2021 Bronco

[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]

[JST]

I mean, it’s not, though. And heat management in an old Land Cruiser with an LS swap is a very different thing from heat management in a vehicle designed with an OEM cooling package from the get go.

How much boost is the 2.3 making when you’re rock crawling? Maybe...a little? But maybe not much at all. Is heat management on a 4 cylinder barely making boost 10x worse than on a V8? No way.

I’ll buy that heat soak can rob you of some timing advance and boost. But I don’t think you’re going to find many Broncos overheating on the trail because their radiators couldn’t keep up with the base engine.

It sounds from a quick google like the 2 liter jeeps do have some overheating issues, but that sounds like a flaw (it occurs at idle, or at cruising speed) with that truck rather than something endemic to smaller engines.

A similar search for Rangers didn’t show anything for the new turbo trucks.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by JST

I mean, it’s not, though. And heat management in an old Land Cruiser with an LS swap is a very different thing from heat management in a vehicle designed with an OEM cooling package from the get go.

How much boost is the 2.3 making when you’re rock crawling? Maybe...a little? But maybe not much at all. Is heat management on a 4 cylinder barely making boost 10x worse than on a V8? No way.

I’ll buy that heat soak can rob you of some timing advance and boost. But I don’t think you’re going to find many Broncos overheating on the trail because their radiators couldn’t keep up with the base engine.

It sounds from a quick google like the 2 liter jeeps do have some overheating issues, but that sounds like a flaw (it occurs at idle, or at cruising speed) with that truck rather than something endemic to smaller engines.

A similar search for Rangers didn’t show anything for the new turbo trucks.

I would like to test your hypothesis with a V8 powered rock crawler.

[JST]

I think the haiku is really cool. You should get one for the new house!

[ZBB]

Originally Posted by JST

I think the haiku is really cool. You should get one for the new house!

Yes — it would look so much better than the fan in the new family room.

Also thinking the new es6 should work well on our patio...

[JST]

The other thing is that the Bronco doesn’t share some of the packaging constraints of the Jeep. Here’s an interesting deep dive into JL cooling package design.

https://jalopnik.com/the-engineering...ing-1833657453

[lemming]

Originally Posted by JST

The other thing is that the Bronco doesn’t share some of the packaging constraints of the Jeep. Here’s an interesting deep dive into JL cooling package design.

https://jalopnik.com/the-engineering...ing-1833657453

I would be glad to test the limits of the 392 empirically if they make it.

[John V]

The heat created by the drivetrain is roughly proportional to the power output of that drivetrain. Whether you have a big NA V8 making 400hp or a small turbo 4 making 400 horsepower makes no difference. The V8 likely requires a bit more cooling capacity because it's operating at a lower efficiency.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by John V

The heat created by the drivetrain is roughly proportional to the power output of that drivetrain. Whether you have a big NA V8 making 400hp or a small turbo 4 making 400 horsepower makes no difference. The V8 likely requires a bit more cooling capacity because it's operating at a lower efficiency.

I think I understand what you’re saying, but let me ask a specific question:

A turbo by definition uses exhaust gas. And at running temperatures, it’s a superheated metal ball.

In dead air, this seems like a bad thing.

But you’re saying they’re both internal combustion engines and the thermal signature of a turbo six is not much different from a naturally aspirated v8 —is that correct?

I’m asking because I’m being linear. In the v8, the exhaust manifolds will be white hot. In the turbo example you have a white hot turbo (even water cooled) plus the standard exhaust manifold.

The strain on the coolant and fans seem to me to be more in the turbo example more so than the non turbo example.

What I’m not taking into account is frontal surface area for cooling.