a new estimate of the bronco 4-door wheelbase

Paint

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jack
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
598
Reaction score
1,282
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
Tundra
I could throw a serious party with $8 and a candy bar and retire with the rest.
 

Randy92Fox

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randy
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
188
Reaction score
306
Location
Washington
Vehicle(s)
66 Half Cab, 7.3 Powerstroke, 5.0 Convertible Fox
Official Bronco Dimensions & Capacities
LENGTH
42’
BEAM
11’ 11”
BRIDGE CLEARANCE
10’1”
FREEBOARD
67"
FUEL CAPACITY
477 GAL
TOTAL CURB WEIGHT
20,000 LBS
POWERTRAIN
Quad Mercs 2,000 HP
Sounds more like the Charger to me...
 

Artie

Active Member
First Name
Waymon
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
14
Location
Deville, Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
2019 F150 4X4 Limited, 1961 VW
Seems obvious to me that you guys were using a photo of the Bronco that was not straight-on. If the side profile is at an angle, your “calibration” will be off.

I trust the guy who actually saw it more than I trust your calibrations.

Edit: Look at all the different angles unaccounted for:

54D80157-0A64-47ED-89E0-644E9CD0C1DD.jpeg
I think you are going to find that the two (2) door has a wheelbase of 96.4 and the four (4) door has
a wheelbase of 112 making the four door approximately 16 in. longer . Both vehicles supports five
passengers in the same number of seats and space. The extra 16 inches will be behind the back
seat to store 4 doors and roof panels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BE_

chtucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
94
Reaction score
112
Location
Kirkland, WA
Vehicle(s)
FJ Cruiser
Official Bronco Dimensions & Capacities
LENGTH
42’
BEAM
11’ 11”
BRIDGE CLEARANCE
10’1”
FREEBOARD
67"
FUEL CAPACITY
477 GAL
TOTAL CURB WEIGHT
20,000 LBS
POWERTRAIN
Quad Mercs 2,000 HP
Mercury's only go up 450hp in R version. You meant 627hp 7 Marines!
 

BroncoJeremie

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeremie
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
237
Reaction score
327
Location
Cedar city
Vehicle(s)
2006 Ford F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
I think you are going to find that the two (2) door has a wheelbase of 96.4 and the four (4) door has
a wheelbase of 112 making the four door approximately 16 in. longer . Both vehicles supports five
passengers in the same number of seats and space. The extra 16 inches will be behind the back
seat to store 4 doors and roof panels.
Ummm what do you know sir
 

Tslater1989

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tyler
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
291
Reaction score
496
Location
Central Michigan
Vehicle(s)
(212k) 97 F150 XLT, (321k) 99 Expedition EB, (77k) 2016 Explorer XLT. several go karts
I'm just gonna throw this out there. There are variables on tires. Some height measurements can be skewed by inflation, wheel width, if they measure it from wear bar to wear bar. All that said, we are talking a variable on wheelbase of maybe 2 inches. So the 112 mark may be a hair off. Lets say its actually 114 still shorter than the jeep. But like I've mentioned before. Ford doesn't have the front axle pushed way forward like the wrangler. So without real hands on measurements from ford or ourselves. Its hard to say. I dont think the bronco is going to have the front bumper hanging out in a different zip code like jeep either. If they can manage to pass crash safety and keep it high and tight, theres no reason the bronco cant have a good approach angle.
 
Last edited:

Timsvtgen1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
85
Reaction score
165
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
2014 Tremor, 2018 Focus ST
Official Bronco Dimensions & Capacities
LENGTH
42’
BEAM
11’ 11”
BRIDGE CLEARANCE
10’1”
FREEBOARD
67"
FUEL CAPACITY
477 GAL
TOTAL CURB WEIGHT
20,000 LBS
POWERTRAIN
Quad Mercs 2,000 HP
You definitely forgot about the draft, in inches.
 

Midnight Blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
230
Reaction score
236
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
‘15 Accord
I think you are going to find that the two (2) door has a wheelbase of 96.4 and the four (4) door has
a wheelbase of 112 making the four door approximately 16 in. longer . Both vehicles supports five
passengers in the same number of seats and space. The extra 16 inches will be behind the back
seat to store 4 doors and roof panels.
Repeating the same 112 number with nothing to support it, does little for the conversation.

