Ford USA - Ranger and Bronco Return?

  • Thread starter Slash
  • 563 comments
  • 51,094 views
I love that they mention the 392 Wrangler as if they're actually going to put it into production. I had similar thoughts when I heard they were putting the Hellcat's engine in the Grand Cherokee though, so who knows.

That said, if Ford is putting a V8 in the Bronco now would be the time for Jeep to go nuts.
Don't rule out a V8 just yet. The Raptor just got its V8 back.


FB_IMG_1600187285451.jpg
 
That's some serious suspension travel.
Rumor going around work is its getting a Raptor version sometime soon after release. We just aren't sure if its going to be the new twin turbo 3.0 or if its getting the 5.0 like everyones thinking.

But my guess with Ford releasing the 7.3 as a crate engine word going around is they are working on an aluminum block performance version and with it being far more compact than a 5.0 it could get interesting.
 
I find that hard to beleive for the given fact they put them in everything else.
They offer a V8 in precisely two mass-produced vehicles, the Mustang GT and F-150. The V8 F-150 accounts for only about 25% of sales. The GT350 and GT500 are very limited production and the next F-150 Raptor V8 will be also.

Fuel economy and emissions are calculated across a product range, and since a large portion of Ford's sales are already trucks there is very little room to slap another big engine in a truck.
 
Rumor going around work is its getting a Raptor version sometime soon after release. We just aren't sure if its going to be the new twin turbo 3.0 or if its getting the 5.0 like everyones thinking.

But my guess with Ford releasing the 7.3 as a crate engine word going around is they are working on an aluminum block performance version and with it being far more compact than a 5.0 it could get interesting.

I'm not sure that could meet CAFE standards, unfortunately. What's more likely is that it will get the twin-turbo V6 and they'll do a low volume special edition with a V8 in it. They could even do something like offering a Shelby or Roush Bronco with a V8 in it.

Really what I'm more interested to see is if they put a diesel engine in it. The 2.0L Twin Turbo Ecoblue out of the Transit would work really well and certainly attract the overlanding crowd.
 
First impressions of the Bronco Sport from Edmunds


I find it interesting that he kept comparing it to the Cherokee Trailhawk. There will be some cross-shopping I'm sure but it should be noted that the Cherokee Trailhawk is $2,500 more expensive than a Bronco Sport Badlands, and a whole 10 inches longer. But the Bronco Sport definitely slots in between the Cherokee and Compass, the latter being $1,500 cheaper for the Trailhawk. The Compass Trailhawk is right at the same size as the Bronco Sport but is considerably less capable in off-road trim.

I myself would go with the Bronco Sport Badlands. The low-range of the Cherokee Trailhawk is sort of irrelevant when you factor in powertrains and how people use these vehicles. First, neither of these vehicles will be carrying enough weight nor being pushed on technical enough terrain to really need low-range, but that said the powertrain characteristics of the Trailhawk may necessitate low-range on terrain which isn't even complex, like it does on current Jeeps and Toyotas. The V6 simply isn't torquey enough at low speeds to easy handle terrain at low, technical speeds. The torque of the turbo Ford can do that just fine, especially at altitude which is a big concern for all the folks out west exploring the mountains at 8,000+ feet. While these NA V6s struggle for power at that altitude, necessitating low-range, the turbo engine won't have a problem and will be plenty happy churning out torque at 2000 rpm not needing low-range as a bandaid for lack of power.

I suppose the Bronco Sport is either a cheaper Cherokee or a much better Compass. It's also a much better Outback because despite the new Outback offering a turbo, it takes $35k to get it, and it's backed by a CVT which limits engine torque so it doesn't grenade itself unlike the Ford's torque converter. I've driven a 2017 Outback on some pretty serious off-road trails and while it's surprisingly capable with great traction control, the transmission is a letdown. The Ford won't suffer that problem, and on top of similarly good traction control it also has a rear locker which the Subarus can't match.

Bottom line, The Bronco Sport Badlands is either a cheaper Cherokee Trailhawk, or a cheaper and better Outback, or a much better Compass Trailhawk. I hope TFL gets all these cars together - I'm pretty sure the Bronco Sport will embarrass the Outback and Compass since they both come equipped with basic all-season tires. The Cherokee will be a great competitor.

Edit: When I think about how I've used my Sequoia so far (I do plan to tow a car soon, and help people with snow recoveries, and actually overland and camp in the future, but like, a couple times a year) this Bronco Sport is actually making a heckuva lot of sense. Especially after you puck lift it, put taller tires on it, and remove the sway bars for better articulation.
 
Last edited:
I myself would go with the Bronco Sport Badlands. The low-range of the Cherokee Trailhawk is sort of irrelevant when you factor in powertrains and how people use these vehicles. First, neither of these vehicles will be carrying enough weight nor being pushed on technical enough terrain to really need low-range, but that said the powertrain characteristics of the Trailhawk may necessitate low-range on terrain which isn't even complex, like it does on current Jeeps and Toyotas. The V6 simply isn't torquey enough at low speeds to easy handle terrain at low, technical speeds. The torque of the turbo Ford can do that just fine, especially at altitude which is a big concern for all the folks out west exploring the mountains at 8,000+ feet. While these NA V6s struggle for power at that altitude, necessitating low-range, the turbo engine won't have a problem and will be plenty happy churning out torque at 2000 rpm not needing low-range as a bandaid for lack of power.

I don't really agree with this because an N/A V6 will have a lot more useful torque at lower loads & partial throttle than a turbo 4, (not to mention, more precise control of that torque) even if the headline figures favor the 4. You need to put a fairly reasonable load on a turbo engine for it to make any boost. My GF's Audi A4 2.0T makes a decent amount more torque than the 2.5 H6 in my Porsche, but the Porsche feels way, way more response under part-throttle, low load conditions, even if they feel somewhat similar at WOT. I could see a turbo 4 being somewhat frustrating to use off road when you are trying to carefully navigate difficult terrain. I don't disagree about the elevation though.
 
I don't really agree with this because an N/A V6 will have a lot more useful torque at lower loads & partial throttle than a turbo 4, (not to mention, more precise control of that torque) even if the headline figures favor the 4. You need to put a fairly reasonable load on a turbo engine for it to make any boost. My GF's Audi A4 2.0T makes a decent amount more torque than the 2.5 H6 in my Porsche, but the Porsche feels way, way more response under part-throttle, low load conditions, even if they feel somewhat similar at WOT. I could see a turbo 4 being somewhat frustrating to use off road when you are trying to carefully navigate difficult terrain. I don't disagree about the elevation though.

The 2.0T in mine is a bit sluggish unless you poke it and burry the throttle. Once it's spooled though, it revs up so quickly in second and third. Definitely hauls the heavy weight of the convertible with decent conviction.
 
Got some spies of the facelifted Ranger Raptor with what appear to be rear coil springs. Also the Warthog looking ridiculously wide.

 
I heard that the next gen Ranger Raptor may come to the US since it's a LFD. Please let this be true...
 
Back