Not a pickup, but...Bronco!

[SD Rebel]

It's a good start and kudos to Ford for doing this.

Hopefully future year models will address the concerns out of the gate and add more engine options.

Would love to see the 5.0 or 7.3 as an option especially considering the Wrangler 6.4 that was teased.

True, but their two gas options already out powers the Wranglers top gas motor, the 3.6 Pentastar with more torque, including the base 2.3L Ecoboost. The 2.7L has 400 ft-lbs of torque.

As for the 6.4L V8 option, I don't figure that's going to be a common or equivalent priced option to hurt sales against the Wrangler. Likely to drive the price of that Wrangler to $70K plus. Though Ford already said higher powered options are coming.

This.

You can get 3 types of Bronco!
....As long as you don't want a V6 engine larger than 2._ Litres in it.
I personally don't.

The Ecoboost 2.7L makes 310 hp / 400 ft-lbs of torque. The 3.6L Pentastar makes 290 hp / 256 ft-lbs of torque. The Ford has the Wrangler here, at least based on gas V6s motors. Heck, their 2.3L 4-banger makes 275 hp / 310 ft-lbs of torque, a little less hp but much more torque that the Wrangler's top V6.

 

[SD Rebel]

It's disappointing. The features list reads like a 15 year old Jeep Wrangler. And the only powertrains are the problematic EcoBust engines that have a history of TSB and recall lists a country mile long. Plus, it's IFS which is a major turn-off in the off-road community. What a joke.

The JL Wrangler with the 392 Hemi option is looking like a real possibility in 2021 and that will eat a Bronco alive in performance and popularity with buyers.

The ONLY good thing I can say about the Bronco is that it's going to make Jeeps even better than they already have become.

Care to explain a 15 year old Wrangler? Based on the specs I've read, it absolutely matches and exceeds the Wrangler in every way.

As for the IFS, I've been in the Jeep community for years, there has been talk of going that direction for over a decade due to the advantages of IFS. It's the only Jeep still using a solid axle front and the only mainstream SUV that has it. The Bronco has a Dana Independent front with electronic lockers, lets see what it can actually do before you write it off.

The 2.3L and 2.7L Ecoboost have no unusually bad history of reliability or issues. I had a 2.7L for 4 years, it was flawless, fast and fuel efficient.

The 392 Wrangler is not going to be a high volume option, it's going to cost like $70K or more. Hardly going to make a sales dent on the Bronco.

 

[OverlndRebel]

Care to explain a 15 year old Wrangler? Based on the specs I've read, it absolutely matches and exceeds the Wrangler in every way.

As for the IFS, I've been in the Jeep community for years, there has been talk of going that direction for over a decade due to the advantages of IFS. It's the only Jeep still using a solid axle front and the only mainstream SUV that has it. The Bronco has a Dana Independent front with electronic lockers, lets see what it can actually do before you write it off.

The 2.3L and 2.7L Ecoboost have no unusually bad history of reliability or issues. I had a 2.7L for 4 years, it was flawless, fast and fuel efficient.

The 392 Wrangler is not going to be a high volume option, it's going to cost like $70K or more. Hardly going to make a sales dent on the Bronco.

I am actually quite impressed with the tech, now let's wait and see what it can do in real world tests. I do believe they have gripped Jeep by the jewels on this one. Jeep is even revamping the next model year with some new standard features. I'll say Ford did a better job on the new Bronco than their lackluster Mustang iterations. The C8 slapped that pony back into the stable. ( I have a Mustang lol).

 

[ktl5005]

Care to explain a 15 year old Wrangler? Based on the specs I've read, it absolutely matches and exceeds the Wrangler in every way.

As for the IFS, I've been in the Jeep community for years, there has been talk of going that direction for over a decade due to the advantages of IFS. It's the only Jeep still using a solid axle front and the only mainstream SUV that has it. The Bronco has a Dana Independent front with electronic lockers, lets see what it can actually do before you write it off.

The 2.3L and 2.7L Ecoboost have no unusually bad history of reliability or issues. I had a 2.7L for 4 years, it was flawless, fast and fuel efficient.

The 392 Wrangler is not going to be a high volume option, it's going to cost like $70K or more. Hardly going to make a sales dent on the Bronco.

