A base engine very few people are likely to see. As a vehicle strongly marketed on the points that it can haul the Brady Bunch and all their stuff to a ski resort, it would be nice to know how its going to perform when butts are in all the seats and cargo in the cargo areas.

It's safe to say no one is getting 28mpg with 1300lb of stuff in the 400HP trim.

 

The only small engine available in Ford's stable right now that will get you similar MPG's under load / no load is the 3.0L diesel as being proven in the F-150.

The 3.5L and 5.0L engines both take a huge dump when towing although the eco is more of a guzzler when working hard.

 

If you want a V8 in a medium-sized SUV, buy a Grand Cherokee or Durango very soon. Again, I like V8's and would really like a Durango SRT but have no need for one. Alternatively there is the BMW X5 M, but that is over $100k and not an off-roader. Mercedes G will go off road but it's over $120k. Or the big GM stuff, but those are not off-roaders. Maybe the Toyota Land Cruiser ($85k) or its Lexus counterpart?

You can still buy some V8 vehicles and if you want one, buy one while you can.

Paradigms have been changing. The Raptor and Expedition use a 214 cubic inch engine with a turbo and get up to 450hp--and there are no larger optional engines available in those vehicles. In my old paradigms, I would have thought this was too small an engine for a Ford Falcon.

The 2.3 is being used in the Ranger and I don't see any pattern of complaints. It will do 0-60 in under 7 seconds and do the quarter mile in ~15 seconds, and is rated to tow 7500 lbs. The only problem I see with this is that the number indicating displacement "seems" small to you. If you drove one for a year and nobody told you what was under the hood, I doubt very much you'd be disappointed. For the record, have you test driven one?

 

The Ranger can scoot right along with a tune.

 

LOL, yes it can, now imagine that with a tuned 2.7, that is likely to happen!!!

 

If that happens I may be back in the market for a Bronco. Right now I'm leaning towards getting a new Raptor.

 

I never said the little turbos were bad, just unproven for the purpose. Most people driving around in an empty vehicle big enough to carry their extended family probably find them just dandy over well groomed roads on their way to work. I'm sure Ford will sells lots of them to happy customers. The 2.8L turbo in my car rarely dissapoints me.

I don't plan to load a literal ton of stuff in my car either. Or pull a 3 ton trailer. Or both. Nor do I plan on putting 37" 100lb wheel+tires on it. Or spinning those tires with the engine revved while down in a canyon traveling very slowly, or across a muddy slough. Or climbing long steep mountain shelf roads/trails with them etc. etc.

There are plenty of times when lightswitch power and turbo lag are very bad, and a larger naturally aspirated engine would be preferred for it's smooth predictable throttle response. I don't see myself trying to drag race my Bronco nearly as often as I picture myself driving it offroad or down a muddy or snowy road (which is about half the days of the year).

A nice NA V8 or V6 would suit me much better. It doesn't have to be gargantuan either, Ford itself has made some V8's in the mid 3L range. If you just look at their 2.7L V6 and extend that out the V8 could be only 3.6L.

I'm sure the technological marvels of today and tomorrow are not limited to forced induction or the fantasy of batteries. But like most things ordained through politics, the city dwelling mob tells me how I get to live my life.

 

I'm likely to stay in a 150 myself, unless the '21 Bronco or Ranger really impress me, regardless if the 2.7 shows up. What we have in the Ranger really unimpressed me, for my use. I hope it turns out Ford knows what they're doing. LOL, doesn't mean they have to impress me though.

 

I like the fact that Ford employed the 2.3L a bunch for years and all the bugs if any worked out before it found it's way into the Ranger and Bronco.

But, I'm a guy who likes choices and I think the 3.3L would be a great place to start as an alternative with the 2.7L and 3.0L diesel being offered as well.

I'm really becoming intrigued by the 3.0L and I'm so proud that Ford didn't rush this one to market. The F-150 is a very robust truck with the smoker but it comes with a hefty price tag.

 

Ford's 3L V6's are the turbos I think the Bronco should have. The 2.7 Ecoboost is certainly adequate, but the 3.0L derived from it would leave enough on the table that the HO version could be used for a Raptor or other sport version, as can be seen with the 400hp HO versions in Lincolns and the Explorer.

If we get a diesel I'd much rather see the 3.0 than the 2.0, but the odds seem slim for either. I was surprised to see them bring the 2.0 in for the Transit right after they put it in the international Ranger Raptor -- that really tells you it isn't 'sporty' by American standards.

It will be interesting to see which motor they hybridize to take that green slot -- I wouldn't be surprised if they used the 2.0 Ecoboost for that. Depending on the electric pancake they put in it that combo could turn out 300hp and 450+lbft.

 

isn't the 5.0 lighter than the 2.7? I thought that was part of the reason they stick the 5.0 in the snow plow package, but not the turbos.

 

The 2.7 is much smaller. The 5.0 is huge. The reason the 5.0 is used on the snow plow pkg is that with a plow mounted, the EcoBoost turbos can’t stay cool enough due to reduced air flow.

 

cooling was certainly part of it, but another part of it was the weight.
I doubt we'll see the 5.0 any time soon, but don't get you hopes up for the 2.7 either.

 

Are you guys saying the 5.0 is a lighter engine? Lighter than the 3.5 too? Just curious.

 

Only 20 lbs, not a meaningful difference. The new 2nd gen Coyote may be even lighter.