Would you want a V8 Bronco?

[BAUS67]

So I'm ok with the 2.7 TT but would take GODZILLA any day in my Bronco.

Sponsored

 

[Marrowthirst]

I would settle for a V8 if it meant I could get my Bronco sooner. I mean...yea...I would take one for the team...considering.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

No. Naturally aspirated V8 engines can easily get down to the single digit gas mileage range.

Ecoboosts can too...

 

[WadeWolf76]

Already have a good sounding v8 in another Ford. I'm really interested in tinkering with a dual turbo setup v6 for a bit.

 

[Hoofnmouth]

By all the comments here the covid shot have shriveled you all up 4dr ,12 in screen ,lux,ev, ,white top,hell yeah i want a na v8 biggest bummer about the bronco to me only if its a stick no stick, stick it.

 

[SouthEnd]

I've had a 3.5 ecoboost for the last decade, and I love the ecoboost motor. It makes so much power at such a low RPM, it's the perfect fit for the Bronco. Would like to keep the 3.5 in the Bronco, but I've driven a few 2.7s and it'll be just fine.

 

[TJconvert2.7]

No

 

[PrepVet]

The idea of one. Yes. The current practicality. No.

 

[JT58Bronc]

I would have although they probably would jack the price to upwards of 80K- like what Jeep did with the Wrangler with the 392. Why can't it be a simple low cost option like Ford did with the Bronco back in 66- to get the optional 289 versus the 170 CI six.

And the MPG with the V8- what would it have been- like 12? Or maybe it would actually be better? 17 is not good on the Sas- the most disappointing thing to me so far.

I don't understand the poor gas mileage- geez I don't remember my 1970 Bronco with 302, 4 barrel carburetor, headers, dual exhaust, 3 on the tree with 32" Tru-Traks being that bad on gas. I thought it got in the 20's. My buddy's 71 Blazer was bad on gas- 350, automatic, headers, dual exhaust 33" mud terrains was a gas guzzler and got 12. When he changed to smoother tires the performance and MPG went way up. With that being said, is it the mud tires causing the Sas to get 17 MPG? Would it go up to 20's if the mud tires are changed to smoother tread all terrains?

 

[Erock]

Yep, I would.

 

[Bronco4lyfe85]

My uncle ordered the Jeep 392, and its going to get 12 mpg. That sucks, literally. I am just not up for that anymore. I don't want a hybrid but the 17 mpg the Bronco gets with 35s is properly decent. Even Dodge is getting out of the V8 business. I just don't think it has a life left.....just like diesel engines. A big part of this country is bent on crushing fossil fuels no matter the consequences.

https://news.yahoo.com/even-dodge-says-v8-era-135700529.html

Huh. I just had to look, it’s rated for 13/17 and 14 combined. Must be the Jeep and the tires, my challenger averages 18-19mpg with the 392.

 

[Jr87mustang]

Huh. I just had to look, it’s rated for 13/17 and 14 combined. Must be the Jeep and the tires, my challenger averages 18-19mpg with the 392.

Sorry, the 12 mpg was just off the top of my head. I don't know what causes the hug dip in MPG, probably the toaster shape body doesn't help. All I know is if you get a 392 in a Jeep your not going to baby it, that 13 around town will be lower for sure.

 

[lobbs611]

The power band of the Coyote motors is all wrong for a heavy, off-road oriented rig. You've really got to wind them up to get into the meat of it. A smaller displacement version of the Godzilla would be intriguing and would actually fit much easier with its old-school cam-in-block design.

 

[Raptor911]

Don't forget, the Bronco has a small tank so with a V8 you will pulling over every 200 miles to get gas. So NO V8 for me for me as I get 600 miles/tank on the Raptor before I need fill up.

 

[LIKEABOSS]

Yes, the 5.0L V8 in the Bronco would have been perfect for me. Also with the gearing on my FE it's very likely the V8 would have got as good if not better gas mileage given the 2.7L V6 will be in the boost a lot.

Sponsored