The measurements I’ve seen for the JKU are 34.5” deep. This was my measurement based on where I guessed the back of the rear seat would be at floor level. Take it for what it’s worth. JKU lists 31 cu ft behind the sending row, Bronco lists over 35 cu ft.
I'm still not going to do it. Ha. But could be an excellent option when we need to get a second vehicle.
Seems so.... price will definitely be a factor. Im hoping this comes on the 2 door as well, since thats where im leaning. My boy has to have his face out a window. lol
total cargo cubic feet for 2dr is 23.6 and 4 dr is 35.6 (50.8% bigger). Given the cargo space is identical, any pick up in cargo is from the depth of the space. So my numbers make sense - 22" deep on 2 dr, and 33" on 4 dr is 50%. Was off 1" but let's call it a rounding error.Two of my questions that I’m not happy about. Rear seat length is the same as a 2 door at only 36. And depth of the cargo is only 6 inches longer??
So a shallow back seat and shallow trunk, yet the car is 12” longer. It doesn’t add up. The HOPE is that they were rounding up/down to the half foot. A 2.5 ft (30” trunk is very shallow). My outback is 41”
Maybe 2 door is more like 22” and 4 door is 32”. With 2 door being rounded up to the half foot and 4 door being rounded down. To me that makes sense given the additional length of the 4 door. And the fact that the 2 door cargo is probably really shallow given they somehow achieved rear seat room the same as the four door.
I spent about 30 minutes trying to figure this out and scaling pics of the side and rear profile pics on my computer using the 35” wheel, overall width of car, and fords rear shoulder room dimensions as reference points - I’m guesstimating 32” deep, 47” wide for the 4 door.
I attached a wrangler photo. As you could see bronco is definitely wider with swing out door and narrower frame for cage, but bronco is also shallower. It seems more usable cargo given the bodywork is taller so more stacking power from floor to window.
Anyway - So if the top half of the cargo area above the wheel arches is 2 or 3” wider and I just average out 47” Wide loading floor and 51-53” = 50” average width across floor to ceiling. 50x32x38 (guesstimate for height) that’s 60,800 cubic inches / 1728 (inches in cubic feet) is over 35 cubic feet. So that sounds right given fords specs.
In terms of usable cargo, not blocking windows. I’m getting to 32x47x23 = exactly 20 cubic feet of ‘real world’ cargo use.
My outback is WAY deeper at 41 but not as wide and way shorter from floor to window only 18”. So my usable cargo to window calc ends up being 18 cubic feet so somewhat of an improvement.
For comparison the wrangler is 41x34x20 (est height to window) so 16 cubic feet of cargo from floor to window.
The remove windows are pretty cool I will admit! But my pug and bulldog can’t even reach up that high haha
MAY be ...... that is key. Another insider mentioned that Ford is pushing really hard to get it in the line up at launch. They have a little "catch up" to play with the supply line.
Buys $800 jack, stores it incorrectly, does no planned maintenance to the expensive jack, then in year 4 gets a flat. Mucho money Jack don’t work so good. Jack is crap, screw Ford I’m getting a a Blazer!
I believe it will be available. Why would they keep showing the white top version on multiple press event outings on the cactus grey bronco. That would be almost a bait and switch type move. Reserve now but when you go to order it is not available. Offering the white top is another opportunity for Ford to build in pricing margin as an upgrade. Look how Porsche became so profitable for VW group.
. ‘23 Bronco
That modular top is awesome! It will be curious to know what the wind buffeting will be like with those rear most windows out.
Well, that's better than flat out "no." I hope there is a boatload of aftermarket grille designs and colors to compensate if Ford does not offer flexibility on the grilles and top colors.
I've been harping on this for a month. There is no way the rear legroom is identical at 36". The volume numbers clearly say otherwise. Ive raised this question in various Q&As, but it sounds like nobody wants to contradict FoMoCos released numbers. I feel so strong about this, that i've convinced myself that the 4 door backseat is bigger than the 36.3" rear legroom advertised, and i've no longer flagged it as a concern. Not a ton bigger, but some - given there is a loss on rear seat volume on the 2 door given the seats are narrower between the wheel wells.Maybe I missed it, but it doesn't seem anyone is talking about the cu. ft. behind the first row. Not sure how the leg room can be similar from 2-door to 4-door, with the difference in cu. ft. being twice that of behind the second row numbers.
