Hypothetical Poll 2.7L w/ Manual

[AcesandEights]

I'm buying the largest motor available with a manual transmission. The last vehicle I purchased I ordered with a manual. The two vehicles before that weren't offered with a manual.

The Toyota Tacoma I want isn't offered with a manual, nor is the 4Runner. So, I've decided I'd buy another Ford and again, I'll buy the Bronco with the largest motor I can get as long as it comes with a manual trans.

Sponsored

 

[Drex]

True, but even if you count only the vehicles where a manual is offered in a "good" trim/package, the take rate is still <10%. Unless there's some vehicle I'm forgetting??

2015-current WRX. Manual or automatic (CVT) available in all trims, it is the only vehicle of which I am aware that gives you all the options with either transmission and the take rate is reversed, autos are 10% or thereabouts and the dealers stock them as such. While sporty, they are most assuredly not sports cars. AWD 4-door sedan. Can't get much more mainstream than that. I would have bought a lot more manual cars in my life has they had higher trims available (like my Volvo Wagon, Volvo sedan, Mercury Capri, and WRX).

 

[Wanted33]

I got stuck in BQE (Bronx Queens Express) traffic in Rush Hour with my st2 Audi with its st1 clutch, and didnt regret it once things opened up.

If anything, just go offroad like Marge did with the Canyonere

Don't get me wrong brother, I do enjoy a manual. My last was an '06 Mustang GT, and I still regret selling that car. I'm guessing we'll see a fairly high take rate of manuals in the Bronco as not as many will be DD's like a normal vehicle. However ours, like our Jeep, will be driven on road trips where I would much rather have just the skinny pedal to deal with.

 

[Cookieck]

This.

That said, part of your argument that certain trim levels of sports cars have higher take rates for manual transmissions only supports the idea that Ford should really only offer manuals on the trims that they think people would actually buy them. I'm old enough to remember that the reason why people bought manuals was because they were cheaper and returned better gas mileage. (And, to a lesser extent, that autos robbed some power.) As those factors disappeared, so did the manual.

If I'm getting a sports car, I'm much more interested in a manual than if I'm getting an SUV or sedan or other people-mover. Perhaps I'm not enough of an off-road enthusiast that the idea of three-pedaling (with two feet) in Moab doesn't excite me. But I fully support if someone else wants to.

As far as the 2.7 manual goes, I don't think Ford expected there would be much interest in the manual at all, let alone with the 2.7, so probably initially chose the 2.3 only to keep things simpler. I don't know what it takes for them to make that happen (I thought I read somewhere else here that the 2.7 would require a different housing to mate to the manual, which could make that a longer process), but I'm sure if the bean counters figure they can sell more units than the extra cost requires, they'll do it.

One glaring difference with the trims though is that in almost any other vehicle the trim is an engine change that you can’t get on a different trim, so point I was trying to make is the bigger engines can easily have higher take rates of manuals. It’s the engine not the trim level. The difference between a Zl1 and an SS or V6 camaro is mostly just the engine, almost every other option is available on all trims. A mustang GT doesn’t have much different from an ecoboost mustang other than the engine. If you could get the 5.0 in a base model mustang then what would be the point of a GT? The base just skewers take rates on any vehicle cause being the cheapest it’s the most sold, and most average Joe’s will get the cheapest one in auto. So that’s why I said take rate by trim, that’s more in line with what it could be for the 2.7 being the larger engine. With the bronco ford gave the engine choice to even the base trim and made differences elsewhere, so you don’t have to get a different trim to get the engine. Not many vehicles that have a setup like that, so no way to really know which trims are more inclined to be picked by people that want manuals, so no reason to limit trims(and other than 4 dr base the only trims that don’t have manual option are ones that only have the 2.7, so it’s only limited by the engine). Then you could actually see how many people would pick manuals, as it is there’s going to be far less manuals than there could have been cause some people will go for the bigger engine even if they actually want the manual. So if it does end up being a 10% take rate, imagine what it could have been if they had manual 2.7 and no other restrictions on the manuals

And no the manual won’t bolt up to the 2.7 as is, but since ford designed this transmission for the bronco what they shoulda done from the beginning is made the bell housing bolt on, then it would be a simple matter of new bell housing to add it to the 2.7. Too late for that now, and really doubt they’d put the money/effort into making another manual transmission for the 2.7; so doubt there’s any hope it’ll happen. But I’d for sure like to see it.

I understand why manuals are declining, I get it, but Ford went thru the trouble of making a new transmission for the bronco, so it’s just baffling why they would limit it from the start, shouldn’t they want to sell more to make back the cost of developing it to begin with? It’s like hey we made it, but you can’t have it here, or here, or with this, or with that.

