Ford Performance Gearing Up For Big Offroad Accessories/Parts Catalog for 2021 Bronco

Bronc-O

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
522
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2019 Edge ST
Heck my '92 lightning 351W was only 250hp.
First year Lightning was 93. That was my first Ford product.



Advertisement


 

Creepystalker

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kc
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
179
Reaction score
269
Location
Los angeles
Vehicle(s)
2014 Silverado
Well crap, most engines back in the 70's were low on specs, 80's got a little better, 90's even better. So really to compare a 70's engine to a 90's engine isn't a fair comparison. Hell look at my 2012 Mustang V6.... what's it get like 305hp? When a Mustang GT from 2008 only had 320hp? (obvious torque differences though). And that's only a few years apart.

Let me put it this way. If I had my choice, it'd be a nice sounding V8 under the hood, with a 4 BBL Holley carb :D Sadly though, I'm not getting my way. And therefor have to hope that whatever it is, can tow 4000-5000 pounds and doesn't cost me $40k. Because I don't want that. I'm good with a base model. Like a few have said around here, I don't need nor care to have all the bells and whistles. I'd pay a few bucks to upgrade the engine and I'll be happy.
If that is what you want then buy a 1969 Bronco
 

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
551
Reaction score
882
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
1969 Bronco, 1968 Bronco, 2010 Legacy GT 1985 M1028 (Chevy
Vehicle Showcase
3
I know. I'm fine with the 2.7. The 2.3 is more than adequate, but im an HP junky. I'll the the 2.7 for now, and in 10 years or 20 years Illl drop in something else...5.0, 7.3, etc.
........ Mr. Fusion Reactor.
1593556755505.png
 

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
551
Reaction score
882
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
1969 Bronco, 1968 Bronco, 2010 Legacy GT 1985 M1028 (Chevy
Vehicle Showcase
3
Why would anybody still want a carb? Even if I had an older one I would be inclined to get a FI kit for it.
While I love the sound of Q-jet secondarys large enough to swallow a baseball opening up, I'll stick with the Exploder EFI'd 302/347.
The simplicity of the newer EFI bolt on carb replacements is VERY enticing.
 

Paint

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jack
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
3,195
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
Tundra
Vehicle Showcase
1
While I love the sound of Q-jet secondarys large enough to swallow a baseball opening up, I'll stick with the Exploder EFI'd 302/347.
The simplicity of the newer EFI bolt on carb replacements is VERY enticing.
I'll stick with full tilt boogie fuel injection/direct injection. Infinitely more tunable, yugely more efficient, and less prone to ever need touched for heat/cold/altitude/etc.
 

BAUS67

Well-Known Member
First Name
redneck
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
826
Reaction score
1,112
Location
Central PA
Vehicle(s)
88 5.0 LX, 08 F-150 Stepside, 13 Explorer XLT, 97 Jeep Wrangler
BFGoodrich KO2 265/70-17 tires I know for ranger but ……..

So these look like 32 1050 17 and if they would be the ones we saw playing in the sand with the mad max bumper :ROFLMAO: the other day ??? New ones on the sand were the 35's or 315/70r17 if you will. so it looks like we have different kinds of tire in the 32-33 range "street" and "trail" and a 35 "trail" to pick from, so to speak. "Steelies" and street tires are ok for me, till I see what is available. But I'm the kinda' guy who likes to outfit it my own way. When you see both together in the newer pics it looks so much more rugged with the 35's. IMO.
 

Toyhoarder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
260
Reaction score
386
Location
The west
Vehicle(s)
Early Bronco, F-150, F-450
To be fair, the early Bronco had a "little bitch" 170 cu in 105hp engine. It did a nice job. Torquey and fine on the highway up to around 65. The next step up was a 302 at around 150hp. Our Bronco II was 140 hp. It did fine with four people towing a boat. Heck my '92 lightning 351W was only 250hp.

The new four is gonna be very capable, I reckon.
To be fair, the next step up was a 289, 195hp if memory serves.
 

MaverickMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
738
Reaction score
1,087
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj 80 amc eagle 85 cj7 laredo 79 ford quadravan(inoperable due to tragic fire)
Why would anybody still want a carb? Even if I had an older one I would be inclined to get a FI kit for it.
I dont get all the hate for old cars with carbs. My carbureted vehicles honestly require less fiddling and chasing sensors. The most I ever do to carbs is adjust the idle every 6 months or so. My eagle has a 38 weber takes 1 pump and starts immediately. My old van had a cheap holley and i only adjusted it once in 3 years. The demon on my maverick took a lil bit of work because i bought it at a swap meet. once it was cleaned up I would fiddle with it maybe once a year in spring.

I dont expect carbs on new cars but dont get the pure hatred i hear all the time. They are about twice as hard to deal with as a doorknob.
 

paxfish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
95
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
f150 fx4 eco
To be fair, the next step up was a 289, 195hp if memory serves.
Yeah. That became a 302 which smogged out to something pretty anemic after '73. Remember also, 200hp in 1966 equates to around 150 by today's measurement criteria. My '73 was around 140 to 150.

Still, it could handle four people and a tent trailer at highways speeds at about 14 to 15 mpg.
 

Cooknn

Active Member
First Name
David Cook
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
62
Location
Bonita Springs
Vehicle(s)
Ford Focus
Vehicle Showcase
1
That’s how I feel. If I’m at 250k miles in 15 years and the 2.7 or 2.3 blows I’ll definitely be looking at whatever crazy V8 swaps we have at that point. I’ll worry about that in 2035 though ;)
I’m on the same page as you regarding the 15 year part. I already told my wife I’m going to drive this Bronco until I’m an old dude.
 

fossil

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
77
Reaction score
129
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2010 Raptor 1995 SVT Cobra
Yeah. That became a 302 which smogged out to something pretty anemic after '73. Remember also, 200hp in 1966 equates to around 150 by today's measurement criteria. My '73 was around 140 to 150.
Still, it could handle four people and a tent trailer at highways speeds at about 14 to 15 mpg.
The 73 bronco weighed about 3,600# and the optional 302v8 was 137hp/230ft-lb and it got the job done. I remember my 1980 f150 4X4 had the same hp and got 10mpg if it was empty and I was lucky.

The Ranger 2.3L gets more of it's parts from the Focus RS 350hp than it gets from the Mustang. It is a stout motor to be sure, more than capable of handling Ford's 315hp performance tune.
If I get "stuck" with the 2.3L I'll still be laughing at the competition, louder with the tune.
 

The Ford Bronco Will Be Revealed In...









Top