pffan1990

Automatic only? Making the manual only for Bronco in addition to Mustang?

Impressive! I been trying to envision what it would look like as 'truckish' but I like what I'm seeing here. PremierDrum did say that Ford Trucks was involved with this project. So it would indeed be 'Built Ford Tough' even if front drive-based unibody and it gives a nice truckish vibe. It would likely have good payload and towing figures for its class too. Impressive, can't wait until official reveal and more info is released.

Welcome here. It's go time!

Would the Coyote V8 even be able to fit inside the Explorer? I'm pretty sure Ford crunched the numbers and figured they wouldn't make money with the V8-powered Explorer, hence the 3.0L EB V6. However, it's likely we would see the V8 be offered in the Expedition first before they even think of doing it for the Explorer.

I have also wondered about the odd packaging for the Bronco. There should have been a Cold Weather Package offered all across the board (standard on First Edition or even Wildtrak) that could have included the heated front seats, mirrors, and steering wheel plus vinyl floor liners. The floor liners could still be offered as standalone options too. This is how it's offered on other vehicles in Ford's lineup. There should also have been separate packages for Safety (front camera, adaptive cruise control, etc.) and Tech (power plugs and extra USB ports plus Sync4 Navigation system, etc.) as well for the Bronco trims. I still like the idea of Mid, High, and Lux packages too for those customers to choose even more options in a bundle for savings if they want all the included items. But the Cold Weather, Safety, and Tech packages, with their own clever names of course rather than just Safety and Tech, would be good for customers only needing a few things without having to pay thousands for the High or Lux packages for many other things they don't need. The B&O sound system should also be standalone option instead of having to upgrade thousands of dollars to Lux Package if one doesn't need all the other included items. Other standalone options should be locking rear diff for Base and locking front diff for Base, Big Bend, and Outer Banks to go along with their already-offered standalone locking rear diff. I can understand different ratios other than 4.7 (exclusive to Badlands and Sasquatch Package) but should at least offer locking diffs as standalone option instead of having to get the Sasquatch Package. Speaking of this, I wonder if they can make Advanced full-time 4x4 system as standalone option too without having to upgrade to Sasquatch Package. The available locking front diff and Advanced full-time 4x4 system would make the Black Diamond a good buy rather than having to go up to Badlands. I get Ford wants customers to get the Badlands for more profit but they can still make Badlands exclusive with the electronic sway bar disconnect. Seeing how Black Diamond and Badlands come with hose-out vinyl interior with drain plugs, why not offer this as option on other trims too? Or at least a regular vinyl floor via carpet floor delete as offered on some other vehicles like Ford F-Series. I know Ford is listening to customers so hopefully most of what I listed and some others are suggesting can make their way onto the 2022 model year.

Thanks for this. I stand corrected about the Maverick sharing looks of Bronco Sport as the person that I seen elsewhere said it was either wrong or speculation but I clearly misunderstood and apologize for my confusion above. Thanks for your info and it's exciting to know the Tremor pack will be added a year later. Someone else above said that it has been designed and engineered as a truck from the beginning as part of Ford Trucks umbrella so it makes sense to use the XL, XLT, etc. trimlines. Looking like more of a truck than the Honda Ridgeline wishes to be in terms of capability. Wouldn't surprise me to see Sport Trac name used on Bronco pickup, which would be more logical since original was body-on-frame as you pointed out, but would only cause confusion for some people with 'sport' from Sport Trac due to smaller Bronco Sport. Also interesting about the new Fusion Active; hope it gets approved for production sometime soon. Also, I forget: do you work for Ford or know someone on inside? I always like reading your insights along with PremierDrum and others.

Yeah it is. I actually just realized now that it's soon 2021. So with the 7-10 year market for Bronco Sport, it'll be around 2028 at least, by which time BEVs would be rising in production and sales. Sometimes I don't realize that 7-10 years from now is when we could be looking at an entirely different marketplace regarding auto sales. This explains why we're seeing the end of the ICE-powered Edge/Nautilus as the replacement in a few years is already the BEVs.

