The New "Old" Ford Bronco

[Alistair]

Yah it'll be a 2.7L turbo in a 4 door for me if I decide on one. The off road capabilities will almost certainly be more than I'll ever ask or have a need for. I've been clunking around the mountains and woods for hunting and fishing in these last 30 plus years with a 4x4 pickup that offered 4 hi and lo and that was it. Managed to do just fine. Might be fun and make it even easier to have these options, but they're certainly not required.

No, it won't tow a lot either. But then my wife and I have arrived at the conclusion we won't be buying a camper and touring the country in retirement using it. We may tour the country by vehicle but it will be in her Lexus and an Airbnb or hotel will be our lodging. We neither want to maintain a camper nor do I want to be bothered with towing it.

If anything it may be snowmobiles or UTVs we haul and the Bronco can handle that just fine. In the end I guess I'm really not sure why I'm thinking of this outside of I just think they look cool, thought it was a fun drive too (and a little less vehicle to drive isn't so bad) and it'll still handle the off roading I do still.

Fair. Manual is kinda non-negotiable for me in anything with less than 500hp, so that made the decision easy. But there's a lot to be said for an auto for just cruising around and I do think the 2.7 is a better engine, especially in a larger, heavier 4 door.

I have no doubt it'll do the off roading you describe without even a hint of difficulty. As I say, typical SUV stuff, no issues. Even over landing, no issues. If you want to do some serious rock crawling on a challenging trail, you might start to see it struggle vs the Jeep, but it's more capable than your average 4x4 pick up truck, that's for sure.

I think the 2.7 will be just fine for a bit of light duty towing as well. Perhaps not the absolute best tool for the job, but if it's just a snowmobile every couple months or so, I doubt you'd have any difficulties.

 

[NIGHTHAWK]

Here you go Bob your next Outback Shissan:

It’s got a hatch on top so you can pop up with your 35 Wailing and pop one of them prized trophy Camels you guys are always bragging about! One hump? Or two? Do you score them by the circumference of the hump or from the butt hole to the ears?

 

[Field28]

Cough cough, the new Land Cruiser or Lexus GX!

 

[Huvius]

“Had a 2000 LC and it was literally the best vehicle I’ve owned in 60+ years including several BMWs (5s, 6s, 1985 grey market M6 etc.) V10 diesel Touareg, several high end Mercedes cars and SUVs. New is nice but paid-for is nicer.”

100% agree!!
My first Landcruiser was a 1993 and then gave that to my niece when I got a 2003.
That’s my daughter’s now and every time I drive it or work on it I wonder what the hell is wrong with me and why I don’t just buy another of the same vintage with as few miles as I can find. Her’s has only 180K now and all we’ve done is brakes, one starter (which stupidly is in the ‘V’ under the intake manifold) and regular maintenance.

All the SUV one could ever want or need and now rather cheap to maintain.

 

[Cheesehead]

@Cheesehead
It amazes this old fella that the newer smaller engines combined with all the technology are out performing the old bigger displacement engines.
To me I doest seem right getting a little 2 litre motor to put out more horsepower than an older 3 litre.
I just wonder how these smaller motors will last when putt to the towing test like I do in Australia.
Just doesn't seem right to me. My wife's new Hyundai 2 litre diesel puts out 400 Nm of torque.
My old school Nissan 4x4 2.7 litre diesel only gets 300Nm. The marvels of modern technology.
Bob

I think it is fair to be a little nervous about the longevity of some of the newer engine technology, especially with some of the reliability issues that we have seen discussed in this thread. However, most of what is used in these turbocharged, direct injection gas engines is not that new. Turbos for example have been in widespread use on diesel engines for the better part of 40 years, and no one questions the longevity of diesels. Diesel engines also have much higher compression ratios, cylinder pressures, and exhaust temps. Even the least proven technology in these EcoBoost and similar engines, the high-pressure direct injection, operates at a much lower, by a factor of 10, pressure than the direct injection of a diesel engine. I believe the key to longevity is to design the engines much like how diesel engines are designed. For example, the 2.7 EcoBoost uses forged internals, water-cooled turbochargers, and even an engine block made of compacted graphite iron like many modern diesel engines. Case in point: the 3.5 ecoboost was an existing gas engine that Ford engineers revised to add turbos and direct injection, while the 2.7 ecoboost was a clean-sheet design. The 2.7 is the most reliable engine in the F-150, while the 3.5 is the least reliable.

