Traded my Big Bend for a Badlands

[Jbrad88]

Depending upon whose numbers you believe, the Badlands can run 0 > 60 mph in ~6 seconds or a bit less (C&D mag.).

That's pretty quick by today's standards, let alone a few years ago. When I bought my 2002 WRX it had about the same specs (maybe 5.7 sec?) and that was considered fast.

Here's a list of 0 > 60 times for Ford vehicles (the site has all mfrs):
https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ford-0-60-mph-times/

The Badlands is faster than every Thunderbird (basically tied with one) and many Mustangs, as well as most other Ford vehicles -- except (obviously) the GT and some aftermarket tuned vehicles.

It's most impressive when holding a lower gear in manual mode and at a speed that has the turbo spooled up, then floored.

T

In 1965-66 Carrol Shelby performed his magic on the then relatively new Mustang coupe to create the Shelby GT350. Shelby intended the car for track use, to the point the rear seat was replaced with a fiberglass shelf to stow your helmet and other race gear. Owing to its purpose, the car featured a highly breathed-on 289 cubic inch V8 making 300+ hp , and extensive suspension and brake mods. Due in part to its under $4,000 price tag, it was among the most highly coveted cars of its time.

According to Autoevolution, the car was tested to accelerate to 100 kph (62 mph) in 6.7 seconds.

Who could have predicted that Ford would someday produce what's essentially a family truckster with less than half the engine displacement that would easily out accelerate what was arguably the best performing production car in the world in the mid 1960s?

It is truly a good thing to see where performance is today.

Sponsored

 

[sajohnson]

In 1965-66 Carrol Shelby performed his magic on the then relatively new Mustang coupe to create the Shelby GT350. Shelby intended the car for track use, to the point the rear seat was replaced with a fiberglass shelf to stow your helmet and other race gear. Owing to its purpose, the car featured a highly breathed-on 289 cubic inch V8 making 300+ hp , and extensive suspension and brake mods. Due in part to its under $4,000 price tag, it was among the most highly coveted cars of its time.

According to Autoevolution, the car was tested to accelerate to 100 kph (62 mph) in 6.7 seconds.

Who could have predicted that Ford would someday produce what's essentially a family truckster with less than half the engine displacement that would easily out accelerate what was arguably the best performing production car in the world in the mid 1960s?

Excellent example!

 

[sajohnson]

It is truly a good thing to see where performance is today.

It's mind-blowing.

I was in high school when the EPA began to crack down on emissions. New cars had catalytic converters (cats) that smelled like rotten eggs; smog/air pumps, etc. Power and performance took a nose-dive. It seemed the era of the muscle/pony car was over for good.

It was a sad time for the auto industry, and car guys. A glance at the 1/4 mile stats tells the tale:
https://www.zeroto60times.com/1970s-car-0-60-specs/

Compare early '70s to late '70s for Ford or any other mfr. If you go back one page you can select other decades.

Some cars would barely run! Our driver's ed car was a new 1977 Pontiac Astre that was constantly acting like it was going to die. It was pathetic (and potentially dangerous).

The doldrums lasted for quite a while, but in recent years we have ICE cars with 500+ hp -- unheard of back in the day. Not to mention how quick some EVs are. The transformation is amazing. The Badlands has more power than my (pre-emissions) 1967 Fury with a 318 V8 -- and ratings up through 1971-72 were gross/crank hp, so that 230 would be even less under the net hp rating method.

Quote:

"The Buick Regal Grand National was one of the fastest American cars of the 1980s, with its turbocharged six-cylinder engine making 235 hp. The Europeans were used to pulling every horsepower out of smaller engines, but the Porsche 911 in the 1980s was producing around 240 hp."

"By 1995, the Mustang GT was only up another five hp to 215 hp, but in 1999 it hit 260 hp."
https://carbuzz.com/features/average-horsepower-of-a-car-over-the-years/

 

[Jbrad88]

It's mind-blowing.

I was in high school when the EPA began to crack down on emissions. New cars had catalytic converters (cats) that smelled like rotten eggs; smog/air pumps, etc. Power and performance took a nose-dive. It seemed the era of the muscle/pony car was over for good.

It was a sad time for the auto industry, and car guys. A glance at the 1/4 mile stats tells the tale:
https://www.zeroto60times.com/1970s-car-0-60-specs/

Compare early '70s to late '70s for Ford or any other mfr. If you go back one page you can select other decades.

Some cars would barely run! Our driver's ed car was a new 1977 Pontiac Astre that was constantly acting like it was going to die. It was pathetic (and potentially dangerous).

The doldrums lasted for quite a while, but in recent years we have ICE cars with 500+ hp -- unheard of back in the day. Not to mention how quick some EVs are. The transformation is amazing. The Badlands has more power than my (pre-emissions) 1967 Fury with a 318 V8 -- and ratings up through 1971-72 were gross/crank hp, so that 230 would be even less under the net hp rating method.

