Jeep and Chevrolet's Reaction to New Ford Bronco

loubif

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
56
Reaction score
68
Location
Milwaukee WI
Sure they put coyotes in EB’s... they also have a hell of a lot less regulatory constraints in building a swapped vehicle.

Am I an engineer? No. But I do know how to listen and extrapolate trends based on information provided to me. Notice how not a single midsize truck has a V8? And notice how Jeep/FCA who absolutely LOVES putting a V8 into every single product they have has not put a V8 in a wrangler? There are reasons for this s, and honestly I may not fully understand all of them. Ford isn’t withholding the V8 just to piss people off or because they’re mean they have reasons for it and getting hung up on that is missing the forest for the trees.
As much as I would LOVE the 5.0 or even better the new 7.3 (It is physically smaller than the 5.0) in the new Bronco I KNOW it won't happen but I'll still be getting a new Bronco (maybe after the initial runs to get all the gremlins out of it) with the highest output engine that will be available and I'll be fine with it!!!



Advertisement


 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
908
Reaction score
2,119
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI
I'm tired of hearing about spool times. Turbos don't spool like they did 30 years ago. These are not twin disco potatoes on a single cam D16 ffs. They're tiny, and there's 2 of them, and the motors have TIVCT. You're acting like a larger displacement V8 is the king of transient response compared to a small displacement V6 turbo that was designed to minimize transient response.
 

Tslater1989

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tyler
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
308
Reaction score
529
Location
Central Michigan
Vehicle(s)
(212k) 97 F150 XLT, (321k) 99 Expedition EB, (77k) 2016 Explorer XLT. several go karts
I'm tired of hearing about spool times. Turbos don't spool like they did 30 years ago. These are not twin disco potatoes on a single cam D16 ffs. They're tiny, and there's 2 of them, and the motors have TIVCT. You're acting like a larger displacement V8 is the king of transient response compared to a small displacement V6 turbo that was designed to minimize transient response.
A lot of people dont understand it. The turbos that ford is using are small but incredibly efficient. These motors are built for boost, pretty damn good too if I might add. The robustness of these engines allow them to take the shock load quite well. The shock load being the rapid boost and heavy load strains. A V6 like this, 15-20 years ago would have been a 10k build. Are they absolute powerhouses? Not necessarily. Are they fairly reliable v8 alternatives? Definitely. There is an inherent problem with relying on turbos though. To get effective boost and maintain economy is a balance, but much like any performance build. You often have too big of a smile with your foot pinning the pedal to the floor to get the economic benefit from it. When driven right. They are pretty efficient, but they are also a lot of fun. I drove the 2.7 EcoBoost in a 2019 4x4 f150 crew cab, and it surprised me. I longed for the 5.0 rumble for sure. But that 2.7 was no slouch. It definitely would have eaten my 5.4l expeditions breakfast without hesitation. Personally though, and this is just my opinion. I dont like the EcoBoost from a longtime ownership standpoint. I keep my vehicles for a long time. My 97 f150 has 212k miles, my expedition has 320k miles. So my concern is at those numbers, a rebuild will be necessary on a boosted application. Thats not cheap to do. HOWEVER, there are plenty of people who have put 200k miles on them, so take it with a grain of salt. Personally, if the only option is to have an EcoBoost, it wont stop me. But it will always be a concern in the back of my mind.
 

bbostic5

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
165
Reaction score
344
Location
Atlanta
Vehicle(s)
'18 Accord, '08 Civic, '93 FD
Yeah turbo tech has grown leaps and bounds. I'm fine with an Ecoboost as long as there's a 6 cylinder option. I wish Ford would come out with an eight cylinder EB in addition to the 5.0, but that'll never happen. Straight 6 EB would be sweet as well.

As for longevity, I don't think today's turbo engines are nearly as unreliable as they used to be. More complexity and added heat? Sure, but there's a lot of great benefits as well. Cooling seems to not be an afterthought on a lot of the newer stuff too. My wife's 2018 Accord 1.5 turbo just crossed 50k miles with zero issues on the car. Just oil changes and tire rotations. Not a lot of miles, but we (I) dog it pretty hard.
 

Randy92Fox

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randy
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
322
Location
Washington
Vehicle(s)
66 Half Cab, 7.3 Powerstroke, 5.0 Convertible Fox
The biggest problem with with turbo engines is off-idle torque for general trail usage. I am generally lugging around at 1000RPM or less on technical trails.