 

[Alistair]

I think it is fair to be a little nervous about the longevity of some of the newer engine technology, especially with some of the reliability issues that we have seen discussed in this thread. However, most of what is used in these turbocharged, direct injection gas engines is not that new. Turbos for example have been in widespread use on diesel engines for the better part of 40 years, and no one questions the longevity of diesels. Diesel engines also have much higher compression ratios, cylinder pressures, and exhaust temps. Even the least proven technology in these EcoBoost and similar engines, the high-pressure direct injection, operates at a much lower, by a factor of 10, pressure than the direct injection of a diesel engine. I believe the key to longevity is to design the engines much like how diesel engines are designed. For example, the 2.7 EcoBoost uses forged internals, water-cooled turbochargers, and even an engine block made of compacted graphite iron like many modern diesel engines. Case in point: the 3.5 ecoboost was an existing gas engine that Ford engineers revised to add turbos and direct injection, while the 2.7 ecoboost was a clean-sheet design. The 2.7 is the most reliable engine in the F-150, while the 3.5 is the least reliable.

I'd agree with what you state here.

I think the big advancement in reliability of small displacement, high specific output turbo engines is that these days they're designed from the ground up to be that way. It's no longer the case that manufacturers are designing a NA engine with a specific output of roughly 70hp/L then 5-10 years later slapping a turbo on it for the new model year, bumping specific output to 100+hp/L, upgrading stuff as best they can without fundamentally changing the architecture and hoping the reliability isn't hurt too much.

If you build for turbo from the start, you end up with a better engine, and really, you should expect pretty much the same reliability as the lazy old low-tune NA engine which was also designed that way. Especially in 2024 when these companies have had 30 odd years to test and observe what works and what doesn't in the real world, in millions of different cars across hundreds of applications.

My only concerns now with a new turbo is that it's new, and that there might be some basic troubleshooting from first model year to second whilst they gather that end user reliability data and fix any minor flaws they missed during development and testing. I'd have the same concern with a new NA engine, if anyone was making one.

On the Bronco specifically, I think it's a good thing that even if the model is new, the drive train is all 'out of the box', proven stuff from other models. You avoid that 'first gen' issues problem there at least.

I also find it reassuring to see a new architecture being released in various states of tune from the get go, assuming the model I'm buying isn't the most aggressive version. The 3.0L V6 Ecoboost in the Bronco Raptor (same engine, just bored, stroked and fettled) is putting out 420hp, which reassures me that the normal 2.7L Bronco at 330hp from the same basic engine is probably pretty under stressed for what the architecture can actually do. Even the 2.3L Ecoboost is chucking out 350HP in the Focus RS, which makes me think that the 300HP 2.3L Bronco variant is probably fairly safe.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

We agree. Nice looking. Works great! American legends. I’ve had my best luck with Fords and the 243!

It figures you’d be driving a rice burner! Did you take out the drivers seat and sit on a lounge chair to fit in that “model” of what a real truck might look like?

I know, your Hibachi engine can run on soy sauce and peanut oil in a pinch! Tough to get that smell out isn’t it?!

View attachment 640311

@NIGHTHAWK
That's the beauty of my rice burner if we have a fuel shortage I can pull up at any Chinese takeaway and fill it with with old peanut oil and soy sauce and have a good meal while waiting. Then start it up and drive off.
Try that with your ford it would size up at the thought.
It may be smaller but it has enough room to stretch my legs out while driving.
In Australia those big fords, Silverado and Rams are hopeless in the bush as a lot of tracks aren't wide enough for them.
Sorry but I will stick with my NISSAN.
IF you have had your best luck with a ford and a 243 you must be very unlucky. Ha Ha ha Ha Ha.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Here you go Bob your next Outback Shissan:

View attachment 640313

It’s got a hatch on top so you can pop up with your 35 Wailing and pop one of them prized trophy Camels you guys are always bragging about! One hump? Or two? Do you score them by the circumference of the hump or from the butt hole to the ears?

@NIGHTHAWK
Very funny
I'm trying for a three hump camel just to be different.
I will stay faithful to my Nissan and Whelen. Both are like a good wife. Honest, reliable and do all that is asked of them without issue and easy to get along with. Neither may be the prettiest but beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
I will let you have your 243 Ford . Overrated, big and when the going gets rough they go home crying. They sure look pretty on the black top but put them in some serious 4x4 situation and they can't hack the pace.
Bob

 

[steve white]

@Cheesehead
It amazes this old fella that the newer smaller engines combined with all the technology are out performing the old bigger displacement engines.
To me I doest seem right getting a little 2 litre motor to put out more horsepower than an older 3 litre.
I just wonder how these smaller motors will last when putt to the towing test like I do in Australia.
Just doesn't seem right to me. My wife's new Hyundai 2 litre diesel puts out 400 Nm of torque.
My old school Nissan 4x4 2.7 litre diesel only gets 300Nm. The marvels of modern technology.
Bob

Lucky dog! We can't get that stuff here in the US...