2021 Bronco Possible Engine Options
By Jakob Hansen

A minor slip up gives us insight into the future of the Bronco.

 

As I've stated about the current Ranger, I'll say it for the new Bronco too, since it looks like the 5.0L V8 won't make an appearance under the hood of the new Bronco seeing as even the ''big Bronco'' is going to be built on the Ranger chassis, I think the 2.7L Ecoboost is the perfect engine for it. 325hp and 400lb/ft of turbocharged torque would make both it and the Ranger a rocket. The current 2.0 turbo I4 the Ranger uses as its sole engine could be the standard engine.

 

^^^^From what I've been told, you are correct.

 

This "news" is months old rumor based on some data entry monkey making a reasonable guess.

 

But the ranger is the anemic 2.3ecoboost with 270hp/310tq

 

Considering that the theoretical main competitor has options of a V6 with 285hp and 260lbft or a I4 with 270hp and 295 lbft, the little Ford 2.3 I4 with 270hp and 310 lbft doesn't sound bad as a base engine.

The 3.0L or 2.7L V6 ecoboosts with low to mid 300s hp and 400lbft sound better as a mainstream upgrade, and the 5L V8 Coyote with 400 of each would be fantastic as a higher markup upgrade.

 

I agree with Stampede here....the 2.3 EB has much more power and torque than legendary engines like the Ford 300 inch six and the AMC 4.0 I6 and has more hp and torque than the 4.6 in my 2003 E150 van had. The low-RPM torque in particular is superior to the Chrysler 3.6 Pentastar (which I do like--I have one in my Grand Caravan in almost the identical tune to the Wrangler engine..283hp and 260 lb ft...but it has to rev to make power)

Especially with the 10 speed transmission there should be no problem grunting over all kinds of off-road obstacles. The 2.7 would be expected as an optional engine. No way will they fit a V8 into this chassis. You can't get a V8 in an Expedition.

 

The 2.7L EB is a no / low cost upgrade in the F-150. I'd feel pretty stupid paying a premium for it in another chassis.

 

??? It's a pretty high priced option in the Edge, for instance, although as part of the Sport (now ST) package it's not possible to isolate the cost. It's also a high dollar option in the Lincoln MKX/Nautilus....$2000 more than the standard 2.0 EBoost. It probably gets you bigger radiators and trans coolers, maybe sturdier drivetrain parts, and stuff. Lincoln pricing is more symbolic, though, as opposed to utilitarian. Actually, F150's have a gigantic markup and profit margin because they are so fashionable...for now.

 

I don't believe for a second they can't put a V8 in there if they are making it wide enough to handle a V6 ... we already know it can fit an inline 5 cylinder 3.2L if the Ranger can. If Ford's engineers an figure out how to put a Coyote in a Falcon or Mustang, or a 460 in the ridiculous engine compartment of an E-series van, then fitting a 5L V8 in a truck that is only a couple inches smaller than an F150 should be no problem. It's not as if the competition is setting the bar really high for safety ratings Ford needs to beat.

If the bean counters will let them is another matter entirely.

 

It's not the bean counters making V8's go away these days, but the EPA fuel mileage ratings. I had a Ford salesman tell me 2 days ago that someone from Ford told him that Ford's goal is 80% hybrid vehicles by 2025 to meet emissions and mileage requirements. That sounds nuts but if you want to research the real world situation instead of assuming that our lives will never change, you should do that.

If you look at the current rules, the fleet average for a vehicle the size of a Ford Ranger increases from 30 to 39 mpg between 2019 and 2025. V8's do not fit that scenario. It's time to change paradigms. Ford is NOT going to be putting a V8 in the Bronco unless they can run it on 1-2 cylinders with cylinder shutoff programming. Weight and friction make that an unlikely solution. GM and Chrysler are doing cylinder shutoff with V8's but Ford is NOT--they are going to V6 and I4 and I3 turbos as in the new Escape. You either have 8 cylinders that you reduce to 4/3/2/1, or you have 3-4 cylinders that you can boost to equal 8. I just looked and even the 3 cyl Ecoboost deactivates one cylinder and runs on two cylinders.

If you want a V8 as a life goal, especially in a smaller footprint vehicle, buy one right now.. I've had a fetish for a Durango SRT and realize that if I want to buy a new one, it should be soon. I have driven over a half million miles in V8 vehicles, many of them big block monsters from the past. I have drag racing trophies from the 1970's and have owned two 426 hemi cars that got 8 mpg. Nothing like a V8 for normally aspirated American power.

Sorry to get all scientific and stuff, but reality is reality, and the future is not equal to the past. I wrote my college thesis on the rise and fall of the musclecar in 1974, and technology found a way to increase mileage and reduce emissions--and it has shocked the hell out of me that musclecars like the Challenger Hellcat can exist with the high tech we have today. Technology will likely find solutions for the future, but V8 engines are not part of that future and room to fit them in a chassis is not the issue. No idea how old you are, FTE friends, but we need to ditch our paradigms and prepare for a new reality. It may be better than you ever expected, but will not include V8 engines in the size of vehicles that we use for daily drivers.

George

 

Change your argument about why its unlikely if you want, but to claim it is unlikely because they can't or that it won't fit is silly. There are reasons, but not that one.

The dilemma would seem to become whether or not Ford can get a tiny turbo to perform as well on and off road as a large naturally aspirated engine. Obviously the HP and Torque numbers they will want to tout in sales pitches are superior, but the throttle response is typically quite different, and the fuel economy under load is usually worse, not to mention extra heat management and parts.

 

The fuel economy rules just made it to my radar and because I have new information, it makes a difference in how I think about this.

The 2.3 is not a "tiny turbo". Proportional to the 2.7 used in full sized trucks, it's a pretty good size. And if the Bronco does get the 2.7 Ecoboost as rumor indicates, it will be a lot of engine for that size vehicle. The smaller 2.0 and 1.5 turbos that Ford makes will not be used in the Bronco but may be used in the baby Bronco which will use the Escape platform.

Fuel economy under load, if it is not used in EPA tests, is irrelevant to fuel economy standards. Turbos do make heat; the high output 3.5 Ecoboost used in the Raprtor seems to be doing OK and the large number of Ecoboosts in F150's over the years seem to be pretty solid.

 

It's obviously a hyperbolic epithet. Being half the displacement, or less, of their traditional counterparts seems like a reasonable point at which to consider something substantially smaller.

Which ought to tell us how poorly written that assesment is if no one is considering the performance under load, especially for classes of vehicles whose primary design elements are predicated on that vehicle hauling or towing a heavy load. The idea that GVWR plays no part in fuel economy evaluation is foolish, especially for vans, pickups, and SUVs.

It's also very well understood that the way a real human being will drive a vehicle is quite different than the parameters exerted during fuel economy testing -- if we know they're not accurate how can we be expected to make purchasing or policy decisions based on them? The EPA assessment is a farce.

 

The 2.3L is the entry level engine in the 2020 Explorer and as tested by R&T mag, it had plenty of power and achieved 28 MPG's hwy.

The vehicle was tested against a 2020 Kia of equal proportions and the Kia ate it up in all categories except MPG's, according to R&T mag.