Jeep and Chevrolet's Reaction to New Ford Bronco

[Tslater1989]

Well, I understand the need for slow moving, barely any throttle work trail riding. I know that with my expedition, 4 low and idling, it like to just keep moving with the occasional blip up to 1500-2k rpms. But thats a full size tank, not really a rock crawler. It does well enough though for 2 tracking and minor technical areas, actually does that quite well with 33's. I cant see myself ever taking it over 3 foot boulders though. If I was after such capability, it would be with a purpose built rig. The bronco, if IFS equipped wouldn't be much different I would think. Think about the size of suvs now. My wifes 2016 explorer isnt much smaller than the 99 expedition as far as outside dimensions go. We save the more difficult stuff for my brothers 99 cherokee. That is a capable rig, but he does long for more power with it. So hopefully the bronco can make it somewhere in the middle.
I'm sure Jeep isnt worried about the bronco off road. But they are worried about market share. My only concern is the bronco cannibalizing ranger and explorer sales to some extent. It will make a dent in jeep sales too. As far as how much, will be determined by appeal from a design perspective, and off road credentials. Hypothetically, lets say the bronco is offered in 3 major categories.
1. IFS, tech loaded, hybrid.
2. IFS, basic, low msrp. (Think v6 secretary mustang)
3. SFA, torquey engine, big tire, durable.

What do you realistically think the majority would buy?

Sponsored

 

[OX1]

Obviously if you have good enough traction that you don't need any momentum or wheel speed to make it up something, lower gearing can make up for a engine torque deficiency, but in cases where you need to "bump it," low gearing isn't going to make up for an anemic/laggy motor.

Yeah, I figured you got that already, but just clarifying. 90% of the time near me, we have a minimum of wet leaves or moss on the rocks.

 

[Randy92Fox]

Turbos don't boost at or near idle even at full throttle on any factory engine. You are full of shit if you think a big single turbo 7.3L doesn't have turbo lag. What turbo do you have on your 7.3L anyways? Why don't you post a video of it hooked up to a trailer and try to pull a big grade at less than 1,500 RPM in overdrive. I bet you have to downshift.

At idle, no. As soon as I touch the throttle yes. And can't pull a grade at under 1500 RPM in OD when 60 mph is over 1500 RPM.

 

[Randy92Fox]

To be clear, the point of my post was not to say that my 7.3 is a great rock crawler engine but to demonstrate the capabilities of turbos and tuning. Jeep offers a 2.0t in the Wrangler and I'd be willing to bet that the engines offered in the new Bronco will have just as good/better torque management for your crawling needs than the 4.2, 4.0, 2.5, 3.8, 3.6 and 2.0. Don't know enough about the new Jeep diesel to throw it in the mix.

 

[OX1]

So I dug up one of datalogs on the Fusion. Log does not start @ idle/launch.

Starting @ a steady 22 MPH

Time (seconds since datalogging started)............. PSI

2.974.....................................................................-.004

3.355.......................................................................1.59

3.609.........................................................................4.78

3.767.........................................................................9.85

3.965........................................................................15.95

So pretty good spool, about a second until full boost (although it does hit upwards of 19 PSI later in tune, odd).
But even starting well past idle (obviously here we are at cruise of 22 MPH), there is still a second of lag.

So while many people might perceive this as instant, especially compared to the turbos of old (my 03 EVO is dead as
a door nail under 2000, and that's modded with free flow everything and even BB turbo), it's not (and not even close to
to the response of even a small V-8 of 5 NA liters). Spool off idle will be substantially more, if I get a chance I will log it.

Go back to my "bump" video, the entire bump up over that ledge is not much longer than a second.

 

[Randy92Fox]

You are aware that there are secondary highways with speed limits below 60 MPH and grades steeper than 7%, right?

You didn't answer my question about which turbo you are running. My 7.3L doesn't start building boost until at least 1,500 RPM, and the boost doesn't start coming on strong until about 1,700-1,800 RPM and that is foot to the floor or close to it. "Instant" boost at throttle tip in doesn't occur until until well over 2,000 RPM. You said you are running a "big" single, so I assume you are talking about something with a compressor inducer diameter 66mm at minimum. There is no turbo with a 66mm compressor inducer that spools "instantly" at low RPM on a 7.3L.

