Manual Transmission on the 6 cylinder engine

Should Ford put the manual transmission on the 6 cylinder engine?


  • Total voters
    274

The_Phew

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
175
Reaction score
560
Location
VA
Vehicle(s)
VW GTI
Bronco
Badlands
You put a Chevy engine in a Bronco and...

R3FUSQ5H5jzVe.gif
There isn't a vehicle made that someone hasn't LS-swapped. There is even an LS-swapped Tesla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odq9E92DAJk

It's probably the most indestructible engine family on Earth, sounds like a pissed-off piece of farm equipment, and is smaller/lighter than some turbo 4s. What's not to love?
 

Laminar

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
713
Reaction score
1,843
Location
Iowa
Vehicle(s)
Cougar
Bronco
Black Diamond
Another V6/stick and V8 thread? I'm sure there will be lots of new and unique viewpoints that haven't already been beat to death!

F-150 0-60
5.0 6.9 sec
3.5 6.3 sec
2.7 6.1 sec 120 HP per L - most motors would be happy for 100
HP/L doesn't mean anything when it comes to turbocharging. The Honda S2000 engine made 120hp/L without turbocharging. BMW's S54 made 110hp/L without turbos. Mercedes' 2.0 turbo 4 makes 208hp/L.

Jeep/Sellantis sends the federal government a check for every V8 they sell over their corporate allowance.
hahahaha, I'd love to know what the "corporate allowance" on V8s is. Maybe you're talking about the Gas Guzzler tax that consumers have to pay when buying a car that gets poor mileage (not V8 specific). Or maybe FCA/Stellantis buying carbon credits from Tesla (not V8 specific)?

No 6 banger ever beat godzilla!
That's ironically funny, because although Godzilla refers to an engine that Ford makes, it also historically refers to the Nissan GT-R, which is traditionally powered by a 6 cylinder engine. And most recently, it's powered by a twin turbo V6 and absolutely murderously destroys most cars twice its price no matter the cylinder count.

I just checked published numbers. The 2.7 was not the fastest. That would make no sense considering the 3.5 makes way more power and torque and the 5.0 makes more power with similar torque. Semi amatuer testing on a youtube results may vary.
They didn't control for curb weight, body style, or gearing. If you looked closely, you might notice that the 2.7 is available with the light duty frame and axles, which gives it a significant savings in weight and drivetrain losses, meaning it can be faster with the same or even less horsepower. It doesn't have the same level of payload and towing capacity as the 5.0 and 3.5 with the heavier duty frame and axle, but that's not what was being measured here.

Also published peak power/torque numbers tell you very little these days. The 2.7 is an incredible engine designed from the start for boost. It's robust, resilient, and capable of running at its max capacity in more conditions than something like the 3.5, which has a weak block design since it wasn't originally intended for boost.

Where the 2.7 can spool fast and soon and more often operate on the ragged edge without risking premature wear, the 3.5 has to be much more careful to avoid knock or detonation.
 

JM1994

Base
Member
First Name
Jonathan
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
7
Reaction score
29
Location
New Hampshire
Vehicle(s)
1974 Plymouth Duster, 2013 Challenger
Bronco
Base
There isn't a vehicle made that someone hasn't LS-swapped. There is even an LS-swapped Tesla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odq9E92DAJk

It's probably the most indestructible engine family on Earth, sounds like a pissed-off piece of farm equipment, and is smaller/lighter than some turbo 4s. What's not to love?
I have consistently been amazed by the sheer will of the "just put an LS in it" crowd. It truly is one of the best "blank slate" engines ever made. The magazine thumpers will always hate on it, saying new engines are better. Most of them have never worked on one. If I have to work on it or buy parts for it, pushrod V8 > anything.
 