I agree with this. Supposedly the Bronco is going to have better ground clearance, break over angle, departure angle etcetc. If it has all that, then it beats the Wrangler. It has it best in power, locking front and rear axles, 7 driving modes, more easily removable body panels, better interior, etcetc. Ford did a very good job. I cant wait until the car magazines get their hands on them and do a true off road comparison but off what was released, the Bronco is one upping the wrangler

 

[OverlndRebel]

I agree with this. Supposedly the Bronco is going to have better ground clearance, break over angle, departure angle etcetc. If it has all that, then it beats the Wrangler. It has it best in power, locking front and rear axles, 7 driving modes, more easily removable body panels, better interior, etcetc. Ford did a very good job. I cant wait until the car magazines get their hands on them and do a true off road comparison but off what was released, the Bronco is one upping the wrangler

They have definitely researched and listened to the Jeep communities likes/ dislikes, and usual purchase history for off-road applications. Hell, 35 inch bead locks off the lot? They got the formula, let's see how it pans out for them.

 

[Moparian]

Ford actually made a better Wrangler. It should be way better on road, more fuel efficient and at least as good as the Wrangler off road. The Rubicon might still be the king of factory rock crawlers but we will see once people get their hands on them. Also the aftermarket is going to be huge like the Wrangler with the added bonus of Ford not locking their PCM's so for ~$500 bucks you will be able to unlock significant gains on either engine both of which have been out for some time so the tunes are pretty much perfected at this point. I seriously doubt I'll be in the market in the next year or two but eventually I want something for the beach and this will be on the short list....hopefully Jeep is paying attention.

 

[WXman]

Care to explain a 15 year old Wrangler? Based on the specs I've read, it absolutely matches and exceeds the Wrangler in every way.

As for the IFS, I've been in the Jeep community for years, there has been talk of going that direction for over a decade due to the advantages of IFS. It's the only Jeep still using a solid axle front and the only mainstream SUV that has it. The Bronco has a Dana Independent front with electronic lockers, lets see what it can actually do before you write it off.

The 2.3L and 2.7L Ecoboost have no unusually bad history of reliability or issues. I had a 2.7L for 4 years, it was flawless, fast and fuel efficient.

The 392 Wrangler is not going to be a high volume option, it's going to cost like $70K or more. Hardly going to make a sales dent on the Bronco.

Sure.

The features list they've been harping on: twin lockers, disconnecting sway bar, aux switches, auto and manual transmissions, hard top with removable panels, removable doors, etc. Hmmm.... wonder where they got those ideas from? If you look at the pictures, even the hard top latches look exactly the same in function. It's pitiful. And that interior... my God it looks like a Polaris RZR. Hard, cheap plastic everywhere and an atrocious and bland design.

Every time Jeep has teased going IFS, off-road enthusiasts write them hate mail and threaten to burn the factory down. Crawlers and overlanders do not want IFS. That's been made very clear for decades. Jeep talked about doing it with the JK back in 2005-2006 when leaks started to show up. It's been an idea that floated around forever. Enthusiasts said NO. Toyota brought the FJ Cruiser to market in what, 2007? IFS was one of 3 critical reasons it was a massive failure and was canceled. Why the heck is Ford doing IFS??

The 2.3L has a history of even cracking the heads. None of the EcoBust engines get anywhere near advertised mileage especially with large tires or while towing. They're anything but reliable and efficient. Some groups have even sued them over false MPG claims. The Ranger was most recently in the news for lying about MPG numbers.

The 392 is just like the EcoDiesel....it's an option people have begged for a long time. They finally did the diesel, and I expect the 392 to be similar...a few thousand more for an option people LOVE for the sole purpose of keeping them ahead of the Bronco in the popularity contest. It's going to be awesome.

 

[SD Rebel]

Sure.

The features list they've been harping on: twin lockers, disconnecting sway bar, aux switches, auto and manual transmissions, hard top with removable panels, removable doors, etc. Hmmm.... wonder where they got those ideas from? If you look at the pictures, even the hard top latches look exactly the same in function. It's pitiful. And that interior... my God it looks like a Polaris RZR. Hard, cheap plastic everywhere and an atrocious and bland design.

