a new estimate of the bronco 4-door wheelbase

[Paint]

I could throw a serious party with $8 and a candy bar and retire with the rest.

Sponsored

 

[Randy92Fox]

Sounds more like the Charger to me...

 

[Nickp]

Sounds more like the Charger to me...

LMFAO

Gold comment right here

 

[Artie]

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.

 

[chtucker]

Mercury's only go up 450hp in R version. You meant 627hp 7 Marines!

 

[BroncoJeremie]

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]

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.

 

[Timsvtgen1]

You definitely forgot about the draft, in inches.

 

[BE_]

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]

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.

 

[BE_]

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]

Ewww.

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

Sponsored