 

[Laminar]

2015-current WRX. Manual or automatic (CVT) available in all trims, it is the only vehicle of which I am aware that gives you all the options with either transmission and the take rate is reversed, autos are 10% or thereabouts and the dealers stock them as such. While sporty, they are most assuredly not sports cars. AWD 4-door sedan. Can't get much more mainstream than that. I would have bought a lot more manual cars in my life has they had higher trims available (like my Volvo Wagon, Volvo sedan, Mercury Capri, and WRX).

A few things: First off, the auto option for the WRX is a hateful CVT. If buyers could choose between the stick and a good DCT, the take rate would be wildly different. The Golf R offers such a choice - a stick or a good DCT. Manual take rate is 44%.

Secondly, sales of the WRX includes the STI, which is manual-only, further throwing off the numbers, as those buyers have no choice but to get the manual.

And thirdly, the WRX may not fit into some oddly-specific "sports car" category, but they are absolutely "enthusiast" cars. If you're not an enthusiast, you'll just get the Impreza. Calling the WRX "mainstream" is incorrect. The Impreza is the boring mainstream AWD 4-door sedan, and its manual take rate is 5%.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Don't get me wrong brother, I do enjoy a manual. My last was an '06 Mustang GT, and I still regret selling that car. I'm guessing we'll see a fairly high take rate of manuals in the Bronco as not as many will be DD's like a normal vehicle. However ours, like our Jeep, will be driven on road trips where I would much rather have just the skinny pedal to deal with.

All good, just grew up with Automatic for most of my life, only my Audi's were stick, so figure gotta have something new and different to experience the magic.

I remember those GT's, Leg Press Clutches, definitely were interesting. How times have changed

 

[AMK610]

I’m only getting a bronco cause they offer manual. I’m not upset with the 2.3, but I would get the 2.7 if offered with a manual because it’s port and direct injected, and it obviously makes quite a bit more power

 

[ATX_Bronco]

I'm sadly getting the 2.7 auto because I want the power, but I would gleefully pay extra to get a manual 2.7

 

[HobbyPro]

True, but even if you count only the vehicles where a manual is offered in a "good" trim/package, the take rate is still <10%. Unless there's some vehicle I'm forgetting??

Miata. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-ca...ta-stick-shift-manual-transmission-take-rate/

 

[timhood]

Miata. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-ca...ta-stick-shift-manual-transmission-take-rate/

I mentioned previously that sports cars are not part of the discussion because a manual is expected and really desired in a sports car.

I'm not hating on manuals, I'm just calling this poll as being unrealistic of what the take rate will actually be on Broncos. Even if we filter out trims thatE won't offer a manual.

 

[Wanted33]

All good, just grew up with Automatic for most of my life, only my Audi's were stick, so figure gotta have something new and different to experience the magic.

I remember those GT's, Leg Press Clutches, definitely were interesting. How times have changed

I'm not going to admit I'm old, but I learned to drive a stick on the farm when I was quite young. Pop had an old '49 Ford Deluxe Cab truck that I could drive up, and down the driveway. Some memories never leave us.

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

One factor is cost. Generally, upgrading to an auto transmission is 2 or 3k. I am more than happy to save that money as I prefer manual for having the fullest feel and control over the engine and transmission. But if they were to charge the same or more for a manual I would need to weight the cost before making a decision.

On a 40k rig 2-3k isn't much of a cost difference, also the MPG and cost of ownership haven't been published yet. Both the 2.3 and the 2.7 are likely to get under 20MPG. Generally the selling point of the 4 cylinder is its cheap to fuel up and drive. I wonder what the insurance cost will be for each, since this 2.3 has more horsepower than many larger engines....

 

[Rogues Gambit]

I'm not going to admit I'm old, but I learned to drive a stick on the farm when I quite young. Pop had an old '49 Ford Deluxe Cab truck that I could drive up, and down the driveway. Some memories never leave us.

Lucky, had to learn via YouTube, dealers and friends

I'll admit it's my birthday today, 32 today

 

[Wanted33]

Lucky, had to learn via YouTube, dealers and friends

I'll admit it's my birthday today, 32 today

Happy Birthday Mike. I remember when I was a kid. Heck, I was your age when you were born.

 

[Wanted33]

On a 40k rig 2-3k isn't much of a cost difference, also the MPG and cost of ownership haven't been published yet. Both the 2.3 and the 2.7 are likely to get under 20MPG. Generally the selling point of the 4 cylinder is its cheap to fuel up and drive. I wonder what the insurance cost will be for each, since this 2.3 has more horsepower than many larger engines....

Hopefully the Bronco's will be in the same category as the Wrangler. I was quite surprised how reasonable it was to fully insure mine. In North Carolina it's around 25% cheaper than a regular car. I don't know why, but I wasn't about to argue with my insurance guy.

Sponsored