Every time Jeep has teased going IFS, off-road enthusiasts write them hate mail and threaten to burn the factory down. Crawlers and overlanders do not want IFS. That's been made very clear for decades. Jeep talked about doing it with the JK back in 2005-2006 when leaks started to show up. It's been an idea that floated around forever. Enthusiasts said NO. Toyota brought the FJ Cruiser to market in what, 2007? IFS was one of 3 critical reasons it was a massive failure and was canceled. Why the heck is Ford doing IFS??

The 2.3L has a history of even cracking the heads. None of the EcoBust engines get anywhere near advertised mileage especially with large tires or while towing. They're anything but reliable and efficient. Some groups have even sued them over false MPG claims. The Ranger was most recently in the news for lying about MPG numbers.

The 392 is just like the EcoDiesel....it's an option people have begged for a long time. They finally did the diesel, and I expect the 392 to be similar...a few thousand more for an option people LOVE for the sole purpose of keeping them ahead of the Bronco in the popularity contest. It's going to be awesome.

The features list they've been harping on: twin lockers, disconnecting sway bar, aux switches, auto and manual transmissions, hard top with removable panels, removable doors, etc. Hmmm.... wonder where they got those ideas from? If you look at the pictures, even the hard top latches look exactly the same in function. It's pitiful.

Isn't that the stuff all hard-core off-roaders should have? It is a Jeep competitor right? I mean you criticize them for going the Wrangler direction, but then have an issue with the IFS, which the Wrangler is the only one with a solid front axle.

Every time Jeep has teased going IFS, off-road enthusiasts write them hate mail and threaten to burn the factory down. Crawlers and overlanders do not want IFS. That's been made very clear for decades. Jeep talked about doing it with the JK back in 2005-2006 when leaks started to show up. It's been an idea that floated around forever. Enthusiasts said NO. Toyota brought the FJ Cruiser to market in what, 2007? IFS was one of 3 critical reasons it was a massive failure and was canceled. Why the heck is Ford doing IFS??

Sounds like a "Harley Davidson" problem. They try to innovate and the old school guys stop them. There are plenty of Crawlers with IFS, including Wrangler conversions. Again, there is only one vehicle out there with IFS in the class, and that's the Wrangler. Land Rover, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, ZR2, Raptor, Forerunner, Tacoma, Etc. all have IFS and do very well off-road and aren't sales flops.

The 2.3L has a history of even cracking the heads. None of the EcoBust engines get anywhere near advertised mileage especially with large tires or while towing. They're anything but reliable and efficient. Some groups have even sued them over false MPG claims. The Ranger was most recently in the news for lying about MPG numbers.

You can say the same for the Hemi in the RAM Rebel. No vehicle I've owned has been more off the stated mpg and actual than my RAM. My 2015 2.7L was getting me close to the stated numbers in the real world. Show me the links where the 2.3L and especially 2.7L currently in use in the Ranger or F150 have been unreliable. I have yet to see them. The 2.3L engines issues in the Focus is on the SVT line specifically and the upgrades it had, not the same for those used in the Ranger or other applications. The 2.7L I've never heard of an issue with that, and that's Ford's volume motor.

The 392 is just like the EcoDiesel....it's an option people have begged for a long time. They finally did the diesel, and I expect the 392 to be similar...a few thousand more for an option people LOVE for the sole purpose of keeping them ahead of the Bronco in the popularity contest. It's going to be awesome.

The diesel was a long time coming, and even then it's going to be a costly option. No one was clamming for the 392 in the Wrangler. They just wanted a regular 5.7L. You honestly think you are going to be able to get a 6.4L option in the Wrangler in the same price point are regular Wranglers and Broncos? It's power is expected to be higher than the one in the RAM heavy duty but lower than the SRT Dodge cars, around 450 hp. Don't expect it to be cheap. The fact they are going to the 6.4 instead of the 5.7 tells me it's not a volume option.

 

[orange01z28]

agreed - Ford did a nice job with what they had to work with. Im sure the bronco will feel like it has plenty of power even with the 4 cyl, and its awesome they offered a manual. Now if jeep offers the 6.4L WITH a manual transmission.... id be lining up at the dealer asking them to take my money

That 2.3 is in my wife's heavy *** Explorer and it has plenty of power. Its peppy

 

[STR]

I like it

 

[SpeedyV]

I am actually quite impressed with the tech, now let's wait and see what it can do in real world tests. I do believe they have gripped Jeep by the jewels on this one. Jeep is even revamping the next model year with some new standard features. I'll say Ford did a better job on the new Bronco than their lackluster Mustang iterations. The C8 slapped that pony back into the stable. ( I have a Mustang lol).

