New ones with autos can hit 10's with basic Bolt ons and tune
Yeah I edited it. Realized how broad the term is. But it doesn't take much to get them in tens. Lots of videos on YouTube. The 10r80 is a game changer. Forced induction makes 8's and 9's easy too in a full weight $50k car with a freakin' warranty.. which is wild to me.Never liked the term "bolt on". I "bolted" a Procharger on one of my stangs. so the term "bolt on" can be deceiving.
Like I have said things have really changed since the early days of EFI.
According to my Google-Fu, the 1966 Bronco was released with a 170ci engine that put out 105 gross HP (89 net HP) and had a curb weight of 3200 pounds, giving it a power-to-weight ratio of 0.033 gross HP or 0.028 net HP per pound of vehicle.Well I wanted to compare the old bronc, to the new one. Take the old best preforming Bronco engine option compared to what we think the best option the new bronc will have.
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.According to my Google-Fu, the 1966 Bronco was released with a 170ci engine that put out 105 gross HP (89 net HP) and had a curb weight of 3200 pounds, giving it a power-to-weight ratio of 0.033 gross HP or 0.028 net HP per pound of vehicle.
In March of 1966, the 289ci Windsor V8 making 200 gross HP (150 net HP) was added as an option. I can't find the curb weight of the '66 with a 289, but the '67 had a curb weight of 3420 pounds. Assuming the '66 was similar enough, that gives us a power-to-weight ratio of 0.058 gross and 0.044 net HP per pound.
I'm going to skip all of the stuff between the '66 and the '96 Bronco, because I'm lazy and this is already going to get long.
The 1996 Bronco came with either a 5.0L V8 (198 HP, 4570 pound curb weight) or a 5.8L (205 HP, 4740 pound curb weight). These both put out a power-to-weight ratio of 0.043.
It's a safe bet that the new Bronco will come with the 2.3L EcoBoost as its base engine. In the Ford Ranger, that 2.3L puts out 270 HP (I'm assuming net). I have no idea what the new Bronco will weigh, and if someone's speculated on it, I haven't seen it. According to Ford's spec sheet, the SuperCrew Ranger 4x4 (heaviest option, lightest is the 4x2 SuperCab) has a curb weight of 4441 pounds. So the Ranger has a power-to-weight ratio of at least 0.061 hp/pound.
Even if the Bronco weighs 5000 pounds, the 2.3L EcoBoost (tuned identically to the Ranger) would still give it a power-to-weight ratio of 0.054 HP/pound, which is not that far behind the '67 with the 289 V8.
I won't be surprised to see the 2.7L EcoBoost in the Bronco. As configured in the F150, the 2.7L puts out 325HP. If we assume that same 5000 pound weight (source: my butt) for the Bronco, we'd be looking at a power-to-weight ratio of 0.065.
I would be surprised (but not disappointed) to see the 3.3L naturally aspirated gas V6 (290 HP) or the 3.0L diesel (250 HP) from the F-150 engine option line-up in the Bronco, but those would give a 5000 pound Bronco power-to-weight ratios of 0.058 and 0.050 respectively.
Regardless, what I'm seeing is that the new Bronco would have to be an absolute porker to not compare favorably (if not straight up exceed) to the power-to-weight ratios of the Broncos of yore.
But the question wasn't torque-to-weight ratio, it was power...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.
Off topic? Someone post having a 4cyl, or 6cyl only, would be a deal breaker. On topic? Another replies and says today’s little engines out perform the old bronco engines (Paraphrasing). On topic? I then stated, let’s see some numbers. Give me some weight to power ratios, then vs now. On topic?Maybe if we retitled this thread, "Tell us about V8 Mustangs" people will go off topic and talk about what would be a deal breaker when ordering a Bronco.?
Well laid out for the masses to read. And this was my point. To see where they old vs the new would fare out. In response to those who claim the power would not be there. Now I still understand those who won’t buy without the v8, I get it, for many a reasons. But staying “On Topic” I won’t go into the v8’s here, but at least we now have some approximate figures to consider. Thank You.According to my Google-Fu, the 1966 Bronco was released with a 170ci engine that put out 105 gross HP (89 net HP) and had a curb weight of 3200 pounds, giving it a power-to-weight ratio of 0.033 gross HP or 0.028 net HP per pound of vehicle.
In March of 1966, the 289ci Windsor V8 making 200 gross HP (150 net HP) was added as an option. I can't find the curb weight of the '66 with a 289, but the '67 had a curb weight of 3420 pounds. Assuming the '66 was similar enough, that gives us a power-to-weight ratio of 0.058 gross and 0.044 net HP per pound.
I'm going to skip all of the stuff between the '66 and the '96 Bronco, because I'm lazy and this is already going to get long.
The 1996 Bronco came with either a 5.0L V8 (198 HP, 4570 pound curb weight) or a 5.8L (205 HP, 4740 pound curb weight). These both put out a power-to-weight ratio of 0.043.
It's a safe bet that the new Bronco will come with the 2.3L EcoBoost as its base engine. In the Ford Ranger, that 2.3L puts out 270 HP (I'm assuming net). I have no idea what the new Bronco will weigh, and if someone's speculated on it, I haven't seen it. According to Ford's spec sheet, the SuperCrew Ranger 4x4 (heaviest option, lightest is the 4x2 SuperCab) has a curb weight of 4441 pounds. So the Ranger has a power-to-weight ratio of at least 0.061 hp/pound.
Even if the Bronco weighs 5000 pounds, the 2.3L EcoBoost (tuned identically to the Ranger) would still give it a power-to-weight ratio of 0.054 HP/pound, which is not that far behind the '67 with the 289 V8.
I won't be surprised to see the 2.7L EcoBoost in the Bronco. As configured in the F150, the 2.7L puts out 325HP. If we assume that same 5000 pound weight (source: my butt) for the Bronco, we'd be looking at a power-to-weight ratio of 0.065.
I would be surprised (but not disappointed) to see the 3.3L naturally aspirated gas V6 (290 HP) or the 3.0L diesel (250 HP) from the F-150 engine option line-up in the Bronco, but those would give a 5000 pound Bronco power-to-weight ratios of 0.058 and 0.050 respectively.
Regardless, what I'm seeing is that the new Bronco would have to be an absolute porker to not compare favorably (if not straight up exceed) to the power-to-weight ratios of the Broncos of yore.
I think this is a fair engine to use as a comparison. Fairly affordable and let’s face it, most people with an early Bronco would be looking at a similar option and not staying with the stock engine.As a professional Ford dreamer, I insist that any and all comparison between a new model and any classic Bronco that the numbers used for the classic be from the Official Blueprint 306 Bronco Crate Motor. Those numbers ard 365 HP and 365 TQ. For the new Bronco to beat that out we need the base engine to be a tuned 2.7 tt. They can use the 2.3 for rental fleets. But the top end has to either be the GT500 motor or a twin turbo Godzilla!
But seriously because we all love broncos here. A "healthy" small block ford always puts out between 250 and 350 hp. Just by eliminating factory restrictions most fords gain 25 hp or so.
We can even use the weights for the 2dr against the early broncos and the 4 door agains the 78/79s or the OJs. Since they are better compared for interior capacity.I think this is a fair engine to use as a comparison. Fairly affordable and let’s face it, most people with an early Bronco would be looking at a similar option and not staying with the stock engine.
Actually it was intended as a sideways glance at the Bronco6G mods.I think your post complaining about staying on topic is OFF TOPIC?