Quote:

"The Buick Regal Grand National was one of the fastest American cars of the 1980s, with its turbocharged six-cylinder engine making 235 hp. The Europeans were used to pulling every horsepower out of smaller engines, but the Porsche 911 in the 1980s was producing around 240 hp."

"By 1995, the Mustang GT was only up another five hp to 215 hp, but in 1999 it hit 260 hp."
https://carbuzz.com/features/average-horsepower-of-a-car-over-the-years/

My 1990 Lx was 225/300 (long gone)
My 2003 Mach was 305/320
My 2021 Mach is 480/420

It amazes me today what power the technology affords us.

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

They're all decent.

$6,000 additional is a lot.

I talked myself into thinking the (stripped) Badlands was good value by comparing it to the OBX, when actually comparing it to a stripped Base or Big Bend Trim might have been more accurate.

Our BS BL was $34,090 + $880 (tow package and cross bars) = $34,970. $1,495(!) destination brought it to $36,465.

BTW -- when people say they paid $X for a vehicle, and the price is crazy low I always wonder if they are including: destination and/or sales tax and/or title & tags. Not to mention: pin stripes; fabric guard; paint protection; extended warranties; undercoating; floor mats, etc., etc. The dealers around here were even selling a 'magic' disinfecting spray that was supposedly permanent and would kill the SARS-CoV-2 virus and other pecky microbes. It was only $1,600. You DO love your family, right?

Anyway, I can't recall the MSRP for the other trims, and the sources I've looked at vary. Cars.com sez:

"Pricing: Price increases are modest, at less than $400 for all but the top trim level. The base 2022 Bronco Sport starts at $28,910 — up $200 from 2021. The Bronco Sport’s four trim levels top out with the Badlands model, which starts at $35,585 — up $730 from 2021. All prices include a $1,495 destination charge."

That's a difference of $6,675.

<Later> I don't feel so good...

To be honest, even if I had looked at it that way (Base vs Badlands) I would have still went with the Badlands, but a very good case can be made for NOT doing that. $6,700 is a BIG difference. It may be more now, IDK. I do know the price of the Badlands jumped a lot in just the 3 months between when we ordered and took delivery -- maybe $1,200+.

What year is your BS BL mines a 2023 and IIRC the base price MSRP on the 2023 BB was a little over $31K and the 2023 BL was around 38 or $39K MSRP ?

 

[sajohnson]

What year is your BS BL mines a 2023 and IIRC the base price MSRP on the 2023 BB was a little over $33K and the 2023 BL was over $39K MSRP ?

Ours is a 2022, ordered 12/21.

I got those numbers off the sticker because I didn't trust my memory, so they're accurate. The prices on many Fords (and I assume others) went up a lot both before, and particularly after, we ordered. On another forum they were posting the internal price increase notices every few weeks(!), and some of the price jumps were crazy. I recall that the highest trim Mach-E went up by $6,000(!) in one shot.

I seem to recall that the biggest BS price increases were on the Badlands.

Does that 'over $39K' amount include destination? Ours was $35,585 (incl. destination). That's a big difference from one model year to the next, but considering the price increases I saw, I'm not too surprised. If the $39K does not include destination that would be a shock.

Side note: For anyone who is not aware, if you special order a BS (or any other Ford) you pay the price in effect when you order. Ford has a "Price Protection" program that insulates buyers from price increases that go into effect after they order.

Unscrupulous salespeople may tell buyers that they are responsible for any price increases but that is a lie.

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

Ours is a 2022, ordered 12/21.

I got those numbers off the sticker because I didn't trust my memory, so they're accurate. The prices on many Fords (and I assume others) went up a lot both before, and particularly after, we ordered. On another forum they were posting the internal price increase notices every few weeks, and some of the price jumps were crazy. I recall that the highest trim Mach-E went up by $6,000(!) in one shot.

I seem to recall that the biggest BS price increases were on the Badlands.

Does that 'over $39K' amount include destination? Ours was $35,585 (incl. destination). That's a big difference from one model year to the next, but considering the price increases I saw, I'm not too surprised. If the $39K does not include destination that would be a shock.

Side note: For anyone who is not aware, if you special order a BS (or any other Ford) you pay the price in effect when you order. Ford has a "Price Protection" program that insulates buyers from price increases that go into effect after they order.

Unscrupulous salespeople may tell buyers that they are responsible for any price increases but that is a lie.

I looked up and Found 2024 BB Base Price and it was $31,230 MSRP which was the same as my 2023 Base Price without Destination and Delivery and the 2024 BL is showing MSRP $37,008 which i would say is also without Destination and Delivery Price.So pretty close to a $6,000.00 difference in base prices.FWIW Destination and Delivery Charges were $1,595.00 on mine.