Okay...off-topic here: I like Mustangs, but it is a Camaro-fighter (both of those are very good on a track, if properly configured). The C8 is a legit threat to Ferraris and Porsches; it would be asking a lot of a Mustang to compete in that circle.

Back on point - I agree with your comments on the Bronco. I think it’ll be good for everyone for the Wrangler to have a bit of direct competition.

 

[Grape_Ape]

I'm pretty impressed with it. I actually wouldn't mind a two door to use as my next commuter

 

[silver billet]

Honestly, paint that thing pink and it looks just like one of those Barbie Playmobile toys you buy for your 5 year old.

Looks aside, IFS is deal killer. Not going to win any Jeep converts over that actually use the Jeep for rock crawling.

 

[OverlndRebel]

Okay...off-topic here: I like Mustangs, but it is a Camaro-fighter (both of those are very good on a track, if properly configured). The C8 is a legit threat to Ferraris and Porsches; it would be asking a lot of a Mustang to compete in that circle.

Back on point - I agree with your comments on the Bronco. I think it’ll be good for everyone for the Wrangler to have a bit of direct competition.

No worries mate... I totally agree that anything (Ford Performance) below a GT350R is not in that class off the factory floor. I've gone down the configuration rabbit hole in my 18 GT for canyons, HPDE, Track. It's fun to build something "ground up" to hit that level though. I would never flat-out buy a GT350R or GT500, feels like an overpriced cheat code lol.

 

[ChadT]

True, but their two gas options already out powers the Wranglers top gas motor, the 3.6 Pentastar with more torque, including the base 2.3L Ecoboost. The 2.7L has 400 ft-lbs of torque.

As for the 6.4L V8 option, I don't figure that's going to be a common or equivalent priced option to hurt sales against the Wrangler. Likely to drive the price of that Wrangler to $70K plus. Though Ford already said higher powered options are coming.




The Ecoboost 2.7L makes 310 hp / 400 ft-lbs of torque. The 3.6L Pentastar makes 290 hp / 256 ft-lbs of torque. The Ford has the Wrangler here, at least based on gas V6s motors. Heck, their 2.3L 4-banger makes 275 hp / 310 ft-lbs of torque, a little less hp but much more torque that the Wrangler's top V6.

They are fully capable of putting a V8 that makes 400hp in ther Ford Bronco - they even have one, the 5.0L V8.
And the Bronco (unlike the wrangler) is a vehicle with a history of having a V8 as a main powerplant.
And, thankfully it looks like we may very well get a V8 wrangler, which would be very nice.

They aren't due to their EPA strategy. They offer nerfed down V8s vs their boosted up V6s in their F-150s, to steer people to those smaller engines, for the EPA/CAFE reasons. They KNOW it will irk and bother some buyers, so they have to sweeten the deal somehow.
They'd have a lower take-rate on those ecoboosts, if they had, say, GM's 6.2L V8 with 420hp and 460lb/ft of torque being offered side by side with it.

To me a small engine with turbos on it is at home in a car, or a rally car, or other small vehicles.
In a "truck," where to me the primary concerns are longevity, simplicity, ease of maintenance? A big engine barely working is to me, the best formula. Don't get me wrong, power and speed are nice, but they aren't the top concerns for a TRUCK, at least to me.
If I purchased one for that, I'd rather have a V8 with turbos on it. If you're going to get some complexity, heat, etc?
Who cares about a Raptor that sounds like a weedwhacker, when you can have a TRX with 707hp in it.

 

[ktl5005]

They are fully capable of putting a V8 that makes 400hp in ther Ford Bronco - they even have one, the 5.0L V8.
And the Bronco (unlike the wrangler) is a vehicle with a history of having a V8 as a main powerplant.
And, thankfully it looks like we may very well get a V8 wrangler, which would be very nice.

They aren't due to their EPA strategy. They offer nerfed down V8s vs their boosted up V6s in their F-150s, to steer people to those smaller engines, for the EPA/CAFE reasons. They KNOW it will irk and bother some buyers, so they have to sweeten the deal somehow.
They'd have a lower take-rate on those ecoboosts, if they had, say, GM's 6.2L V8 with 420hp and 460lb/ft of torque being offered side by side with it.

