The FORD Lounge

[viven44]

My issues are probably 90% in the engine department.. I think they did a fabulous job in the looks department. It is probably a passable 21st century take on the early Bronco ... maybe if history repeats itself they will redo a 78-79 Bronco next which I might be interested in even more... going backk to the engine... especially the only engine paired with a manual transmission that some offroad enthusiasts might prefer.. Take a gander at the charts for the 2.3 and the Venerable 300 below. Sure the advertised horsepower ratings are fabulous, but what good is it if it makes all that horsepower in the upper altitudes 💥 I have never done off-roading but even I know that not what you need trying to crawl up a rock.

That sure tells me this was designed for the rev happy in-town daily driver or someone towing that needs to rev... nothing wrong with that... I probably would prefer driving that with a blind fold test (maybe with the same transmission?) but just doesn't sit right with me for a Bronco.

Edit: people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... who am I to speak after I swapped a 460 that has no business in a Bronco... 😅

2.3 (orange lines below)

 

 

300

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:42 PM by viven44

[ArdWrknTrk]

Horsepower (by definition) is always going to cross torque at 5,252 rpm.

Plenty of engines will never make it to 5k, the venerable 300 -in stock form- and 6.9/7.3 IDI's for example...

But engine-ering and metallurgy have come a LONG way since the 1950' & 60's when Bullnose engines were first designed.

Efficiency is far greater and emissions reduced. Tolerances are tighter because machining has come so far since then.

A 1,000 cc motorcycle puts out more than my 7,500 cc truck engine, but again, it doesn't have the stroke and rotational inertia, therefore it doesn't have the torque down low.

[ArdWrknTrk]

I've seen a few new Bronco's I like, and I've seen a few that look awful.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm sure more than a few focus meetings were held when styling and colour pallettes were chosen.

[ArdWrknTrk]

I see Toumas Bronco made it to Rockauto's landing page.

I hope this means a get a cool refrigerator magnet with my order!  

 

https://www.rockauto.com/Newsletter/images/10-3-24car.jpg

[ArdWrknTrk]

Very few people even know how to drive stick, and unless you drive a semi you're never going to see something with as many gears as contemporary automatics.

Really what that means is that an engine can be tuned for a narrower, but optimized rev range and the computer can control the throttle and shifting.

[salans7]

17 hours ago, grumpin said:

I’ve tried to like them, I just don’t.

Same here. 

[viven44]

8 hours ago, ArdWrknTrk said:

as many gears as contemporary automatics

I really don't like how the 10-speed transmission drives either. I cannot feel it shifting, I have no idea what gear I'm in... maybe I'm just sounding like a grouch stuck in the old ways.

8 hours ago, ArdWrknTrk said:

Really what that means is that an engine can be tuned for a narrower, but optimized rev range and the computer can control the throttle and shifting.

Yes that makes a lot of sense, but regrettably, the engineering and implementation has been lackluster. The 10-speeds don't get better gas mileage unfortunately, nor do they feel more torquey. Take for example my wife's 10-speed (10L80) and the 4 speed Auto (4L60-E) I'm driving myself. Both are behind the GM 5.3. Both of them get about 13-14 in the city and about 18-20 on the highway.

Looking at the final drive ratio (both have similar axle ratio 3.23 on the 10-speed vs 3.42 on the 4-speed)

4L60-E - 0.70, 3rd gear is 1.0
10L80 - 0.64, 9th gear is 0.69, 8th gear is 0.85

I noticed the engine RPMs being really low on my 2002 Yukon when it goes into 4th (Final gear) at about 50 or so and the engine really lugging through it.. rather well because it is a pure V8 running like a V8. The problem with the newer small blocks on the 10-speed is that they are unable to lug through the final gear until true top speed, or if/when they can they cannot deactivate cylinders... so the final drive gear doesn't kick in really late... it is probably running higher time-speed-averaged RPMs overall vs the 4L60.

Cylinder deactivation with more gears should in theory result in more optimization for fuel economy, but evidently they are doing no better than on the 25 year old 4-speed trans.

They are handicapped... They just need to get rid of the extras and focus on what is best for longevity and fuel economy

  

Edited Wednesday at 11:09 PM by viven44

[85lebaront2]

Vivek, I fully understand how far things have come. I had one of the early turbocharged cars, a 1963 Oldsmobile Jetfire, 215 ci aluminum V8, put out 215 hp and 300 ft=lbs torque. It's biggest issue was the transmission, choices were a 3 speed manual or a 3 speed (claimed to have a dual mode in 1st) that lacked a torque converter and had a huge jump from 1-2. The 1st gear 1st stage was listed as 3.64:1, 1st gear second stage 3.03:1, then 2nd 1.57:1 and 3rd 1.0:1. It drove like a 4 speed with no second gear.

We have two Ford Flexes, a 2009 and a 2011, both have the 3.5L non-turbo V6s, and the shared with GM 6 speed automatics. The Duratec 3.5L is a 262 hp non-turbocharged engine at 213 ci and has 248 ft-lbs torque. The HP peak is at 6250 rpm and torque peak is at 4500 rpm. The engines basically love to rev.

[Ifitaintbroke]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:10 AM, ArdWrknTrk said:

Very few people even know how to drive stick

After I learned how to drive stick, I had a hard time readjusting to a slushbox, which I now thoroughly HATE. And yes, I used the word hate. I feel like an idiot stomping around in the floorboard looking for the clutch.

By the way, Jim, did you ever find the Coke you were looking for?

[salans7]

28 minutes ago, Ifitaintbroke said:

After I learned how to drive stick, I had a hard time readjusting to a slushbox, which I now thoroughly HATE. And yes, I used the word hate. I feel like an idiot stomping around in the floorboard looking for the clutch.

By the way, Jim, did you ever find the Coke you were looking for?

I swapped my 2003 Ranger from an automatic to a manual over a weekend and had to teach myself how to drive it on the way to work that Monday morning. That was the best thing I ever did to this truck, and one of the strongest reasons why I still have it and drive it daily after ten years (since the manual swap). 

I have the same feelings towards automatics. I can't trust them, and whenever they do something funky, it makes me nervous. My 2002 Ranger still has the automatic, and it reminds me of all things I hated about the automatic that was in my 2003 Ranger.