I wouldn't be surprised...especially after the '99 Cobra fiasco.Im wondering if Ford publishes the 91 octane numbers versus alot of these dyno runs with 93 octane in the tank?
I'm more interested in knowing if the transmission changed.
Im wondering if Ford publishes the 91 octane numbers versus alot of these dyno runs with 93 octane in the tank?
It's the 1060, unfortunately.Hopefully it got the 10R80 like the Ranger/Aviator.
Was disappointed that the ST got the 10r60.
Same as the Explorer ST, 3.0.What engine are these Broncos supposed to come equipped with?
The 3.0 out of the Explorer ST, with slight enhancement.What engine are these Broncos supposed to come equipped with?
I believe its closer to 20% drivetrain lossI remember looking at stock ST dynos and their torque numbers were pretty high. Even with a 15% Drivetrain loss they were above the 415 listed torque number.
Wonder how much changed tuning wise or Ford just released the real torque number the 3.0 makes lol.
I agree. Could of dropped a gen 3 5.0. But the 3.0L at least makes great TQ.Needs a V8!!
Pretty underwhelming. The 392 Rubicon makes 470/470. Sorry not impressed with the Bronco. It looks ok but they should have had the 5.0 as an option.
Actually the software management needs addressing more than anything. The 10R80 can be wonky. I am sure the 10R60 is just as bad. Or maybe not?Hopefully it got the 10R80 like the Ranger/Aviator.
Was disappointed that the ST got the 10r60.
Me too, I hate the 10r60Hopefully it got the 10R80 like the Ranger/Aviator.
Was disappointed that the ST got the 10r60.