Ford Bronco engine review

[essentialemployee]

I just read this good performance review by the numbers about the 1.5L OB version. Done by MotorTrend. See https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2021-ford-bronco-sport-outer-banks-first-test-review/ and https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-suvs/2021-ford-bronco-sport-outer-banks-first-test-are-three-cylinders-enough/ar-BB1cyDua

they report the 2.0L takes 6.5 seconds to get to 60. I’m cool with that. My 08 Tahoe was 8.9 seconds and it felt on the powerful side for an suv. Although I fit a queen size mattress in the back once and another time a large washer and dryer, the large size wasn’t necessary 99.9% of the time. Bronco sport is a nice downsize and a nice upgrade just about everywhere

Advertisement

 

[Molson]

I just read this good performance review by the numbers about the 1.5L OB version. Done by MotorTrend. See https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2021-ford-bronco-sport-outer-banks-first-test-review/ and https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-suvs/2021-ford-bronco-sport-outer-banks-first-test-are-three-cylinders-enough/ar-BB1cyDua

Here’s the motor trend link.
Motor Trend Are Three Cylinders Enough

 

[dinglehead]

they report the 2.0L takes 6.5 seconds to get to 60. I’m cool with that. My 08 Tahoe was 8.9 seconds and it felt on the powerful side for an suv. Although I fit a queen size mattress in the back once and another time a large washer and dryer, the large size wasn’t necessary 99.9% of the time. Bronco sport is a nice downsize and a nice upgrade just about everywhere

Over the next few years, I'm going to miss the cavernous cargo space of the Honda Pilot 2 or 3 times. I'm OK with that.

 

[Excape]

My test drive of the Outer Banks confirmed what I already suspected from the numbers, that the 1.5L is sufficiently powered. Another concern was any harmonics, boominess, or other oddities as reported by Escape owners. I didn't find anything that I couldn't live with, and it seemed on-par with normal Japanese 4-cylinder engines. So, I'm willing to give the 3-cylinder a try.

The 1.5L has a timing belt that runs in the engines crankcase engine oil, as opposed to traditional timing belts running dry.
The jury's out on the wet timing belt, only time will tell if it becomes problematic.
There was a time (1980's) when everyone thought timing belts were superior to timing chains just because the Japanese were doing it. The promise was that they were lighter, quieter, lower friction, the greatest. Over time, and due to reliability issues, most engines migrated to timing chains for durability, especially important in interference engines, which most modern overhead cam engines are.
Hopefully, these "wet timing belts" will prove reliable and all the material science has been worked out as oil has traditionally been an enemy of belts.

 

[frk]

Two questions - Does the 2.0 have a timing chain rather than a belt like the 1.5? And I understand that whether or not the engines are "non-interference" makes a great difference if the belt/chain fails - that the non-interference engines will suffer much less damage. Are the 1.5 & 2.0 engines non-interference?

 

[Excape]

Two questions - Does the 2.0 have a timing chain rather than a belt like the 1.5? And I understand that whether or not the engines are "non-interference" makes a great difference if the belt/chain fails - that the non-interference engines will suffer much less damage. Are the 1.5 & 2.0 engines non-interference?

Both are interference engines. Most modern engines are.

The 2.0L utilizes a timing chain. Not a maintenance issue and will last the life of the engine.

The 1.5L utilizes a timing belt (in oil) with a 150,000 mile service life (per Ford).

No one has mentioned the cost for the 1.5's belt replacement. It will cost more than replacing a dry timing belt, at least that is the case in Europe, where Ford has used these previously.

 

[Tall Timbers]

No problems with my 2.0l Ecoboost in a 2017 Escape, and it has plenty of power. I like the engine.