I wonder what is meant as 'transitional' model? Temporarily? I hope that the replacement at the end of Bronco Sport's life will be a continual of the Bronco family. Now that would be interesting to see. Would explain lack of hybrid version.

Yes, this line of thinking with base and Big Bend for cheap affordable options and then the Outer Banks, etc. for more variant of options and off-road capability. However, it appears that this Maverick will come with standard front drive only with all wheel drive being optional. This would go against the Bronco branding as the three Bronco vehicles come standard with 4x4. As with others said, the Maverick name hasn't been used in over 40 years and does fit the Western naming and theme so that makes sense. There's also the fact that Maverick name was used in Europe during the first generation of the boxy Escape as well as in South America on a different 4x4 vehicle too. So may as well use it on an affordable pickup truck since precedent was set with using it other than the old sedan and coupe of yore. This makes sense for the naming to fit with Western names. I think it would actually be confusing if Ford uses the Sport Trac name for the big Bronco pickup as people would associate the Sport portion of the name with the smaller Bronco Sport. Which was why I suggested Sport Trac for the new affordable pickup. But Maverick is a good name for it and Ford wasn't engineering and designing the Maverick with off road branding like Bronco in mind, so Maverick is a good name to use. Yeah I'm aware of Borg but I can't remember if he was the one who said it would have similar styling and panels of Bronco Sport b-pillar forward or if it was another user. It could have been a user suggesting as speculation and I may have misunderstood that as 'insider fact'. I apologize for that if that's the case. I can't find the post that this was made so it's possible that it's over at GMI. I'm not a user there, as I read the public posts, so wouldn't have luck finding it there. As for what you said about the styling appearing to share the Ford truck styling, I remember that being talked about here. So I guess we'll have to wait and see what it looks like when they do the reveal or some online leaks come before then. Again, I have no problem with Maverick name being used.

There was a user here who mentioned that. I think it was Borg/Assimilator? I can't quite find it here in search though it could have been the other forum I seen that. There were some articles published that mentioned that though it was their speculation by comparing the Bronco Sport side by side with the camo'ed Maverick. Perhaps @PREMiERdrum can chime in? Here's one article I found that mentioned this. The site has been known to make mistakes in their articles but the overlays of Bronco Sport and Maverick do show some similarities with B-pillar forward. https://fordauthority.com/2020/08/ford-maverick-pickup-will-be-very-similar-to-bronco-sport-b-pillar-forward-exclusive/

It looks like there will soon be an announcement and reveal of the Maverick. But I wonder something though and I hope it won't throw this thread off topic. Seeing how some say that the new Maverick will share similar styling and panels of the Bronco Sport from B-pillar forward, wouldn't it be logical to leverage the Bronco Sport name for this affordable pickup? Something along the lines of Bronco SportTrac? That way, the Sport name is used to show that it's based on the Bronco Sport and has that 4-door pickup lifestyle styling and packaging to it. I know it wasn't engineered and designed to be off-road capable like the Bronco Sport, but surely Ford has thought of attaching the Bronco Sport name to this pickup. The Maverick name can be used for this in overseas markets like Europe, Australia, China, etc. while Bronco SportTrac be used solely in North America. Ford can simply run clever ads, narrated by actor Bryan Cranston, explaining that this new Bronco SporTrac is not to be confused with the old Sport Trac, while the ad shows the new Bronco SportTrac going off road and people using it to camp, etc. If Ford eventually chooses to make pickup variant of the 2-door and 4-door 'big' Bronco, they can come up with a different name for it as to avoid confusion with Explorer Sport Trac and the Bronco SportTrac. They can go back in the Bronco history and find a good name for the pickup variant (original Bronco was called Half Cab). I'm sure some others here had suggested the Maverick using the Bronco branding name instead of Maverick but I wonder what some others think? But back on topic though, it does seem interesting with Ford's ideas for the digital platform for used vehicles. I look forward to seeing the sales success of Mach-E, Bronco, Bronco Sport, and Maverick a year from now. This along with the sales of 2021 F-150, 2021 Ranger Tremor, etc. as well.

