Bigger than the Explorer?

Wanted33

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 1, 2018
Messages
94
Reaction score
81
Location
Down south in Dixie
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT Convertible, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
and with respect right back at ya …..I'll be doing absolutely no rock climbing and want a comfortable ride in my IFS Bronco ….. seems like 90% of this forum is off road/rock climbers, and ***THATS FINE !!***, more power to you guys but I'll be very happy with a soft riding, hopefully a little wider 4 door Bronco I can put in 4 wheel drive and get to work or to WaWa and get me some "starter fluid"(coffee) before I start shoveling snow or down to NJ and cruising the sand with my beach buggy like 90% of the Ford Bronco buyers will be. I still think they'll be trim levels that are gonna make everybody happy. :beer:

I understand as I don't do any rock climbing either. I'm an easy trail runner at best, and one of those that will consider the Bronco/Bronco no matter what the front tires ride on. I'm quite sure at my level of off road ability the new Bronco will do everything I want in any type of driving.
 

Wanted33

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 1, 2018
Messages
94
Reaction score
81
Location
Down south in Dixie
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT