Bronco (to be) Re-Introduced (and with Hybrid version)

ShinerBock wrote:

2manytoyz wrote:

I don't like little screaming engines. I've owned them before, and driven newer ones.

Screaming? Towing a load, my old company work truck V8 5.0L with a 3.55 rear ratio would be the one screaming versus the V6 3.5L EB with a 3.15 that later replaced it towing the same trailer. I could pull hills in 5th with the V6 EB that would cause the V8 5.0L to drop to 3rd screaming the whole way up.

Really depends on what type of driving you do. I can see an advantage for the V8 with low rpm linear power for slow driving off road.

For highway towing the 3.5 EB can't be beat.

The wife is starting to look at the 4 door Jeep Wranglers again, but I would like to hold off to see what the new Bronco has to offer including ride quality.

had a 1971 ,was the best truck for my use,owned a sohio station.took it every where ,only thing that ever broke was the cheap steel they used ,it rusted away in just a couple years. all that wax on/off didn,t help a bit.

In a way, but just as a mitsubishi mirage can get as good a fuel economy on a totally gas powerplant as the Prius, and do so at a reduced purchase/operation/disposal cost as compared, why have the prius? Especially when the environmental issues concerning the batteries are considered?

The Hybrid/EV always has the added issues of heavy metals and their procurement, and disposal and the additional weight during their life cycle. It just takes more energy day in and day out to move that extra 200 lbs of batteries. Or the 1200lbs in a tesla.

wanderingaimlessly wrote:
The generator, if powered by a separate engine will have several other factors.
As a small engine, it will not be required to meet the same "clean air standards" a vehicles primary ICE unit would meet.
It adds another factor of the same weight it was supposed to initially be eliminating, along with the fuels etc.
If the initial goal was to be going "all green" and eliminating carbon based fuels (not counting what charges the batteries at home) then the carriage of a separate engine/generator seems to defeat the original purpose.
No matter if it is a 5 hp or a 200 hp engine, the vehicle will still require a similar amount of energy to move it. The little generator just takes a short period of movement, and spends more hours at lower per hour energy cost creating the energy, it still requires the same total amount. It is not a perpetual motion machine, it does not get something from nothing.
As to what wears out, Heat and friction are the factors. Higher pressures and higher RPM's are primary (not the only ) contributors.
And as to HP vs size consider
"The current, third-generation IndyCar formula was introduced in 2012. The engines are now fuel-efficient DOHC 2.2-liter twin-turbo V6 with four-stroke piston Otto cycle developing an estimated 550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used and no inter-cooling systems."
More HP than the 6.8 driving most class A motorhomes, Would you want to try using one long term in that usage? How long do you think it would last?
Hybrids and EV's have a place, where their short range does not overly limit them, but when you add systems to an already heavy vehicle because of the batteries to get past the range limits, there are just too many factors working against them.

I might be oversimplifying this but isn't this just a permutation of Prius hybrid except the generator can simultaneously be running as the motor draws its major energy needs from the battery?

duplicate

Had a 1972 with a modified 302 cu inch and 4:10 Detroit Locker rear/4:10 Dana 44 Limited Slip front
Hi/Lo transfer case with 3 speed on floor
Had all three tops....full cab, half cab and soft top
Dang thing could climb a tree at idle

Had a 1978 with 400 cu inch---4 speed manual
12,000# dual clutch winch on a hand built custon front bumper/grille
Nice riding, comfortable ---OK moderate off road use
BUT it couldn't get out of it's own way with that detuned motor

"In this case, this 2.3L engine has as much horsepower as V8 truck a decade ago."

Then it can run a larger generator....which weighs more. The enemy is weight and to a lesser extent space for batteries, an engine, its fuel and the generator.

The generator, if powered by a separate engine will have several other factors.
As a small engine, it will not be required to meet the same "clean air standards" a vehicles primary ICE unit would meet.
It adds another factor of the same weight it was supposed to initially be eliminating, along with the fuels etc.
If the initial goal was to be going "all green" and eliminating carbon based fuels (not counting what charges the batteries at home) then the carriage of a separate engine/generator seems to defeat the original purpose.
No matter if it is a 5 hp or a 200 hp engine, the vehicle will still require a similar amount of energy to move it. The little generator just takes a short period of movement, and spends more hours at lower per hour energy cost creating the energy, it still requires the same total amount. It is not a perpetual motion machine, it does not get something from nothing.
As to what wears out, Heat and friction are the factors. Higher pressures and higher RPM's are primary (not the only ) contributors.
And as to HP vs size consider
"The current, third-generation IndyCar formula was introduced in 2012. The engines are now fuel-efficient DOHC 2.2-liter twin-turbo V6 with four-stroke piston Otto cycle developing an estimated 550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used and no inter-cooling systems."
More HP than the 6.8 driving most class A motorhomes, Would you want to try using one long term in that usage? How long do you think it would last?
Hybrids and EV's have a place, where their short range does not overly limit them, but when you add systems to an already heavy vehicle because of the batteries to get past the range limits, there are just too many factors working against them.

wanderingaimlessly wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
It's not the size, or displacement of the engine, but it's power.

In this case, this 2.3L engine has as much horsepower as V8 truck a decade ago.

Let us know next year how yours is holding up.
Usually small engines stressed by heavy loads don't pan out too well, especially in the long term, it's why both Ford and GM just came out with new larger V-8 truck engines. (6.6 and 7.3 liter)
You can bolt on turbos and superchargers, but there is still little replacement for displacement.
And how is a generator powered by another carbon burning ICE a fix for the electric woes?

I wouldn't know. I usually replace mine every 3 to 5 years -- to take advantage of it's peak of economic life.

But I wonder, I thought it's the cylinders that wears out, not the entire engine -- even dismissing the advancement in metallurgy.

As to the generator, I bet the Briggs & Stratton generator will consume less gas and less a pollutant the a 5.7 Briggs & Stratton diesel or gas engine. Did I miss something on your post?

I don't think this thing is going to be carrying heavy HD size loads so a turbocharged 2.3L will do fine in that small of vehicle. In fact it would probably make it better off road due to the better low end power of many small displacement V8's. There is truth to displacement and turbocharged engines actually displace more air than many larger V8s at low rpms creating a lot more power.

In regards to holding up. My old F150 Ecoboost that I mention above lasted to 150k before my company traded it in. We got rid of the 5.0L trucks sooner because they used more fuel and were dogs when towing. It might have been different with 3.73 gears because that 5.0L would downshift and scream at high rpms with the 3.55's they had in them. The 3.5L EB trucks were able to do the same work at much lower rpms and a lot less stress even with 3.15 gears. Also, my company now trades them in at 200k(instead of 150K) because the Ecoboost are holding up so well.