Last edited:

Cheshire

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steven
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
3,115
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
Focus ST
Bronco
Undecided
I voted no. Ford would be stupid to do this. Yes, there are a few people who would like it, bit certainly not enough to justify the expense af expanding the product line that already has tremendous demand
 

Squatch

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
12,665
Location
Miami
Vehicle(s)
F150, Jeep
Bronco
Badlands
There isn't a vehicle made that someone hasn't LS-swapped. There is even an LS-swapped Tesla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odq9E92DAJk

It's probably the most indestructible engine family on Earth, sounds like a pissed-off piece of farm equipment, and is smaller/lighter than some turbo 4s. What's not to love?
It's a Chevy.

rIVOyZX3xWJOg.gif


Why not just LS-swap an original Cobra or a Ferrari 250? Pour a bunch of salt in the middle of your PB&J for cheap flavor! Just feed your newborn puppies to a chupacabra why dontcha!?
 

Toccoa

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
4,645
Reaction score
21,954
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
Isuzu Rodeo Sport
Bronco
Big Bend
Vehicle Showcase
1
Why not just LS-swap an original Cobra or a Ferrari 250? Pour a bunch of salt in the middle of your PB&J for cheap flavor! Just feed your newborn puppies to a chupacabra why dontcha!?
I'm with you. Everyone knows you do a 2JZ Toyota engine swap if you want real street cred. Forget that American junk. (y)

;)
 

MaverickMan

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Shane
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
3,345
Reaction score
6,793
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj
Bronco
Black Diamond
Another V6/stick and V8 thread? I'm sure there will be lots of new and unique viewpoints that haven't already been beat to death!



HP/L doesn't mean anything when it comes to turbocharging. The Honda S2000 engine made 120hp/L without turbocharging. BMW's S54 made 110hp/L without turbos. Mercedes' 2.0 turbo 4 makes 208hp/L.



hahahaha, I'd love to know what the "corporate allowance" on V8s is. Maybe you're talking about the Gas Guzzler tax that consumers have to pay when buying a car that gets poor mileage (not V8 specific). Or maybe FCA/Stellantis buying carbon credits from Tesla (not V8 specific)?



That's ironically funny, because although Godzilla refers to an engine that Ford makes, it also historically refers to the Nissan GT-R, which is traditionally powered by a 6 cylinder engine. And most recently, it's powered by a twin turbo V6 and absolutely murderously destroys most cars twice its price no matter the cylinder count.



They didn't control for curb weight, body style, or gearing. If you looked closely, you might notice that the 2.7 is available with the light duty frame and axles, which gives it a significant savings in weight and drivetrain losses, meaning it can be faster with the same or even less horsepower. It doesn't have the same level of payload and towing capacity as the 5.0 and 3.5 with the heavier duty frame and axle, but that's not what was being measured here.

Also published peak power/torque numbers tell you very little these days. The 2.7 is an incredible engine designed from the start for boost. It's robust, resilient, and capable of running at its max capacity in more conditions than something like the 3.5, which has a weak block design since it wasn't originally intended for boost.

Where the 2.7 can spool fast and soon and more often operate on the ragged edge without risking premature wear, the 3.5 has to be much more careful to avoid knock or detonation.
That was all true of the GTR a decade ago, but things have changed a lil since then. AC Cobras murdurously destroyed everything else for 25 years but not today. As to your point about the light frame and such, that is effectively cheating. If the Bronco was equipped with a 5.0 or the new 6.8 would we then be expecting them to lighten the frame of the 2.7 model and only make it available with the 190 front diff. Or do we expect them to add f150 raptor diffs and frame thicknesses to the v8 model. Take the motors out put em on a dyno run them and look at them otherwise put them all in the same truck with the same weight and the same gears or adjust the gearing with tire diameter and add weights in the bed. Then you will see what motor actually does what. Also i am nnot nor have i ever been a fan of the modern 5.0 it is huge heavy and and has too small a displacement. The godzilla and whatever they call the 6.8 will begin changing things as they become available. Especially when their compact nature allows Ford to ecoboost them or e-boost them.
 