The 112 number is objectively wrong, just look at the poor scaling/calibrations/whatever that is, consider what people who have seen it said (Teo said here that 112 is wrong; the guy who saw it measured it said 112 is wrong), and stop forcing bad information on yourself and parroting it all over the place as if it were true.
 
OP
BE_

BE_

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
111
Reaction score
191
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
1996 jeep cherokee, piece of junk Korean car
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #42
Repeating the same 112 number with nothing to support it, does little for the conversation.

The 112 number is objectively wrong, just look at the poor scaling/calibrations/whatever that is, consider what people who have seen it said (Teo said here that 112 is wrong; the guy who saw it measured it said 112 is wrong), and stop forcing bad information on yourself and parroting it all over the place as if it were true.
Rejecting the consistently found 112 number with nothing to support doing so, does little for the conversation.

The 112 number is objectively correct, just look at the dubious "eye witness" claims that is, consider what people who have done the math said (i found it the be 112-113; the guy who measured it said 112 is correct), and stop forcing bad information on yourself and parroting it all over the place as if it were true.
 

Jomo

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
6
Reaction score
7
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
Mazda 3
Repeating the same 112 number with nothing to support it, does little for the conversation.

The 112 number is objectively wrong, just look at the poor scaling/calibrations/whatever that is, consider what people who have seen it said (Teo said here that 112 is wrong; the guy who saw it measured it said 112 is wrong), and stop forcing bad information on yourself and parroting it all over the place as if it were true.
The 112” dimension is used as a reference because it is the only wheelbase dimension recorded using a measuring tape on an actual vehicle. Granted, it was the BroncoR, but this is supposed to be essentially the same chassis. Wheelbase is likely the same. Separate from that, my own wheelbase estimates using known wheel and tire diameters, I have consistently came in at 112” to 116”, so the 112” measurement does not seem out of line. I would not be too surprised by a 116” WB either, other than it does not match the BroncoR measurement.

The body length is more difficult to estimate from pictures as the overall length is measured at a different plane from the known dimensions like tires and wheels. Folks who are estimating 14’ and less are not compensating correctly for this perspective. 15’ (180”) is a reasonable estimate taking into account the wheelbase and the short overhangs noted in the photos, but this may be off by 6” or so. 16’ length from the “shoe” measurement seems on the high side from what I see in the photos and the overhangs for such a vehicle. The good thing, we should know the real dimensions soon.
 
Last edited:
OP
BE_

BE_

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
111
Reaction score
191
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
1996 jeep cherokee, piece of junk Korean car
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #44
The 112” dimension is used as a reference because it is the only wheelbase dimension recorded using a measuring tape on an actual vehicle. Granted, it was the BroncoR, but this is supposed to be essentially the same chassis. Wheelbase is likely the same. Separate from that, my own wheelbase estimates using known wheel and tire diameters, I have consistently came in at 112” to 116”, so the 112” measurement does not seem out of line. I would not be too surprised by a 116” WB either, other than it does not match the BroncoR measurement.

The body length is more difficult to estimate from pictures as the overall length is measured at a different plane from the known dimensions like tires and wheels. Folks who are estimating 14’ and less are not compensating for this perspective. 15’ (180”) is a reasonable estimate taking into account the wheelbase and the short overhangs noted in the photos, but this may be off by 6” or so. 16’ length from the “shoe” measurement seems on the high side from what I see in the photos and the overhangs for such a vehicle. The good thing, we should know the real dimensions soon.
i did not know that the bronco R had a 112 wheelbase. i mesured it from the spyshots and got 113, +-margin of error and all that.

i also did account for the perspective when i mesured the overall length to be 13'9", +- margin of error and all that.
 

TeocaliMG

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
352
Reaction score
868
Location
Dearborn Michigarn
Vehicle(s)
1987 f-250 6.9 idi diesel, 2004 jeep liberty sport
Ewww. :stop:

That's nearly as long as a crew cab pickup. (Ranger is 127")

Does that mean we were all wrong and the prototype is rolling on 44" tires too, despite what the sidewall says? :turkey:
Not THAT is camo, Bronco the size of a superduty on 53's but the sidewall says 32", and the only drivers spotted are NFL or NBA players
 











Top