability of the very same vehicle with two different drivers can be completely altered. I, for instance, could never drive my manual NSX even 1/10th as well as could Ayrton Senna on his worst day.



The driver and the machine truly become linked and as one only in the vehicle where the driver is actively involved in selecting the gear via a manual transmission.



The small but vocal minority of enthusiasts still carrying the torch for manual transmission are making a difference in reminding us and the manufacturers that for some of us the right to self-row is inalienable and an integral part of the driving experience.



I am glad Ford offers a manual for the Bronco and I wish they would offer it with every engine option available.

 

[Cookieck]

"Still, Jeep says that fewer than 5 percent of new Wranglers leave its Toledo, Ohio, assembly plant bound for U.S. showrooms with the manual transmission."

Really easy market research for them....although I think they will have a higher percentage of manuals, and would have had a lot higher rate if it was offered with the 2.7.

But 5% of a vehicle that makes 200k a year is still 10k a year. And when manual is only an option on 1 of 3 engines for the wrangler I’d say 10k a year is actually pretty good. More than the first edition broncos in one year, and still sells that many every year. More than the take rate of a mustang gt500 since majority of mustangs sold are the base model smallest engine.

 

[BreakingBadlands]

As someone who rock climbs in a jeep, power is way less important than gearing, tire size, wheelbase and flex. There has never been a time in the rocks where I needed more power. More lift, bigger tires, more traction or a locker, sure.

I understand what you’re saying, and maybe I should rephrase. I’m not so much concerned with the 30 extra hp, it’s the 90 extra ft/lbs of torque that would probably be nice for tough uphill muddy rutted trails. Louisianian with less rock climbing around here...

 

[mustangfamily03]

As someone who rock climbs in a jeep, power is way less important than gearing, tire size, wheelbase and flex. There has never been a time in the rocks where I needed more power. More lift, bigger tires, more traction or a locker, sure.

100% agree. Gearing is everything off road. This drives me crazy - People are under estimating the 2.3 MT combo and the 2.7 is going to be way too powerful to use in the rocks with a manual. Could be done but would cause the tires to slip more and just be more of a PITA. The only reason I can think of is to drive a 2.7 manual to work and drive it like a sports car? ?‍ I have a 2.7 in my F150 with 3.55 rear and it runs like a scalded dog, the bronco with a 2.7 auto would be good speeding through sand dunes or a 2.7 MT to speed to the mall ? I’m just saying the 2.3 MT or auto will be more than enough (with the gearing) to do what 95%+ are going to do with or without Sasquatch.

 

[mustangfamily03]

I understand what you’re saying, and maybe I should rephrase. I’m not so much concerned with the 30 extra hp, it’s the 90 extra ft/lbs of torque that would probably be nice for tough uphill muddy rutted trails. Louisianian with less rock climbing around here...

Tires and clearance would be more of a concern. That extra 90 lb ft will only be applicable on the street or maybe some situations in sand. Even then the 2.3 is more than enough and people will see once the reviews hit or they hit the lots.

 

[MrJoe]

As someone who rock climbs in a jeep, power is way less important than gearing, tire size, wheelbase and flex. There has never been a time in the rocks where I needed more power. More lift, bigger tires, more traction or a locker, sure.

Totally agree.. My rock toy has a mind blowing 150HP, but it's more than enough via gearing and tires.

Sponsored