2021 Bronco

[kognito]

A bit of a tear down

https://jalopnik.com/an-extremely-de...jPsCJ5X5H82eJI

[lemming]

Originally Posted by kognito

A bit of a tear down

https://jalopnik.com/an-extremely-de...jPsCJ5X5H82eJI

That was a fun read. Thanks for the link.

When reduced to practice I don’t think there will be any meaningful differences in ability between the two, per Ford’s marketing that they created a better mousetrap.

Is also comment that Ford is more electronic which is problematic down the road. And an over reliance on turbo motors in a high load and constant stress application is not what I would choose for my primary motor.

It is a lot of heat in a slow moving vehicle which means heat soak and severe heat stress to the power train.

The v6 is a dumpy motor but it’s at the point where it’s reliable. And doesn’t have the heat issues any turbo engine does. I wouldn’t want the Jeep turbo 4 for heavy duty off road applications, for example. First because I don’t trust FCA but second because you lose too much power to preventing detonation.

[robg]

Originally Posted by lemming

That was a fun read. Thanks for the link.

When reduced to practice I don’t think there will be any meaningful differences in ability between the two, per Ford’s marketing that they created a better mousetrap.

Is also comment that Ford is more electronic which is problematic down the road. And an over reliance on turbo motors in a high load and constant stress application is not what I would choose for my primary motor.

It is a lot of heat in a slow moving vehicle which means heat soak and severe heat stress to the power train.

The v6 is a dumpy motor but it’s at the point where it’s reliable. And doesn’t have the heat issues any turbo engine does. I wouldn’t want the Jeep turbo 4 for heavy duty off road applications, for example. First because I don’t trust FCA but second because you lose too much power to preventing detonation.

Yeah good point. It sounds like there are plenty of decisions/tradeoffs to be made when creating one of these modern off-roaders. To provide the on-road manners, ADAS systems, performance and emissions expected by buyers you trade off potential durability and the ability to fix it in the field. FCA has kept the wrangler as old school as they possibly can, while Land Rover has gone all in with modern tech. Ford has struck a balance somewhere in the middle.

I dunno though. Expecting to buy a new vehicle off the showroom floor that can traverse all manner of off-road conditions while being easily fixable by DIYers win the field seems like an unattainable and silly goal at this point. It's never going to be "hard core" enough for the true hardcore offroaders, and the more old school you make it the more you alienate 95% of current buyers. It's a similar dilemma that manufacturers face when trying to make sports cars that please enthusiasts. To the extent that FCA still produces "old school" vehicles, I think it's less of a deliberate attempt to please customers and more of a "how long can we possible get away with re-using old parts in an effort to save money".

I'm kinda over expecting manufacturers to design vehicles as if it were 20 years ago. Just buy a used car [or FCA vehicle] if thats what you want. [Not reacting to your post, just kinda ranting in general]

[lemming]

Originally Posted by robg

Yeah good point. It sounds like there are plenty of decisions/tradeoffs to be made when creating one of these modern off-roaders. To provide the on-road manners, ADAS systems, performance and emissions expected by buyers you trade off potential durability and the ability to fix it in the field. FCA has kept the wrangler as old school as they possibly can, while Land Rover has gone all in with modern tech. Ford has struck a balance somewhere in the middle.

I dunno though. Expecting to buy a new vehicle off the showroom floor that can traverse all manner of off-road conditions while being easily fixable by DIYers win the field seems like an unattainable and silly goal at this point. It's never going to be "hard core" enough for the true hardcore offroaders, and the more old school you make it the more you alienate 95% of current buyers. It's a similar dilemma that manufacturers face when trying to make sports cars that please enthusiasts. To the extent that FCA still produces "old school" vehicles, I think it's less of a deliberate attempt to please customers and more of a "how long can we possible get away with re-using old parts in an effort to save money".

I'm kinda over expecting manufacturers to design vehicles as if it were 20 years ago. Just buy a used car [or FCA vehicle] if thats what you want. [Not reacting to your post, just kinda ranting in general]

It won’t matter but for 1% of Bronco owners who go off road.

The rest will appreciate the smoother power train.

[Jeff_DML]

Originally Posted by lemming

It won’t matter but for 1% of Bronco owners who go off road.

The rest will appreciate the smoother power train.

I heard of people installing chevy V8 into old landrcruisers and they have the same issue, over heating when rock crawling.

[FC]

Originally Posted by Jeff_DML

I heard of people installing chevy V8 into old landrcruisers and they have the same issue, over heating when rock crawling.

Maybe they just need a big ass fan.

[JST]

I think concerns about the 2.3 being overstressed and subject to heat soak are premature. The engine is used in a wide variety of applications, including the Ranger, and while in theory a smaller displacement turbo motor is going to have more problems than a bigger, lower-revving engine, I'm not sure how much better that 3.6 Pentastar is in this regard. As Nick points out, it's a high-revving engine that is pretty unsuited to this application, maybe more so than a 2.3 turbo.

Wes Siler seems to like his:

https://www.outsideonline.com/239860...l-review#close

[Jeff_DML]

Originally Posted by JST

I think concerns about the 2.3 being overstressed and subject to heat soak are premature. The engine is used in a wide variety of applications, including the Ranger, and while in theory a smaller displacement turbo motor is going to have more problems than a bigger, lower-revving engine, I'm not sure how much better that 3.6 Pentastar is in this regard. As Nick points out, it's a high-revving engine that is pretty unsuited to this application, maybe more so than a 2.3 turbo.

Wes Siler seems to like his:

https://www.outsideonline.com/239860...l-review#close

that guy has some good overlanding articles

[robg]

Originally Posted by JST

I think concerns about the 2.3 being overstressed and subject to heat soak are premature. The engine is used in a wide variety of applications, including the Ranger, and while in theory a smaller displacement turbo motor is going to have more problems than a bigger, lower-revving engine, I'm not sure how much better that 3.6 Pentastar is in this regard. As Nick points out, it's a high-revving engine that is pretty unsuited to this application, maybe more so than a 2.3 turbo.

Wes Siler seems to like his:

https://www.outsideonline.com/239860...l-review#close

Wow- that was a great article.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Jeff_DML

I heard of people installing chevy V8 into old landrcruisers and they have the same issue, over heating when rock crawling.

That’s not surprising to me.

So imagine a turbo. It’s at least 10x worse for heat management.