I'm wondering the same thing. I'm sure parts of embargo will be lifted past midnight such as some teaser photos and basic info and then the rest lifts upon reveal time. But then again, it may just only lift upon reveal time. Even then it's only less than 12 hours to go by now.

I have wondered why Ford didn't use the natural aspirated version of the 'S197' Shelby GT500's 5.8L supercharged V8 for that generation's Boss 351 along with that generation's Boss 302 that was also offered during that time. But back on topic though, the Shelby GT350 and GT350R have been great and here's to the GT500 to finish this generation's run in terms of factory Shelby variants. I'm sure the GT350 and GT350R will be back for the 'S650' generation... hopefully.

There are lots of posts over at Bronco6G forum where they talk about Filson too including the same Forest Service Green paint code info you presented. I never even heard of Filson until just a week or so ago so it would be a good way to promote their products at least for people like me who never heard of Filson. Just like Eddie Bauer and King Ranch; never heard of them until their partnerships with Ford. Speaking of King Ranch, I wonder if Ford will eventually offer a King Ranch type of package or trimline for the Bronco at some point over the next few years?

How many more years do you think the Coyote has left? It's been a good engine indeed.

I was talking about the age of the 5.0L V8 which dates back to the old 4.6L Modular well over 20 years now. Perhaps I should have mentioned that in my post. The engine in 5.0L size is good but they did have to enlarge it to 5.2L with some modifications for the Shelby GT350 and supercharged for GT500. The new engine for Windsor, which I now realized is actually 6.8L not the 4.8L as I previously thought, would be good because it is all-new (even if based on 7.3L) and will provide many years of performance capability. Though likely in limited annual volume, however, due to CAFE and gas guzzler tax.

My guess is that the large CUV would be the next generation Lincoln Continental. As for the other vehicles, I would guess perhaps the return of the Ford Thunderbird? Could be a sub-brand of it with the large T-Bird CUV as one of them and the 'performance models' being perhaps the low-volume 2-seater roadster and 4-seat coupe or 4-seat coup-ish wagon-ish whitespace type of vehicle. With the Mustang as sub-brand and return of Bronco, the Thunderbird's return would make great electric-only sub-brand for Ford, I would think. But I am just talking out of my head. Oacjay98, have you found out more details about this '6.8 engine' project that was announced by Dias last week? I am hoping you got some details about it.

The 'Fox Body' era base Mustang LX had optional 5.0L V8 from the GT. This was during the 80s-90s however and not that recent but was first to come to mind. I actually like the idea of 3.0L EB V6 as standalone option for XLT, Limited, or maybe even Base. I'm actually surprised that Ford also haven't offered the Hybrid on Base and XLT too instead of only Limited.

I'm prepared to be wrong too and be quite surprised. I still think, as I stated in one of my previous comments a few pages back, that the 6.8L could be a simple misprint/misspoken and actually the 4.8L that was once planned in Windsor. I do think lots of development work was already done to the 4.8L before it was shelved and perhaps it was Farley himself who decided to green light the project. Just speculation on my part. The 5.0L Coyote is getting really old and pretty much already reached its maximum capabilities. But we'll see. It does make sense to have the 6.8L V8 be the replacement for the SC 5.2L since it's closer to its end. What does 'Atmo' mean that you mentioned? If it is indeed the 6.8L, and not the 4.8L as I think, it would make a good limited engine for performance purposes only as to not impact CAFE numbers.

