Going from 15mpg combined to 20mpg combined saves you $2500 over the course of 5 years. That savings would get you the High package on your 2026 Bronco...
Yep, just look at aviation. There are no normally aspirated engines at altitude... no power. You need either a jet engine (basically a few turbos put together), or a turbo piston engine .... turbos enable you to take thin air, and compress it to add more o2 for combustion (the dumbed down and overly simplistic version).
Cute? lol
Well now. You shouldn't have said all of those facts. Facts backed by actual research/sources/links don't fly around here.lol
Ah, the age old argument that just won't die. "More complexity = bad bad bad!"
And just to be clear, the 5.4 you're lauding was an over-engineered, over-complicated single overhead cam engine with bad COP units, junk fuel pump driver module, stretchy timing chains and tensioners, and spark plugs blowing out through the hood, right? All stuffed in a giant, oversized, ridiculously heavy iron block where it managed to wheeze out a paltry 235hp.
The old 351 F150 would go 0-60 in about 9-10 seconds. Motor Trend was floored when the new '97 F150 with the 4.6 managed 0-60 in 8.8 seconds. The 2V 5.4 would get to 60 in 10+ seconds.
Car and Driver tested the 2.7 F150 at 5.7 seconds 0-60. That's as fast as a Mustang GT from not that long ago.
And I know it's been said here a bajillion times but apparently some of you people have really poor reading comprehension. Turbo motors can be way more efficient when you stay out of boost. Drive one hard and it will use as much fuel as a V8. Stay light on the throttle and it will sip fuel and return the kind of mileage a V8 would only get during freefall.
Check Fuelly results for the F-250 with the 5.4. Most people that track and publish their tanks consistently see ~11mpg combined. Not on that one tank one time, not just for 20 miles coasting down a mountain, but all driving combined.
The 2.7 F-150 manages 17-19 mpg, a 73% improvement. Not to mention that the 2.7 F-150 can tow 9000lbs. where the 5.4 F250 is only rated to 7800lbs with the same axle ratio.
In summary, the turbo engines make WAY MORE TORQUE WAY DOWN LOW than most current NA V8s, and ESPECIALLY more than the old V8 junk they put in trucks a few decades ago. They are faster, more powerful, more responsive, more comfortable, smoother, quieter, and monumentally more capable trucks.
Can you find people that have had bad experiences with EcoBoost engine failures? Sure! But you better not look into the 5.4 3V cam phasers, or spark plug blowouts, or Coyote piston rattles, or burnt intake valves, or bad coolant leaks. And definitely don't look at the oil consumption, collapsed lifters, cracked heads, valve spring failures, and timing chain tensioners on the LS engines.
I'll have the Warty by 2023 (if Ford produces) so savings is irrelevant lol. As long as my gauge in the raptor stays above 15 mpg overall I'm satisfied. I'm more concerned with the ability of a vehicle to pull you back in the seat than the mpg dial staying efficient. Everyone has their thing though, not knocking your logic.
lol
Ah, the age old argument that just won't die. "More complexity = bad bad bad!"
And just to be clear, the 5.4 you're lauding was an over-engineered, over-complicated single overhead cam engine with bad COP units, junk fuel pump driver module, stretchy timing chains and tensioners, and spark plugs blowing out through the hood, right? All stuffed in a giant, oversized, ridiculously heavy iron block where it managed to wheeze out a paltry 235hp.
The old 351 F150 would go 0-60 in about 9-10 seconds. Motor Trend was floored when the new '97 F150 with the 4.6 managed 0-60 in 8.8 seconds. The 2V 5.4 would get to 60 in 10+ seconds.
Car and Driver tested the 2.7 F150 at 5.7 seconds 0-60. That's as fast as a Mustang GT from not that long ago.
And I know it's been said here a bajillion times but apparently some of you people have really poor reading comprehension. Turbo motors can be way more efficient when you stay out of boost. Drive one hard and it will use as much fuel as a V8. Stay light on the throttle and it will sip fuel and return the kind of mileage a V8 would only get during freefall.
Check Fuelly results for the F-250 with the 5.4. Most people that track and publish their tanks consistently see ~11mpg combined. Not on that one tank one time, not just for 20 miles coasting down a mountain, but all driving combined.
The 2.7 F-150 manages 17-19 mpg, a 73% improvement. Not to mention that the 2.7 F-150 can tow 9000lbs. where the 5.4 F250 is only rated to 7800lbs with the same axle ratio.
In summary, the turbo engines make WAY MORE TORQUE WAY DOWN LOW than most current NA V8s, and ESPECIALLY more than the old V8 junk they put in trucks a few decades ago. They are faster, more powerful, more responsive, more comfortable, smoother, quieter, and monumentally more capable trucks.
Can you find people that have had bad experiences with EcoBoost engine failures? Sure! But you better not look into the 5.4 3V cam phasers, or spark plug blowouts, or Coyote piston rattles, or burnt intake valves, or bad coolant leaks. And definitely don't look at the oil consumption, collapsed lifters, cracked heads, valve spring failures, and timing chain tensioners on the LS engines.
Impressive gas mileage on some old Trucks, my 07 Tundra can squeak out 14 city and 18 highway so the Bronco should be an improvement. It should be a definite improvement over my old 01 Ram which got 7 in the city and 12 on the highway.
The cornerstone of how turbos work is the exhaust side of the turbine is spun by the exhaust. It doesn't care about altitude. The shaft connected to the intake side sucks in air and compresses it forcing a greater volume of air into the engine.
This. The naturally aspirated 4 cyl low compression motor in my old Land Rover, is like a squirrel peddling at 11,000 ft in the Colorado Rockies. What a dog. Happy about turbo usage on the new Bronco for better high altitude performance.
I'm with you. I figured Ford's shift to ecoboost was aimed at meeting CAFE standards, but they really don't get much better than competitors NA engines. They do, however, generate a lot of horsepower..so there's that. I've had several NA V-6's that exceeded 20 mpgs (Ranger, Bronco II's Explorers, Mustang) and , at least in the later model ones, had fine power. Not to mention my old work Chevy 5.3 that also got 20 mpg and would screech the tires in the first three gears. I would have preferred a NA V-6 in my new Bronco, just like some wanted a V-8 or SFA. Not gonna happen and I'll be happy with what I get.
), 84 Chevy K5, 09 Chevy T