To me a small engine with turbos on it is at home in a car, or a rally car, or other small vehicles.
In a "truck," where to me the primary concerns are longevity, simplicity, ease of maintenance? A big engine barely working is to me, the best formula. Don't get me wrong, power and speed are nice, but they aren't the top concerns for a TRUCK, at least to me.
If I purchased one for that, I'd rather have a V8 with turbos on it. If you're going to get some complexity, heat, etc?
Who cares about a Raptor that sounds like a weedwhacker, when you can have a TRX with 707hp in it.

Because when you add a tune to the 2.7L or 3.5L Ecoboost, and then add a tune to their 5.0L, the Ecoboost still makes
More power, more torque and lower peak torque than the 5.0. On top of that in stock form the 3.5L have more power, torque and better mpg than the 5.7l hemi, and add a tune to the 2.7l ecoboost and it also out does the hemi....

So please enlighten us as to where the Ecoboost is inferior to a v8.....

 

[dutchman187]

Had a Bronco in high school and love the looks of these new releases. I wouldn't be using it for true rock climbing stuff that is being debated on here, so that stuff doesn't really concern me. The 4 door option suddenly looks like a competent small SUV compared to the mini-van looking market currently out there. I'd consider one to replace the wife's car down the road.

 

[SD Rebel]

They are fully capable of putting a V8 that makes 400hp in ther Ford Bronco - they even have one, the 5.0L V8.
And the Bronco (unlike the wrangler) is a vehicle with a history of having a V8 as a main powerplant.
And, thankfully it looks like we may very well get a V8 wrangler, which would be very nice.

They aren't due to their EPA strategy. They offer nerfed down V8s vs their boosted up V6s in their F-150s, to steer people to those smaller engines, for the EPA/CAFE reasons. They KNOW it will irk and bother some buyers, so they have to sweeten the deal somehow.
They'd have a lower take-rate on those ecoboosts, if they had, say, GM's 6.2L V8 with 420hp and 460lb/ft of torque being offered side by side with it.

To me a small engine with turbos on it is at home in a car, or a rally car, or other small vehicles.
In a "truck," where to me the primary concerns are longevity, simplicity, ease of maintenance? A big engine barely working is to me, the best formula. Don't get me wrong, power and speed are nice, but they aren't the top concerns for a TRUCK, at least to me.
If I purchased one for that, I'd rather have a V8 with turbos on it. If you're going to get some complexity, heat, etc?
Who cares about a Raptor that sounds like a weedwhacker, when you can have a TRX with 707hp in it.

I disagree, the 2.7L Ecoboost is the volume engine, they didn't try to steer me away from the 5.0L. Back in late 2014, I test drove the 5.3L Silverado, 5.0L F150 and RAM 5.7L. I ended up with the 2.7L Ecoboost because it was fast, got good mileage when off boost and towed what I needed. The 2.7L Ecoboost is faster than my Hemi and got me 19 mpg mixed driving, while I'm only getting 13 mpg on the same loop with my Rebel. Could they spec the 5.0L to have more power and more attractive over the 3.5L? Sure they could.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Rebel and that V8 sound, its one of the primary reason why I got one now. I get bored every few years and the current F150 was already 5 years old. I fell in love with the new Rebel design but my 2.7L Ecoboost was a jewel of a motor and handled truck duties amazingly. If I go back to Ford, I would have no issues getting another one.

I didn't say the Bronco shouldn't have an available V8, it's just that it doesn't need one. With the 2.7L, it will hit 0-60 in the low 5 second range and have vastly more torque than all gas Wrangler motors. Only the upcoming diesel has more torque, and only by a little bit.

 

[silver billet]

So please enlighten us as to where the Ecoboost is inferior to a v8.....

Longevity, for one. Even Ford doesn't put turbos in their trucks that see real work, the F250/F350. Instead they spent millions developing a big block 7.3 v8.

 

[antwon412]

Longevity, for one. Even Ford doesn't put turbos in their trucks that see real work, the F250/F350. Instead they spent millions developing a big block 7.3 v8.

Well....technically not true. The diesels are turbo....