At those speeds you wouldn't be in OD then. EGTs are significantly higher under load at low RPMs so you're better off downshifting. My turbo is stock with a WW2. It's a big, single turbo in comparison to the two, small turbos that we're considering here on the EcoBoost which spool much faster from the factory than my truck turbo would have from the factory.

 

[Randy92Fox]

Also when I say spool I don't mean hitting max boost but useable boost. Figured I'd better clarify before symantics get me again. Again my whole point here is that the EcoBoost while have just as much off idle torque as any non diesel jeep wrangler offering.

 

[Jalisurr]

Again my whole point here is that the EcoBoost while have just as much off idle torque as any non diesel jeep wrangler offering.

THIS I definitely agree with, and would go so far as to say that the 2.7 likely has more torque at any RPM than the wrangler motors. At least ever since Jeep dumped the 4.0 for the V6es.

I'll also agree with the others that the Ecoboost is a less favorable comparison to a N/A V8 though, in the very specific use case of off-idle torque delivery. Not something I'm concerned with, but I can see the desire when it comes to rock crawling. That's one of the reasons the diesel was so desired by the wrangler community, I believe. A way to get that torque with FCA not being willing or able to give them the V8 option.

 

[OX1]

Also when I say spool I don't mean hitting max boost but useable boost. Figured I'd better clarify before symantics get me again. Again my whole point here is that the EcoBoost while have just as much off idle torque as any non diesel jeep wrangler offering.

It's .4 seconds to get any boost. And that is starting out humming along way above idle already.
And we haven't even touched on that fact most will be getting a single turbo, 2.3.

The original point was a likely installed Ford ECO vs the 5.0, so sure, you can now change the discussion
to bring up anemic NA jeep engines, but that's moot to me when we are discussing what
I'd want (and could be reasonably put in) a new Bronco.

And please stop claiming you can get instant, off idle boost in any turbo. It's pure fallacy.
There is a reason MB and Audi are bringing out electric turbos. I wish more were available
aftermarket, but they all seem to work off 48V battery packs.

https://jalopnik.com/this-is-how-audis-electric-supercharger-works-to-elimin-1823681637

 

[OX1]

in the very specific use case of off-idle torque delivery.

It's also an issue of delay in on/off throttle response above idle. Not as much delay, but enough to be annoying
on a full day of crawling.

 

[Wanted33]

FORD BRONCO: COMPETITION SHOWS LITTLE CONCERN FOR UPCOMING SUV

I guess when (the Bronco) gets here, we’ll evaluate what that means,” said Chevrolet Silverado marketing manager Hugh Milne on the SEMA Show floor.



.

Typical GM position. Wait until it's too late, then bastardize something, and try to compete, i.e. the new Blazer. I know GM can do better, but I'm not sure they have the want to do better.

But of course Ford took an electric SUV, slapped a horse on it, and called it a Mustang. SMH

 

[Jalisurr]

Typical GM position. Wait until it's too late, then bastardize something, and try to compete, i.e. the new Blazer. I know GM can do better, but I'm not sure they have the want to do better.

They dipped a big toe into the water with the Colorado ZR2 but yeah, I'd expect that if GM comes out with a proper competitor it will be only if the Bronco (and new Defender, perhaps) are successful for a couple years first. It's a very wait and see, reactive attitude from them a lot of the time.

 

[indio22]

Typical GM position. Wait until it's too late, then bastardize something, and try to compete, i.e. the new Blazer. I know GM can do better, but I'm not sure they have the want to do better.

But of course Ford took an electric SUV, slapped a horse on it, and called it a Mustang. SMH

Chevy advertises the Blazer on their web site as good for a "daily commute to night on the town". Yeah, they don't seem too interested in the Wrangler/Coming Soon Bronco category.

https://www.chevrolet.com/suvs/previous-year/blazer

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

Chevy advertises the Blazer...

My favorite is "sexy mom car" from one of the early commercials for the Blazer ...

I simply can't fathom why they bothered to use that name if that was the design intent.

 

[frinesi2]

My favorite is "sexy mom car" from one of the early commercials for the Blazer ...

I simply can't fathom why they bothered to use that name if that was the design intent.

Maybe they didn't know they used to make an SUV called the Blazer and they were just naming their new crossover after a casual sport jacket?

Sponsored