A three cylinder Bronco.....a THREE cylinder Bronco???

[RetiredRealtorR]

I just went to the new 2021 Bronco build & price feature on the Ford website.

So, they want me to pay nearly 30 grand for a base model Bronco Sport, and my one and only engine choice is a blasted THREE cylinder 1.5-liter?? Really???

Now, I can (almost) see only 4 color choices, and only one interior choice (color AND material), but sorry folks, I just can't bring myself to buy a little three-banger. It brings back memories of Geo Metros and the like.

C'mon Ford, don't force everybody to buy up, and up, and up to get something worth having.

There, done venting.

[Reisender]

Geeze wrote:

A1ARealtorRick wrote:
I just went to the new 2021 Bronco build & price feature on the Ford website.

So, they want me to pay nearly 30 grand for a base model Bronco Sport, and my one and only engine choice is a blasted THREE cylinder 1.5-liter?? Really???

Now, I can (almost) see only 4 color choices, and only one interior choice (color AND material), but sorry folks, I just can't bring myself to buy a little three-banger. It brings back memories of Geo Metros and the like.

C'mon Ford, don't force everybody to buy up, and up, and up to get something worth having.

There, done venting.

I just read where Chevy might put a 3 cup in their Camero, NOW THATS JUST WRONG! :S

Local scuttlebutt here is that the Camaro will be electric by 2024. It would almost have to be to be competitive by then. Or they will have to drop their price to under 20 grand if they keep it as an ice.

GM says they won’t produce ICE vehicles past 2035 anyway. They may as well gitterdun.

https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/chevrolet-camaro-plant-set-to-build-an-ev-by-2024-what-it-could-...

[Geeze]

A1ARealtorRick wrote:
I just went to the new 2021 Bronco build & price feature on the Ford website.

So, they want me to pay nearly 30 grand for a base model Bronco Sport, and my one and only engine choice is a blasted THREE cylinder 1.5-liter?? Really???

Now, I can (almost) see only 4 color choices, and only one interior choice (color AND material), but sorry folks, I just can't bring myself to buy a little three-banger. It brings back memories of Geo Metros and the like.

C'mon Ford, don't force everybody to buy up, and up, and up to get something worth having.

There, done venting.

I just read where Chevy might put a 3 cup in their Camero, NOW THATS JUST WRONG! :S

[rwynkoop]

time2roll wrote:
I liked my Geo Metro with the 1.0 3 banger. Cruise control with skiies on top was to just keep the peddle on the floor for maybe 70/75 mph. Solid 50 mpg no matter how you drove it. 240,000 mostly trouble free miles.

Had the same car also. I'm always unsure if I remember correctly the gas mileage. 60mpg in 1993, wow, today you can't even do that with a Hybrid.

[Geeze]

The new Chevy Trail Blazer has a 1.2L 3 cyl standard and a 1.3L 3 cyl optional. GM is very careful to hide the fact that it is a three cylinder engine. It seems a lot of the automakers are going to small turbocharged engines. I was really interested in the Trail Blazer until I found out that it was a 3 popper. Will probably look at another Equinox because of it.

[down_home]

We have the Edge ST twin turbo 2.7, that they intend to put in everything as the top option.The other is even smaller motor with electric. Ours supposedly puts out 335 h, Peak on 93 octane. It is 500 pounds heavier than our 3.7 v6 213 model Edge.
We aren't saving any money on fuel. We intend to by another boat, or want to, but no way would I try it with a turbo mini motor, with design life of turbos only 150,000 miles. We have no engine braking, which is important in the hills of Tn but we have larger brakes. Our 05 F150 with 5.4litre v8 or 330ci still rides better than a Cady but gets only 16 mpg of regular cost per mile is favorable over the Edge ST in miles per dollar. 25mpg is tops on premium fuel in the Edge at moderate less than freeway speeds.
I've owned many Fords but the next one has to still fill my deeds.

[Two_Jayhawks]

Bronco Sport is a very small 3468 pound vehicle and the 1.5L turbo is plenty of power for the vehicle. Since it's not towable I would have zero interest regardless.

[time2roll]

carringb wrote:
Regardless, it’s not towable. The full size Bronco is. And it’s powered by the 2.3L 4-cylinder or optional 2.7L cylinder EcoBoost.

This alone would have me in the full size and optioned Bronco.

[carringb]

The 3-cylinder EcoBoost is a great power plant, and it’s smooth when it’s operating all 3 cylinders. In 2 cylinder mode, it’ll vibrate at lower RPMs. If that bothers you, they also offer the 2.0L EcoBoost.

Regardless, it’s not towable. The full size Bronco is. And it’s powered by the 2.3L 4-cylinder or optional 2.7L cylinder EcoBoost.

Not sure why the poster previously thinks the Mustang is being replaced. It’s not. The Mustang is simply being expanded into a brand (similar to the Transit), and the Mach-e is a different product that will be sold alongside it. Unfortunately we don’t know yet if it’s towable.

[RetiredRealtorR]

valhalla360 wrote:

A1ARealtorRick wrote:
Engines with an odd number of cylinders are inherently rougher than those with an even number of cylinders. Google it.

Funny how the complaint changes when the poor logic is pointed out.

So they won't be able to climb a hill because the engine runs rougher?

You need to re-read my posts. Did I say anything about hill climbing?? I think not.

Got anything else to needlessly spar about?

[valhalla360]

A1ARealtorRick wrote:
Engines with an odd number of cylinders are inherently rougher than those with an even number of cylinders. Google it.

Funny how the complaint changes when the poor logic is pointed out.

So they won't be able to climb a hill because the engine runs rougher?

[time2roll]

Hummer should be very smooth. 🙂 Although in the interim the Ford 1.5L 3cyl eco boost should perform very well in the Bronco. I would have no qualms about just 3 spark plugs to change.

[Reisender]

Arguably zero cylinders are the smoothest. :). Our last three cars have had zero cylinders and can attest to that. :). But then again, technically I think zero is an even number...

[time2roll]

A1ARealtorRick wrote:
Engines with an odd number of cylinders are inherently rougher than those with an even number of cylinders. Google it.

Except 4 cylinders are notoriously hard to balance above about 2 liters. Mitsubishi invented a counter rotating shaft to improve the issue.

My 1 liter Metro was actually very smooth running. Straight 6 and 90 degree V-8 are inherently very smooth running.

[magicbus]

A1ARealtorRick wrote:

Engines with an odd number of cylinders are inherently rougher than those with an even number of cylinders. Google it.

True, and that was a highlight of a recent review of this engine in an Escape. You could actually see the vibration in the steering wheel at idle. Maybe that’s the real reason for the use of stop/start technology, not to save fuel but so you don’t feel the vibration at idle so much :b.

Dave