 

[Bucko]

The 2.0 has that torque that smooth power. Around town barely touch the pedal your off and away up to speed in no time. And if you ever have to pass on the highway not a problem lots of power.

I have this too with my 1.5

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

I have this too with my 1.5

My 1.5 Eco Boost was Ok before but much more responsive now with the Pedal Max on it!!

 

[Cactus22]

The zero to sixty website stats are interesting. Only the big Bronco Raptor is faster off the line than a BSBL. The little BL is simply quicker than the big ones. And in keeping with the historic comparisons, the BMW 3 series I sold when I bought the Ford is barely a hair quicker (per this website’s stats). It blows my mind that a boxy trucklet is essentially as fast as a 15+ year old Bavarian sports sedan. Silly me, I would’ve expected Detroit to be slower than Munich.

 

[PaulOinMA]

Porsche launched the entry-level 924. Also had the higher priced 944. Lighter 924 had better 0-60 time.

I had an '87 VW GTi 16v at the time. 123 h.p. Huge jump from my 65 -h.p. '83 Rabbit L

 

[sajohnson]

Porsche launched the entry-level 924. Also had the higher priced 944. Lighter 924 had better 0-60 time.

I had an '87 VW GTi 16v at the time. 123 h.p. Huge jump from my 65 -h.p. '83 Rabbit L

When I met my wife, she had a 1984 Toyota Corolla diesel. I think it had about 60 hp! It was really slow, but a great car in every other way -- 50 mpg; very comfortable; good handling; could seat 5; hatchback; super reliable. The front seats were incredible. It was very good in snow too.

It had reasonable amount of torque, so once you (eventually) got up to speed, it would climb most grades in 5th without slowing down.

But man was it s-l-o-w.

 

[PaulOinMA]

Ever go through a toll booth behind a Mercedes 240D?

Puff of black smoke, and you knew they hit the accelerator. And it sits there barely accelerating.

Will last forever, though.

 

[sajohnson]

Ever go through a toll booth behind a Mercedes 240D?

Puff of black smoke, and you knew they hit the accelerator. And it sits there barely accelerating.

Will last forever, though.

I saw a 240D in Madison, WI back in the early '80s that had a sign on the side that said something like, "This car has traveled over 1.5 million miles." IIRC, it may have said something about a Guinness World Record.

Of course, anyone can put a magnetic sign on the side of their vehicle. I have no way of knowing whether that was true, but it's possible.

<Later> It looks like the honor goes to this Volvo, with over 3,000,000 miles!:
https://www.topspeed.com/highest-mileage-car-in-the-world-in-2024/

Anyway, yeah, those old diesels could put out clouds of smoke -- like unintentional 'rollin' coal.' My wife's Corolla wasn't as bad as a 240D, but it was obviously a diesel.

 

[Rawah652]

Depending upon whose numbers you believe, the Badlands can run 0 > 60 mph in ~6 seconds or a bit less (C&D mag.).

That's pretty quick by today's standards, let alone a few years ago. When I bought my 2002 WRX it had about the same specs (maybe 5.7 sec?) and that was considered fast.

Here's a list of 0 > 60 times for Ford vehicles (the site has all mfrs):
https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ford-0-60-mph-times/

The Badlands is faster than every Thunderbird (basically tied with one) and many Mustangs, as well as most other Ford vehicles -- except (obviously) the GT and some aftermarket tuned vehicles.

It's most impressive when holding a lower gear in manual mode and at a speed that has the turbo spooled up, then floored.

This is really interesting and really highlights my surprise when I was getting to know my Bronco. The difference in acceleration between my T-Bird (2004 Pacific Coast Roadster) and my Badlands isn't really that noticeable, which was truly a bit shocking as I wasn't expecting that kind of performance from what's essentially a rolling box. A V-8 will always sound way cooler than the turbo V-4 in the badlands (and I hate that artificial engine sound in Sport mode). While I feel faster in the T-bird as it's lower to the ground the ability of both to accelerate from a stop and to pass at highway speeds are subjectively the same.

If I thought the engine could handle it on my T-bird I would love to put a small turbo on it (especially living at higher elevations), but it really wasn't designed for that. Turbos are a great way to ruin what is (right now) a good, reliable car. Both vehicles are a ton of fun for what they're designed for- cruising up and down canyons with my top down in my T-bird is a blast as it just rides amazing. It's smooth, hugs the road and handles like a dream. While the Bronco (espeically with the lift I have) will never hope to compare to that, I've had a blast taking it off-roading. It's on and off-road capability is way more than I ever expected from it. I just hope that the Bronco will prove as reliable as my T-Bird has over the next 20 years. So far, she's not disappointed.

Sponsored