Unfortunately, you are focusing on a very niche segment (hardcore rock crawling) that Ford doesn’t seem worried about given the overall design of the new Bronco. With that said, I think the turbo will fit into how they plan to market it -desert racing, hill climbing, mall crawler mobile.
The thing you have to keep in mind though is that Ford subsidizes their Ecoboost engines with respect to their naturally aspirated equivalents, and I suspect the big three all subsidize their half ton diesel offerings as well, in order to incentivize people to buy the engines that benefit their CAFE ratings.
Look at the F150 engine option costs to see what I am talking about. A naturally aspirated V8 should be significantly cheaper to produce than a twin turbo V6 and all its related hardware, yet Ford charges a premium for the 5.0L to disincentivize people from buying them, and so far, it seems to be working pretty well for Ford. From the testing I have seen, the 5.0L hangs pretty well with the Ecoboost engines and actually gets better fuel economy under heavy load (which the EPA doesn't test for).
Assuming Ford wasn't playing price games, the 5.0L would be cheaper than the 2.7L, make significantly more horsepower, have much more off-idle torque (super important off road), weigh about the same, get close to the same real world fuel economy, run just fine on regular in hot weather at full load, be simpler and cheaper/easier to maintain in the long run. Also, engines with lower specific outputs are much less stressed, and tend to have much better longevity than an equivalent engine with a higher specific output. Higher specific power means higher cylinder pressures, which takes its toll on bearings, rings, pistons, head bolts and head gaskets. Why do you think Ford sells de-rated versions of the 7.3L gas and 6.7L diesel engines in their medium duty trucks versus their light duty trucks? The answer is Longevity. Why do you think Ford does not offer either the standard or high output versions of the 3.5L Ecoboost in the Superduty since according to Ford's marketing team, it is a better option than the 6.2L (which is also de-tuned in the Superduty versions the F150 application back when it was offered)?
I am by no means an Ecoboost hater, but it is just amazing what a great job Ford's marketing team has done convincing the general public that down-sized turbo engines are better in every way than a larger naturally aspirated engine. Turbo technology is nothing new, so why the recent push for down-sized turbo engines? It is because of the stringent CAFE standards that were rolled out during the Obama administration and are being phased in through 2025. Small turbo engines "game" the EPA test method and result in unrealistically high EPA ratings. Ecoboost engines typically fall well short of their EPA numbers in real world usage compared to naturally aspirated gas engines which are usually pretty close to their EPA ratings, and diesels which usually exceed their EPA ratings.
