Saw my first of the new Broncos today.

[2010JK]

It's not the 25hp people are going to like over the Pentastar, it's the 140 ft lbs of torque. And with mild tunes were talking about 75hp and 180ft lbs over the Pentastar. The EcoBoost Fords are impressive I've got a 3.5 150 rated to tow 12k pounds. Everything in that truck is undersized for that load except for the engine. The 2.7 isn't all that far behind the 3.5. I'd love an engine like that in the Gladiator. Get an extended warranty and some MBI and don't worry about it for 100k miles.

Jeep has three engine options in Wrangler with more torque than anything Ford has too, and Jeep's 4 cylinder turbo is almost identical to Ford's as well. Like I said earlier in this thread, there isn't anything the Bronco does better than Wrangler, and the same would/will be said if Ford attempts to make a Gladiator competitor out of it too

Sponsored

 

[ATLalien]

I have had two Broncos a 74 and a 92 both were 302 powered. I was interested until the engines were reveled. Ford sold me a turbo Mustang in 80 1K after the warranty was up turbo died and cost of repair was 60% of the cars value. I'm happy with my Gladiator.

My 96 Bronco had the 351, great motor. Really liked that truck.

Those 80's turbo motors were notoriously problematic. A family member had an 85 Mustang SVO that was great when it worked but the turbo had to be replaced twice. That said though, Ford's turbo technology has come a long way in 30 years. Seems like folks with the modern 2.7 and 3.5 are having pretty good results these days.

 

[wdsryder]

1.6 liter I3, Turbo? Base engine?

1.5 liter in the Bronco I saw.

 

[AKDrifter]

Jeep has three engine options in Wrangler with more torque than anything Ford has too, and Jeep's 4 cylinder turbo is almost identical to Ford's as well.

I wish we could get the 2.0 in the Gladiator though I understand that it probably wouldn't hold up towing. But the thing Ford is doing that Jeep isn't is offering factory performance tunes that keeps your warranty. The 2.3 on the Ford tune is 320hp and 355ft lb of torque and you get that extra power for 800 bucks. To get a 392 we're talking 30k $. The electric isn't too bad because the feds are subsidizing the cost. If the 392 or electric comes to the Glad I would welcome that power. But for now, at least on paper, Ford is going to win the powertrain battle no doubt.

 

[2010JK]

I wish we could get the 2.0 in the Gladiator though I understand that it probably wouldn't hold up towing. But the thing Ford is doing that Jeep isn't is offering factory performance tunes that keeps your warranty. The 2.3 on the Ford tune is 320hp and 355ft lb of torque and you get that extra power for 800 bucks. To get a 392 we're talking 30k $. The electric isn't too bad because the feds are subsidizing the cost. If the 392 or electric comes to the Glad I would welcome that power. But for now, at least on paper, Ford is going to win the powertrain battle no doubt.

If Ford's goal is to win a "powertrain battle" - with off-roaders - with some tunes most people will never get, they've already missed the mark. Then again, that isn't really surprising since it is Ford that we're talking about here

 

[AKDrifter]

If Ford's goal is to win a "powertrain battle" - with off-roaders - with some tunes most people will never get, they've already missed the mark. Then again, that isn't really surprising since it is Ford that we're talking about here

Well and that's why I say on paper. If the torque peaks at 6500rpm then it's obviously not all that useful to almost anyone. That's the problem with the 5.0 in the 150. You don't want an engine designed for the Mustang to haul loads. And yet Ford puts it in there and sells tons of them building torque to almost 7k rpm. The truth is most people use their cars to get from A to B and going offroad is not a concern in the least especially for a good portion of Gladiator owners. But having an extra 100ft lbs of torque would definitely be welcome. I just hope we get some smarter options trickling down because of Ford.

 

[brewerydad]

1.5 liter in the Bronco I saw.

That would be the Bronco Sport, not the Bronco.

 

[Snzzbry_Ovrlnd]

I just want the hybrid engine for the extra torque down low. Oh, and better MPG.

 

[RobGold 2012]

To me it looks like someone stuck a compressor in a Ford Flex and forgot to turn it off and everything bubbled out

 

[FrankFrqnkFrank]

Well and that's why I say on paper. If the torque peaks at 6500rpm then it's obviously not all that useful to almost anyone. That's the problem with the 5.0 in the 150. You don't want an engine designed for the Mustang to haul loads. And yet Ford puts it in there and sells tons of them building torque to almost 7k rpm. The truth is most people use their cars to get from A to B and going offroad is not a concern in the least especially for a good portion of Gladiator owners. But having an extra 100ft lbs of torque would definitely be welcome. I just hope we get some smarter options trickling down because of Ford.

Great points. I’d add that “peak” torque and HP numbers are just about the most irrelevant data there is. And they are deceptive if the peaks are actual peaks. It’s the torque curve that matters, how quickly as a function of rpm the engine gets to the high torque levels and how long over the rpm range the torque is sustained. And for HP (since HP = torque x rpm / 5252) what matters is a high flat torque curve continuing as rpm’s rise

 

[syreeves]

Which is a far better choice for the significant majority of new Wrangler buyers. People around here like to talk up the SFA but the reality is that not a lot of new JL buyers need the solid axle for off-roading. The big limiter on IFS vehicles is that even 35s on a 4Runner require significant work and now you have one that fits 37s with no modifications whatsoever.

If the Sport is any indicator, the new Bronco is going to be a good looking truck. I would totally do the Sport for a commuter if I actually had the need for one but the wife wants a Crosstrek instead.

I bought my mother a Crosstrek and my daughter will have one (manual trans of course!) as her first car and i can attest they are awesome. I could do 80% of what i do with the JT in a Crosstrek at 1/3 the mileage and 1/2 the cost. Not as cool but pretty close. And they come with manuals! Also these are awesome:

This is a rallitek spacer lift, tires, some basic armor and a genuine WARN winch mount! There is a dealer in South Dakota that will build something like this (minus the winch and warn bumper) for around $32K. Friend of mine has one. Last - did you know that with the passenger seat moved forward and the back seats folded flat there is more than 6ft of interior space? Enough to sleep in! Try sleeping inside a JT or even in the bed - you have to spend $$ to camp in a JT.

https://www.amazon.com/WARN-106221-...t=&hvlocphy=9020757&hvtargid=pla-873427457675

 

[stingrey]

Saw a new red full size Bronco 4dr yesterday just down the street from my house here in Waterloo, Ontario Can. I had to do a double take to confirm it and a slow down and stare when I drove past it to come home.
It had Mich plates. I've blocked out the plate # for the persons privacy - I don't know them.

 

[lrtexasman]

Would you say appearance wise it was the same size as a 4 door wrangler or more like a new 110 Discovery ?

 

[stingrey]

Would you say appearance wise it was the same size as a 4 door wrangler or more like a new 110 Discovery ?

I had a JL before the JT and I would say it appears to be almost exactly like the JL.
I thought it was just another Wrangler until I was within 25m of it. Mainly because I wasn't expecting it to be a Bronco

 

[lrtexasman]

Awesome. TY

Sponsored