Let's say I'm in no hurry...

[Drex]

..and I really want a manual gearbox. But I have ZERO interest in a 4 cylinder vehicle. Should I just give up on a Bronco? Will they ever offer the 2.7 with the manual? Should I just get a Rubicon right now?

No, Ford screwed the pooch on the engine/transmission choices long ago. A fresh sheet manual that could have been scaled to easily handle the 2.7 (which then would give them the option of adding it to F150, they would have sold a ton of that combination). The fuel economy difference between the 2.3 and the 2.7 is essentially zero. it was dumb to offer both engines. Should have been 2.7 with manual or automatic and a 2-vavle V8 with auto only (see the 392 Wrangler with 33's matching the highway EPA rating of the Badlands). They under-engined the vehicle based on demand (like a 10% take rate of 2.3 autos and the balance was forced into it to get the manual. The consumer has spoken loudly on that matter with their ordering dollar, especially allowing for the relatively huge upgrade cost compared to other Ford products.)

You will not see a manual 2.7, ever. Buy the Jeep.

Sponsored

 

[VelocityBrew]

No, Ford screwed the pooch on the engine/transmission choices long ago. A fresh sheet manual that could have been scaled to easily handle the 2.7 (which then would give them the option of adding it to F150, they would have sold a ton of that combination). The fuel economy difference between the 2.3 and the 2.7 is essentially zero. it was dumb to offer both engines. Should have been 2.7 with manual or automatic and a 2-vavle V8 with auto only (see the 392 Wrangler with 33's matching the highway EPA rating of the Badlands). They under-engined the vehicle based on demand (like a 10% take rate of 2.3 autos and the balance was forced into it to get the manual. The consumer has spoken loudly on that matter with their ordering dollar, especially allowing for the relatively huge upgrade cost compared to other Ford products.)

You will not see a manual 2.7, ever. Buy the Jeep.

3.73 gear ratio out of the Jeep might have something to do with that 17mpg number

 

[MaverickMan]

A manual V6 wont happen if we dont buy any manuals now. Self full filling prophecy deal. Dont spent 50K, spend 35K put a lift and big tires on it, get your money back next year on a trade for a mansquatch(still 4cyl), then after you have bought 2 manuals new (and made most of your money back), then Ford will see that people are buying them and still asking for it on the V6. Only then will they offer it.

 

[MaverickMan]

No, Ford screwed the pooch on the engine/transmission choices long ago. A fresh sheet manual that could have been scaled to easily handle the 2.7 (which then would give them the option of adding it to F150, they would have sold a ton of that combination). The fuel economy difference between the 2.3 and the 2.7 is essentially zero. it was dumb to offer both engines. Should have been 2.7 with manual or automatic and a 2-vavle V8 with auto only (see the 392 Wrangler with 33's matching the highway EPA rating of the Badlands). They under-engined the vehicle based on demand (like a 10% take rate of 2.3 autos and the balance was forced into it to get the manual. The consumer has spoken loudly on that matter with their ordering dollar, especially allowing for the relatively huge upgrade cost compared to other Ford products.)

You will not see a manual 2.7, ever. Buy the Jeep.

The manual is a fresh sheet that is scaleable to handle the the power of the 2.7, 3.5(non HO), 5.0, and potentially even a 7.3 godzilla. Its there people just have to beg For to build it.

 

[dwbronco]

..and I really want a manual gearbox. But I have ZERO interest in a 4 cylinder vehicle. Should I just give up on a Bronco? Will they ever offer the 2.7 with the manual? Should I just get a Rubicon right now?

If you don't want a Bronco, why are you here? Go get yourself a Fiat.

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

No, Ford screwed the pooch on the engine/transmission choices long ago. A fresh sheet manual that could have been scaled to easily handle the 2.7 (which then would give them the option of adding it to F150, they would have sold a ton of that combination). The fuel economy difference between the 2.3 and the 2.7 is essentially zero. it was dumb to offer both engines. Should have been 2.7 with manual or automatic and a 2-vavle V8 with auto only (see the 392 Wrangler with 33's matching the highway EPA rating of the Badlands). They under-engined the vehicle based on demand (like a 10% take rate of 2.3 autos and the balance was forced into it to get the manual. The consumer has spoken loudly on that matter with their ordering dollar, especially allowing for the relatively huge upgrade cost compared to other Ford products.)

You will not see a manual 2.7, ever. Buy the Jeep.

I think we haven't seen all that Ford is going to bring to market and you already know this.

The Warthog is coming, so not sure if you'll see a V8 in it (shouldn't if the V6 only gets 17mpg), but you may see a 3.0 or 3.2 twin turbo, supercharged, or something like that with over 400hp and close to or over 500 lb ft where the power is delivered much faster than it would be in a NA V8.

What's in the new Raptor seems to be a load to handle. Will it beat the TRX? Not likely, but the market for that is small and $$. Not sure a halo model beyond whatever the Warthog will be is necessary. I honestly think it's close to the Ultra4 4600 series with 37s that we've already seen racing in Baja, which is more than enough to do some real damage off road and get a few guys killed in spectacular ways on the street.

 

[Drex]

I think we haven't seen all that Ford is going to bring to market and you already know this.

The Warthog is coming, so not sure if you'll see a V8 in it (shouldn't if the V6 only gets 17mpg), but you may see a 3.0 or 3.2 twin turbo, supercharged, or something like that with over 400hp and close to or over 500 lb ft where the power is delivered much faster than it would be in a NA V8.

I have no knowledge of what Ford might do in the future, so I do not know if or what they may bring to the table (I do know what they have said they would bring at the launch and haven't even done that)
A 2V V8 can be spec'd with a short duration, tight LSA cam that will give you torque at just off idle (along with variable can timing trickery), without having to put in a loose torque converter to get a turbo(s) spinning up. For a heavy truck, you want low end torque down low, not at 3250RPM like the 2.7. here is a plot of Chevy's 6.2

350 lb-ft available everywhere above 1200 RPM, I would be mightily impressed if 3/3.2 liters with any turbo induction can get there faster then 500 RPM over idle. You can get away with less aggressive gearing with a torque curve like that. That means physically stronger gears, less friction and wear on the engine, etc. It would be a better feeling/driving vehicle. VE should be high around 17000 RPM with it geared to cruise the highway at the same engine speed, giving relatively good economy as well. There are many ways to skin a cat, but torque down low is the best for a heavy vehicle.

 

[VolatileAgent1977]

If you don't want a Bronco, why are you here? Go get yourself a Fiat.

Ok.

Sponsored