What’s your dealbreaker for new Ford Bronco?

[Dads_bronze_bronco]

The diesel wrangler is supposedly really fun. The issue is the diesel reduces max load ratings.

Sponsored

 

[Paint]

I usually just pull the headrests and leave them home.

 

[Nickp]

That’s what my friend and I were talking about the other day. Even the Gladiator having a front dif locker is kind of dumb (hence why I think the Mojave package is way better) if you’re in a situation that requires a front locker in a gladiator!? You fucked up somewhere lol. Same thing with 400+ HP in a base or mid tier Bronco. Just asking to snap CV joints etc

High end Bronco? If it’s taking any cues from that F-150 test mule from a few months back that might be able to handle some more horsepower....

 

[Motorpsychology]

The rear seats on my 2018 Escape as well as other Ford products, have button release that flips the headrests forward 90º. The seat backs are designed so that the headrests are in front of the seat cushion when folded down giving a (acceptable) virtually flat floor.
For me, 180-250 hp in a ~3500lb vehicle is plenty to carry folded, rather than removed seats, but I'd be happy with either or both.
edit:: Oops, thinking Escape -Bronco Sport hp and weights. Still, carrying folded seats in a std Bronco shouldn't bog it down much for my intended use.

 

[securitysix]

So now go back and do the whole thing all over again for torque - because torque is what matters. And find an EB model year with a 302.

OK, I'm back at work and still bored, so here goes:

'66 Bronco with a 170 put out 158 pound feet of torque. With the curb weight of 3200 pounds, that gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.049.

'67 Bronco with a 289 put out 282 pound feet of torque. Curb weight of 3420 gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.082.

'69 Bronco with a 302 put out 300 lb.-ft. of torque. Curb weight of 3420 gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.088.

The '96 Bronco with the 5.0L put out 270 lb.-ft. of torque. Curb weight of 4570 gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.059.

The '96 Bronco with the 5.8L put out 328 lb.-ft. of torque. Curb weight of 4740 gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.069.

The 2.3L EcoBoost used in the 2020 SuperCrew Ranger I referenced previously puts out 310 lb.-ft. of torque. Curb weight of 4441 gives the Ranger a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.070.

If we assume the same 5000 pound weight from my previous post for the Bronco and the same tuning on the 2.3L as used in the Ranger, we're looking at a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.062, which trounces the EB's straight 6 and edges out the '96's 5.0L.

The 2.7L EcoBoost puts out 400 lb.-ft. of torque, which would give our 5000 pound Bronco a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.080, which trounces everything except the late '60s V8s, and isn't that far behind them.

As a quick aside, because I happened to notice it on the F150 spec sheet today, the Coyote in the F150 puts out the exact same max torque as the 2.7L EcoBoost, so they'd have the same torque-to-weight ratio, but the Coyote would have a power-to-weight ratio of 0.079 in our 5000 pound bronco. The difference is that the 2.7L makes that torque at 2750 RPM, whereas the Coyote waits until 4500 RPM to do it.

The 3.3L naturally aspirated gasser and the 3.0L diesel that I don't expect to see in the Bronco would put out torque-to-weight ratios of 0.053 (better than the old straight 6, not as good as the mid 90s 5.0, but not that far behind it) and 0.088 (beating everything except the 302, and tying it) respectively.

I've also lazily ignored the differences the weights of the engines themselves would have on the curb weight of the Bronco. The 2.7 and 5.0 are pretty close to each other, so it doesn't really matter for those two anyway. I don't think the difference in weight of any of the engines would make a significant enough difference in the calculations to try to shoehorn them into my current WAG. I mean, I pulled the curb weight of the new Bronco out of my ass anyway, so what's a hundred pounds of engine one way or the other, right?

So basically, if we want to basically match EB V8 torque ratio numbers from Ford's current engine lineup, we need the 2.7L (or 5.0L) gas and the 3.0L diesel engines.

But even the 2.3L EcoBoost we're expecting as a base engine is no slouch. It's better (statistically speaking) than the straight 6 the original Bronco came with, and it's actually in the neighborhood of the mid '90s V8s.

And that's assuming my WAG on the curb weight is close. It could be a couple hundred pounds heavy (the Toyota 4Runner has a max curb weight of around 4850). A lighter curb weight on the new Bronco means slightly better power (0.056@4850 pounds curb weight) and torque ratios (0.064@4850 pounds curb weight).

Just looking at the numbers, the 2.3L was never a dealbreaker for me in the new Bronco. Actually doing the math and comparing it to the predecessors, there's just not a problem with the 2.3L as an engine for the Bronco from a mathematical standpoint. If you want to hang your hat on the added complexity and associated maintenance and repair costs of turbos, I'm right there with you, though. I've said before, and I'll continue to say, that I would prefer a naturally aspirated engine, but I'm not going to let the lack of one keep me from buying a Bronco.

 

[securitysix]

All good points. I don't have a good place to store the rear seats if I remove them, so I still want fold flat seats.

 

[Dads_bronze_bronco]

'67 Bronco with a 289 put out 282 pound feet of torque. Curb weight of 3420 gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.082.

'69 Bronco with a 302 put out 300 lb.-ft. of torque. Curb weight of 3420 gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.088.

If we assume the same 5000 pound weight from my previous post for the Bronco and the same tuning on the 2.3L as used in the Ranger, we're looking at a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.062, which trounces the EB's straight 6 and edges out the '96's 5.0L.

The 2.7L EcoBoost puts out 400 lb.-ft. of torque, which would give our 5000 pound Bronco a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.080, which trounces everything except the late '60s V8s, and isn't that far behind them.

Thanks!

And that is the simple functional beauty of the EB with the 289/302.

Considering my 3.8L NA JK is 0.057, and it climbs rocks just fine, either motor will be good in the 6g Bronco, and the 2.7 TT will be fun!

 

[Jalisurr]

If the curb weight of the Bronco is 5000lbs I will be shocked and incredibly disappointed. Considering a Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon is only 4400 I can't see the Bronco being significantly more than that.

Run those numbers again with a curb weight of 4200 for the 2 door and a 2.7 beats everything handily.

 

[securitysix]

If the curb weight of the Bronco is 5000lbs I will be shocked and incredibly disappointed. Considering a Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon is only 4400 I can't see the Bronco being significantly more than that.

Run those numbers again with a curb weight of 4200 for the 2 door and a 2.7 beats everything handily.

I'd honestly be shocked if the new Bronco weighs 5000 pounds since the 5G broncos were F150 based and the heavy one weighed 4740.

I pulled 5000 pounds out of my butt based on the fact that the current 4x4 SCrew Ranger is 4441 pounds and my assumption that an SUV would be heavier. You know what happens when you make an assumption, right?

4200 for the 2-door is probably a reasonable guess. Most of them will be 4-doors, though. I'm thinking 4500 to 4600 is probably a better guess for the 4-doors than 5000, but I had already picked 5000 as an overestimate and wanted to stick with it for the sake of consistency.

 

[Superds]

If you consider a crate engine that MaverickMan proposed and use 365 ft lbs for torque, the torque to weight of an EB would be around 0.11!

 

[mike.s]

the only issue i had was with 35 inch tires it was gutless on the interstate, i probably should have regeared though

 

[Jvrm1965]

For me it will be, 2 door, manual with 2.3 turbo in white ( I live in the tropics). There is a 20% tax on new vehicles so I need to save for other options available.

Sponsored