The 7 Speed can be configured to handle much more, so it could easily handle what the 2.7L (even with a tune). I've said it before (in other threads) FoMoCo SHOULD HAVE designed the 7 Speed with a Bolt On Bell Housing, instead of the casted one that will only mate to the 2.3L.
Hey @Administrator ..... can there be a dedicated thread created for the Electric / Lithium / Non-Direct Warthog vs Rubicon 392 discussion?
Asking for a friend.
Honest question here.... Who's the Official Authority who states that vehicles must be within the same GVWR to compete with each other?
I don't care if the Bronco was pushing the 7K GVWR, as for me, the Bronco would still be a Direct Competitor to the Jeep Wrangler.
So..... you work within the Design Team at FoMoCo? Do tell......
If not, you Just Don't Know...... and to just attempt to speak from on high that they should Just Buy A Truck, As The Bronco ISN'T For You..... well... it has gotten very Old to all of us who are hoping that FoMoCo will offer a...
No, they don't!
As a potential customer, I don't care if the Bronco is above the 6,000 GVWR. I don't care if some ruling body said that if the Bronco was over 6,000 GVWR it wouldn't compete with the Wrangler, as it would still be a Direct Competitor to the Wrangler in my minds eyes.
Yes...
There hasn't been any real details released, but what we've discussed within the forum and until FoMoCo states otherwise, the belief is that the rear seats of the 2D are not designed to be "easily" removed, but with the proper tools they "can be" removed.
There will be Plug-N-Play Harnesses from the aftermarket. Just have to give the aftermarket a little bit of time.
Here's a link to Etrailer.com for a harness for the 2021 Ranger: https://www.etrailer.com/t1-2021_Ford_Ranger.htm?&Redirect=8
A WDH (Weight Distribution Hitch) will more than likely stick down further that the factory installed one.
With that said..... several Aftermarket Bumpers have the receiver incorporated within them and "might" even offer a better departure angle than the factory installed hitch.
No disrespect intended..... but I Don't Care what the differences are or that the Bronco was DESIGENED to be an Off-Road Vehicle.
FoMoCo "can" provide a TOW Package for this.
If Not, some Official FoMoCo Spokes Person needs to tell us Why.
DANG IT!!!!!!
Still...... a MT equipped Bronco should easily still be able to do the Trail Turn Assist as it's a Brake Only Function when the axle is Unlocked.
All of you need to watch the 1st video again (starts at 0:17). The 2D is a Manuel AND they do the Trail Turn Assist!!!! Granted, FoMoCo CURRENTLY doesn't list it as being available, but it will work with the Manual.
This has already been noted (for months...). All of the images and information that's been provided by FoMoCo is that the reviver hitch that is "currently" being shown/offered is a Class 2 that will accept 2" mounts.
There are Frame Locations (currently where the "D" Rings or "Recovery Points")...
FoMoCo copied so many Jeep things (Swing Tailgate, yes I would have preferred a regular Drop Down Tailgate), but didn't choose the Manual E-Brake Leaver.
Hill Assist is fine and dandy, but the Electrical E-Brake isn't. If/When there's an Electrical Issue and the Electrical E-Brake Locks...
@Ride Em Bronco ..... I believe that you're thinking too much and I believe that we're off into the weeds so to speak. So.... let me make a few statements....
Not talking about what the choices are for the Bronco here. A Locker in any axle will only Lock both right & left axles together when...
The Locker ONLY Locks both Right Side & Left Side Axles(wheels)together. It Does Not change the Ring & Pinion's Gear Ratio. (If the axle has a 4.27:1 when the locker isn't locked, it will still be 4.27:1 when the locker is locked)
Now... the Locker Option might only be available for certain...
The move to the Lower Gear (4.27:1) wouldn't cause much of a MPG difference. If I had to guess........0.2 to 0.5 MPG difference, but that's a total guess...
But going with the 4.27:1would get you the Lockers, which, in my opinion would be better to have and not need vs. not having and needing.