Search results

I'll put my current car on the market about a couple weeks out from picking up the Bronco. If I still have it at trade in time I'll see what the dealer offers me for trade. My current car is a $12,000 something they could flip in a week so I don't expect them to be too far away.

If the 4 cylinder got 10 MPG more than the V6 I'd regret it.... I currently drive a 4 cylinder Forester that gets 30 MPG. I'm not looking forward the 18 MPG from a 4 cylinder at all. But... I will drive a V6 that gets 18 MPG.

You left out economy. In the past people chose a 4 cylinder over a bigger engine option was because what it lacked in power it made up for with better MPG and much cheaper entry price. Looking at the 2.3 on the Ranger (which is heavier and less aerodynamic) it gets 18-21 MPG. Looking it at the...

This doesn't explain why they chose to give the MT to the 2.3 and not the 2.7. I get the reason behind only pairing it with one engine, but 2.7 would have be the more popular pairing 2 to 1.

The Bareback

Why are you going to be sitting in the second row?

I think they did the math and realize they can only sell the 2.3 if it's the only way you can get a manual. There is no reason anyone would want the 2.3 when the 2.7 is only 2-3% more $$$. The 2.3 will get the same MPG of the 2.7 plus or minus 1. I see no upside to the 2.3 and I'm only...

If it was 10K cheaper than jeeps and Broncos it would do just fine. I think its closer to 5K cheaper though.

I read they are underpowered, but man I'd love to get my hands on one. I wish the Base bronco was even more basic.

I'm waiting for the final numbers and prices from Ford, could be they make the 2.3 cost effective. But if going to the V6 10speed is 3k or less I think I'll have to do it - as much as I want that manual. I think that the 2.3 gets 28-32 MPG in the Mustang and 19-21 MPG in the Ranger is...

Why would someone want to tune a 2.3 vs just upgrading to the the 2.7. The cost and MPG will be the same... The only reason I'm even considering the 2.3 is for the manual, and looking at the value/economy of the 2.3 vs the 2.7 I just can't make sense of the 2.3. I know its powerful enough...

The one of the things I DON'T like about the Badlands is the vinyl seating. Vinyl seats on anything is pretty unbearable, but especially in a convertible. My RV has "high end" vinyl captain chairs, and I have to sit on one of those stupid beaded seat covers. My Convertible Chrysler had black...

A day or two later, I got a phone call from a salesman. He was upfront and basically said he didn't know much yet and that he understood ADM and x-plan pricing would be of interest to buyers so he would make sure to let me know when he had that information.... I thought that was all good. But...

The 2.3L in a 4 door ranger (weighs less than a Bronco) gets 19-21 MPG. The 2.7L in a F-150 (same wight as a Bronco) gets 17-20 MPG. I'm really starting to think that Ford is limiting the MT to the 2.3L because its the only way to add value to it. The 2.3L in the mustang on the other hand gets...

I don't care about MPG either really, but it silly that Ford went with a 4 cylinder that gets the same MPG as the better V6. Damn them for not making the MT available with the V6.... Oh well.

At that point, for the money, why not just get the 2.7? Fuel economy will be basically the exact same. Only reason I'm even considering the 2.3L is the MT. And I just don't think I can justify it due to the fact that the only reason I'd want a 4 cylinder is for economy. On the Bronco, the...

But if it only gets 1 MPG better than the 2.7, and you don't want the manual, why not just get the 2.7?

But the 2.3 gets up to 32 MPG on the Mustang... That won't be the case one the Bronco... If it gets 25 on the HWY, and the 2.7 gets 20... I'll be interested. Only it gets 21 on the Ranger, so I doubt it.

Generally the reason that a person would choose a 4 cylinder over a larger engine is for better economy; better MPG paired with a lower initial purchase price. If price and MPG are equal I can't think of a reason someone would want the 2.3L over the 2.7L. Based on the 2.3L ranger and the 2.7L...

I'm curious why people are interested in the 2.3? I'm only considering it because I want a MT. If the MPG is only +/- 1-2 MPG the 2.3 is going to be a really hard sell for me. The $1-3k to upgrade the 2.7/10 speed is only a small fraction of even the base model. The whole point of a 4 banger to...