Remember news reports a few years back about a new 4.8L V8 engine to be made in Windsor to replace the old 5.0L? I'm wondering if the 6.8L is actually a misprint and supposed to be 4.8L V8? Here's an old article about it. Looking like the 4.8L engine project may have moved forward if that's the case? https://www.torquenews.com/106/future-ford-f150-could-get-new-48l-v8

That does make sense what you said regarding the Ohio plants. I been reading in other threads about talks of new Medium Duty for 2023 along with the purpose-built cab which I'm wondering if incoming CEO Farley made some changes to the Ohio plans to include the two latter. Sounds like he has plans for more of commercial vehicles built at Ohio meaning the previously-planned BEVs to be there are now moved to Oakville hence the longer-than-planned Ford/UNIFOR talks. Whatever happens, though, I hope means Oakville keeps running and that workers can keep working. Maybe even add more jobs there.

I have wondered whether or not Ford is actually working on that now as we talk about this. This could perhaps count as one of the 'derivatives' to be produced at FR alongside the S650 Mustang as part of the recent union agreement. I'm all for expanding the Mustang into a subbrand as long as they add the second word to the name as part of the name to show that it's the additional member of the subbrand while the Mustang (one word) stays the true 2+2 rear drive coupe/convertible that's been around for 55+ years now. Ford has already done this with Mustang Mach-E for the electric-powered crossover. The Mach-E is not the trimline of the Mustang but rather the two words as part of one name shows that it's a separate vehicle that is Mustang-inspired. I won't be surprised if there will be an ICE version of the Mach-E but with name something like Mustang Mach-G for Gas-powered engines (I know it's not good name but I'll use it here as placeholder for now). This sedan you mention could either be Falcon so that it could be sold in other places as Australia or another Mustang variant with a different secondary name to it. I'm thinking Mustang Fairlane as an example. Then take the upcoming S650 2-door Mustang but turn it into a sporty rear drive pickup where the rear seat and trunk is an open bed and call it Mustang Ranchero. Let's not forget an exotic rear-mid-engined version of Mustang too which would make a good replacement for the Ford GT when that eventually ends production. Have a rear-mid-engined car styled like Mustang so that it's recognizable as Mustang but engine in back and make it much more affordable than the GT but yet competitive with the new Corvette. Ford would have an advantage with this because it's a subbrand of Mustang and yet the rear engined car would be recognized as Mustang-inspired instead of a Ferrari-lookalike as the Corvette is. Not sure what it could be named but I'm sure Ford can go back into the archives to find a good name for it. They did experiment with that in 1967 with Mustang Mach 2 so perhaps that name can be used. Recently, there were articles published about a 1969 Mustang E which was a 6-cylinder engine tuned for fuel efficiency. Interesting that the E naming was carried over to the Mustang Mach-E naming as continuing the efficiency of driving range. So I'm sure they can dig into archives for good names to be used for the additional members of the Mustang subbrand. In the meantime, the 2-door Mustang for the S650 and further on can continue in coupe and convertible form. They can even bring back the hatchback last used on the Fox Body era or even introduce a true 'shooting brake' wagon of the 2-door. Ford did experiment with this a nice looking 2-door wagon in 1965 but was rejected. Maybe even consider the 'Active' version for each member of the Mustang family including even the 2-door one with a slight lift but with sporty proportions and offering of all wheel drive with basic off roading capability like gravel and dirt. The other variants like the sedan and crossover/SUV can even be designed to do basic towing as well to offer customers more capability. The ideas are endless but just have to be careful with how they name it. They got it right so far with the Mustang and Mustang Mach-E so let's see how they do it with the other variants.

I wish Hackett the best of luck for his future and thank him for what he has done for Ford... especially the Bronco. I also wish Farley the best of luck with his new job and am confident he'll do well. Was thinking the same thing as soon as I saw this thread. ?

Left me surprised too. I was watching it on FB and thought I got cut off. Went to the YouTube livestream and saw that was done. So it was about 10 minutes long ad then rather than a formal live reveal. While I do think the long ad was brilliantly written and done, there should have still been an official live reveal like the F-150 with more details shared.

Can't wait to see the reveal and further announcements regarding the lineup, including the higher performance model. Also, can you comment on the floating Bronco video that was posted above? Is that legit or some clever edits?