Of course you can compensate for this with gearing, but if I can have the same "crawlability" at 75:1 gear reduction with a larger displacement engine as 125:1 with a smaller displacement turbo engine, I would take the larger displacement engine. Turbos don't boost at idle speeds.
upload_2018-5-11_10-35-23.png

Here's a comparison of the 3.6 Pentastar and the 2.0 torque curves. They intersect at about 1500 rpm it looks like with 1000 rpm looking like about 90 lb-ft for the 2.0 vs 120 on the 3.6. The 2.7 ecoboost being both bigger in displacement than the 2.0 and a V6 which makes more torque lower by nature than the I4 I wouldn't be surprised if the 2.7 intersects the 3.6 much lower or is even higher at 1000 rpms.

Although I had a rental van with the 3.6 over the weekend and it would shit and get up to speed but absolutely no bottom end. Increasing speed from 60 to 65 on a flat freeway required a downshift.

*edit: I don't know the accuracy of the chart, pulled it from the Jeep forums.
 
Last edited:

Tslater1989

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tyler
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
308
Reaction score
529
Location
Central Michigan
Vehicle(s)
(212k) 97 F150 XLT, (321k) 99 Expedition EB, (77k) 2016 Explorer XLT. several go karts
Thanks, that illustrates my point pretty well, although it doesn't truly show the torque at idle. Many times I am letting the engine idle and operating just the clutch and brake, or only giving minimal throttle input. This is more relevant with a manual transmission than an automatic though.

As others have said, an Ecoboost woun't be a deal breaker, but I would definitely opt for a 5.0L if it were available.
This has me thinking. It wouldn't be hard for ford to have an off road mode, in which it has a higher idle. Or even in a sub menu, something like, options/drive modes/off road/rock mode/idle setpoint.....This of course could be paired with a higher stall torque converter on auto's. Manuals wouldn't be an issue.
 

Randy92Fox

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randy
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
322
Location
Washington
Vehicle(s)
66 Half Cab, 7.3 Powerstroke, 5.0 Convertible Fox
This has me thinking. It wouldn't be hard for ford to have an off road mode, in which it has a higher idle. Or even in a sub menu, something like, options/drive modes/off road/rock mode/idle setpoint.....This of course could be paired with a higher stall torque converter on auto's. Manuals wouldn't be an issue.
Now we're getting somewhere! If Ford doesn't provide that from the factory I imagine the aftermarket tuning will very quickly after they get their hands on them.
 

Stampede.Offroad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
2,372
Location
SD
Vehicle(s)
junk
This has me thinking. It wouldn't be hard for ford to have an off road mode, in which it has a higher idle. Or even in a sub menu, something like, options/drive modes/off road/rock mode/idle setpoint.....This of course could be paired with a higher stall torque converter on auto's. Manuals wouldn't be an issue.
This is part of why a turbo isn't an instant fail compared to a NA engine, but it requires Ford to not just know why the NA has advantages , but to go the extra mile of building selectable modes/tunes to simulate it, and mechanically outfitting the drivetrain to deliver them.

It can be done, but it's also a lot of extra **** to pay for and go wrong out in the middle of nowhere. Like the SFA, a nice simple reliable NA engine might be preferable -- especially when it also delivers a nice sensory rumble.
 

Nickp

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
3,546
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER 4 DOOR MT
This has me thinking. It wouldn't be hard for ford to have an off road mode, in which it has a higher idle. Or even in a sub menu, something like, options/drive modes/off road/rock mode/idle setpoint.....This of course could be paired with a higher stall torque converter on auto's. Manuals wouldn't be an issue.
The Jeep Wrangler already has this. When I put mine into 4Lo it increases idle speed by at least 300 or 400 RPM.
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
590
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
upload_2018-5-11_10-35-23.png

Here's a comparison
These curves are for peak torque throughout an RPM range.
They only tell you one thing, what happens when you floor it
(and that you started flooring it near idle).

Doesn't tell you anything about tip-in, delay of input vs output
(especially starting higher than off-idle) and/or repeat-ability, that
you can get with larger NA motor, when on and off the gas. It certainly doesn't
tell you anything about part throttle at all.