MaverickMan

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Shane
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
3,345
Reaction score
6,793
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj
Bronco
Black Diamond
I'm with you. Everyone knows you do a 2JZ Toyota engine swap if you want real street cred. Forget that American junk. (y)

;)
Nope 4.7 jeep turbo strokers for the best swaps. What you got under the hood? 700hp tractor motor from the 60s. Personally though if everything had a 351 windsor in it the world would be a better place. So easy to work on.
 

MaverickMan

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Shane
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
3,345
Reaction score
6,793
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj
Bronco
Black Diamond
Just saw that one. You know the ford 460 can go to 618 or something like that. Port injection and fancy head would probably make about 1000hp on it.
 

mpoteet

Badlands
Active Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Messages
38
Reaction score
178
Location
Knoxville, TN
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350, 79 CJ5, 78 F150
Bronco
Badlands
There isn't a vehicle made that someone hasn't LS-swapped. There is even an LS-swapped Tesla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odq9E92DAJk

It's probably the most indestructible engine family on Earth, sounds like a pissed-off piece of farm equipment, and is smaller/lighter than some turbo 4s. What's not to love?
We all know why people put Chevy motors in Fords and it not because they are "indestructible" its because they are *cough*CHEAP*cough*.
 

Grooticus

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
432
Reaction score
808
Location
Attleboro
Vehicle(s)
GMC
Bronco
Big Bend
Pretty sure they already said Never because the Tran isn’t rated for the torque of the 2.7
 

Drex

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
5,005
Location
various, construction engineer.
Vehicle(s)
'13 SLK55 AMG, '15 Indian Chief, '15 WRX
Bronco
Badlands
I voted no. Ford would be stupid to do this. Yes, there are a few people who would like it, bit certainly not enough to justify the expense af expanding the product line that already has tremendous demand
Quite the opposite, Ford made a huge mistake not going with the manual on the 2.7. While the Bronco market would be limited as these things go (I expect only about 85% of folks who chose a manual would go with the 2.7, which is probably about 15K units a year, not that much to amortize the costs in development in a reasonable time), however... the 2.7 is also available in the F-150, something in excess of 8 million or so units a year. The Bronco is in the same weight class most definitely, they likely would have been able to piggyback the F-150 2.7 emission certification onto the Bronco's tests. Engine calibrations, cooling tests, all sorts of things could be used with little if any modification in the F-150.

A manual 2.7 in an F-150 would have a serious number of buyers by any measurement. There is very little competition there, it would pick up (no pun intended) more new sales than cannibalization of would be buyers of the automatics. There are a lot of folks that would love a manual F-150.

Conversely, they went with the 2.3 and bought that transmission, all the associated costs, a lot of people gave up the manual they wanted to get the 2.7 for power/torque/port injection added, whatever...

So they limited the number of units to the least popular Bronco engine configuration, for the same development costs either way and trying to pay for it over fewer units. Even if they did not do the F-150 tie in, would have sold a fair number more 2.7 manuals than 2.3 manuals.

Perhaps they thought the 2.7 was going to be a rarely picked option (they price it a lot higher than in the 150 as an upgrade), perhaps a beefy enough manual could be spec'd, but they would bust axles or something with shock loads, but in every over way, especially with the essentially same EPA MPG, picked the wrong engine to put in front of a clean-sheet manual design.
 

MayhemMike

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
3,053
Location
Pasadena Maryland
Vehicle(s)
F150 crew Lariat 4x4. Mustang GT convertible
Bronco
Badlands
F-150 0-60
5.0 6.9 sec
3.5 6.3 sec
2.7 6.1 sec 120 HP per L - most motors would be happy for 100
Well, I personally never bought a truck to “ go fast”. I bought my trucks to haul and tow.
I would gladly pony up the extra cash in order to have a Bronco with a V8. In fact, the one great concern I have about my Bronco purchase is the available motors.
 
Advertisement

 
Ridergraphix
Advertisement
Top