4 cylinder 4 door? Really?

[pitter_patter]

And you lose like 10% of your payload, and get more weight where you least want to add more weight on a vehicle (ahead of the front axle). And it's more like a 10% cost increase if you were considering the 7MT with the 2.3L (as you should, if you have chest hair). Not to mentioned increased maintenance/fuel costs with 50% more cylinders.

Ain't no free lunch.

Aside from my bad math (5 not .5) I'm actually buying the 2.3L MT. If there was a 2.7L MT I would buy that, but it's not offered, so I don't factor in the auto cost. I think the 2.3L will be fine.

Fuel costs remain to be seen. I think they will be very close. I think the 2.3L MPG in the Ranger is pretty disappointing and you can bet it will be worse in the Bronco.

Sponsored

 

[Clemson Tiger]

As far as hp and torque I have no concerns with the 2.3L 4 cyl being strong enough to move a 2 or 4 dr. I had a 2000 Land Rover discovery with a V8 and it only had 188 hp and 250 torque. I also have more confidence in ford’s 4 cyl engine than I do in the LR 8 cyl.
I am excited about my 2dr badlands 2.3 manual

 

[Butzy]

I'm not your man, buddy!

Sorry buddy....

 

[Toccoa]

My man, you don’t have to look or reply.

I'm not your man, buddy!

Sorry buddy....

 

[Lakelife36]

Some of that is perception

4-door big bend is lighter than the 2 door badlands

Woah there easy with them fancy facts around here. The 4-door is, like, bigger ya know.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

You should go drive a Ranger. If I were getting a 2 door bronco without the Sasquatch package I’d 100% go with the 4 cylinder and never look back. However, I’m getting a 4 door Sasquatch and have a family of 5. So I wanted the extra power.
Also, my wife drives a mini-van, and a little piece of her dies inside every time she drives it, we needed something fun and peppy.

Ford now offers a factory tune, and it's not hard to make '00 lux sedan slaying power out of the 2.3t

Always a bigger turbo as well, plenty will just drop in

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Aside from my bad math (5 not .5) I'm actually buying the 2.3L MT. If there was a 2.7L MT I would buy that, but it's not offered, so I don't factor in the auto cost. I think the 2.3L will be fine.

Fuel costs remain to be seen. I think they will be very close. I think the 2.3L MPG in the Ranger is pretty disappointing and you can bet it will be worse in the Bronco.

Hehe, fuel economy? Wrong vehicle, period

 

[VoltageDrop]

And you lose like 10% of your payload, and get more weight where you least want to add more weight on a vehicle (ahead of the front axle). And it's more like a 10% cost increase if you were considering the 7MT with the 2.3L (as you should, if you have chest hair). Not to mentioned increased maintenance/fuel costs with 50% more cylinders.

Ain't no free lunch.

The 4 cylinder is the higher maintenance engine due to intake valve carbon deposits. The V6 also has two turbos sharing the load. Not buying this argument, not that it would sway me away from the v6 anyway

 

[pitter_patter]

Hehe, fuel economy? Wrong vehicle, period

hardy har har.

 

[The_Phew]

The 4 cylinder is the higher maintenance engine due to intake valve carbon deposits. It also has two turbos sharing the load. Not buying this argument, not that it would sway me away from the v6 anyway

I've never read about anyone with the 2.3L that flogged it every time it was warmed up and required a walnut shell blasting. Drive like a granny, and yeah, you might have one ~$400 walnut shell blasting during your entire ownership period, which probably also included much more expensive maintenance items.

I, for one, am not losing sleep about lack of port injectors in the 2.3L. I'll spend 10x+ more on tires than I'll spend on walnut shell blasting (if I even need to do it, which most don't).

 

[BrentC]

...

Fuel costs remain to be seen. I think they will be very close. I think the 2.3L MPG in the Ranger is pretty disappointing and you can bet it will be worse in the Bronco.

MPG shouldn’t be disappointing. Assuming 2 engine’s HP ratings, the vehicle‘s weights, and the testing conditions are similar, and one engine is a V8 while the other is an inline 4 turbo, they will get roughly the same MPG. The power made is not a function of the displacement, but rather how efficiently the powerplant is able to burn the fuel and then convert that burned fuel to power.

Small motors doesn’t automatically mean better mileage. Just ask any WRX owner with a boxer. motor...or ask me what my mileage is like on the race track with my 750cc motorcyle.

 

[pitter_patter]

MPG shouldn’t be disappointing. Assuming 2 engine’s HP ratings, the vehicle‘s weights, and the testing conditions are similar, and one engine is a V8 while the other is an inline 4 turbo, they will get roughly the same MPG. The power made is not a function of the displacement, but rather how efficiently the powerplant is able to burn the fuel and then convert that burned fuel to power.

Small motors doesn’t automatically mean better mileage. Just ask any WRX owner with a boxer. motor...or ask me what my mileage is like on the race track with my 750cc motorcyle.

Disappointing relative to the other option.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

My Ram 1500 gets 12ish mpg with my Yokohama's

Anything this little Bulldog gets will be significantly better

 

[Lakelife36]

Hehe, fuel economy? Wrong vehicle, period

Just because we know it won't be "good" by any objective measure, it doesn't mean it's not still important to those of us who will also be using this as their DD. Case study:

My commute is a little over 100km and I estimate I travel ~550km per week or 2,400km (1,500 miles) in a typical month between January and September. The average price of gas through that part of the year is probably somewhere around $1.25/L, so if you don't mind getting funky with units I use approximately 3000 $*km/L*month; therefore, I spend ~$30/month for every L/100km of fuel consumption (how we measure things up here). My Cruze gets 7L/100km (33.5mpg), so I spend about ~$210/month on gas. An unrealistic 10L/100km (23.5mpg) in my 4-door 7M BB would cost me $90 more per month, and an optimistic 12L/100km (19.5mpg) would cost me $150 more per month than I am currently paying. A piggish 15.3367 (the same in both units of measure) would cost me over double what I'm currently spending in gas, and given that the Cruze is payed off and its insurance doesn't even cost that much per month would likely not make it worthwhile to even run the Bronco as a DD.

Gawd I love math! I wonder if my wife is DTF right now?

 

[The Mountain Man]

Just because we know it won't be "good" by any objective measure, it doesn't mean it's not still important to those of us who will also be using this as their DD. Case study:

My commute is a little over 100km and I estimate I travel ~550km per week or 2,400km (1,500 miles) in a typical month between January and September. The average price of gas through that part of the year is probably somewhere around $1.25/L, so if you don't mind getting funky with units I use approximately 3000 $*km/L*month; therefore, I spend ~$30/month for every L/100km of fuel consumption (how we measure things up here). My Cruze gets 7L/100km (33.5mpg), so I spend about ~$210/month on gas. An unrealistic 10L/100km (23.5mpg) in my 4-door 7M BB would cost me $90 more per month, and an optimistic 12L/100km (19.5mpg) would cost me $150 more per month than I am currently paying. A piggish 15.3367 (the same in both units of measure) would cost me over double what I'm currently spending in gas, and given that the Cruze is payed off and its insurance doesn't even cost that much per month would likely not make it worthwhile to even run the Bronco as a DD.

Gawd I love math! I wonder if my wife is DTF right now?

Look, I don’t know who you think you are but we do miles and shit down here, just like Jesus and the King of England intended.

Sponsored