Having owned and datalogged both the 2.7 and 5.0, there is significant
difference in delay of the turbo, even vs the somewhat doggy low end of
a stock coyote (which isn't that bad compared to say an older explorer 5.0 HO,
it just has so much more top end, it makes the bottom feel weak).

I even tried today once more to refresh. even in Sport, locked in first and
starting from 1500-1800, you go even 1/2 throttle and there is a decent delay,
until you get what you thought half throttle should (would) be like, if you were in a 5.0.

And the 5.0 gives the option of NA reliability and extremely linear tip-in/throttle response, OR
monster off idle torque, still very linear with input, and a 50% increase in power from
very low, manageable boost levels.

Of course the 2.7 is great motor stock or even tuned for 93, and it will be more
than most need. That doesn't mean it does what a NA V-8 will, so of course I would
take that 8 over a 6 if it was avail (which it won't be).

And if as mentioned though, Ford is going to a single architecture frame for mid and full size 1/2 tons,
then maybe the Coyote fits (or could easily) already (on/in the upcoming frame).
 

Randy92Fox

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randy
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
322
Location
Washington
Vehicle(s)
66 Half Cab, 7.3 Powerstroke, 5.0 Convertible Fox
That isn't a real solution. The reason I am at or near idle is because I am trying to go slow. The only way to truly compensate for an engine with low off idle torque is through lower gearing, which is fine, but it would be preferable to have the torque there to begin with. My beater rig with a 5.0L, 38" tires, and 73:1 crawl ratio feels on par with my other rig with a 2.8L, 37" tires, and a 125:1 crawl ratio.

As OX1 pointed out, those power graphs don't represent part throttle situations and mask the turbo spool up delay.
I haven't driven the 2.7 like OX1 but turbo lag is slim to none on the other EcoBoosts I've driven and with tuning it's virtually non-existent even on my big, single turbo 7.3 powerstroke. I think the electronic throttle position sensor/system will likely play a bigger role in off idle torque management.
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
590
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
That isn't a real solution. The reason I am at or near idle is because I am trying to go slow. The only way to truly compensate for an engine with low off idle torque is through lower gearing, which is fine, but it would be preferable to have the torque there to begin with. My beater rig with a 5.0L, 38" tires, and 73:1 crawl ratio feels on par with my other rig with a 2.8L, 37" tires, and a 125:1 crawl ratio.

As OX1 pointed out, those power graphs don't represent part throttle situations and mask the turbo spool up delay.
I haven't driven the 2.7 like OX1 but turbo lag is slim to none on the other EcoBoosts I've driven and with tuning it's virtually non-existent even on my big, single turbo 7.3 powerstroke. I think the electronic throttle position sensor/system will likely play a bigger role in off idle torque management.
Gearing can make up for it IF you have traction. I never seem to.
The big motor, instant off idle, throttle response/torque allows me to loaf along most of the time and be
as "technical" as I can.

Then followed up by enough power to spin up four locked 42's, whenever needed, without ridiculous gearing that you can't get any wheel speed or momentum out of. I'm only at 36:1 with C6, 205, and mogs (7.54 overall), not counting the converter. Not a lot of gear for 42's.

A small turbo motor here is not going to give you what you want, when you wanted it. The other side of that ledge was
a huge drop off, so you don't want to be balls to the wall once you are up. You can see too much power and no traction here is not going to do it (first attempt) . You need a momentum bump, but starting with the front already up on the obstacle, only gives you the amount of time to build forward momentum of about half your wheelbase. And if you look close, you can tell I was back out of it before the rear tires even hit.

Even closer, was a small pause in power, right at the beginning so as not to blow off the tires in the snow. Just that and your ECM controlling boost, cam timing, timing, and throttle plate are already set, thinking it's a low power take off, EVERYBODY "keep your cool off guys". Then your TPS goes, Oh shit, it's not a low power take off, everybody GO. Then not even another split second later, it's all over.

Even as good as modern turbos are, they aren't spooled for power until the space you had for that momentum bump, is pretty much over. Then the power hits and you are back to being right up against the ledge, no traction, and spinning tires. Obviously this all made worse by a heavy FSB on 42's, but it's not like I have huge power either, smog low compression 400 with mild cam/intake, stock single exh on propane (which kills power unless you really up compression).

http://luxjo.supermotors.net/NORTH JERSEY ROCKS/2 JAN 11/JIM BIG ROCK FULL.mts
 
Last edited:



Similar threads





















Top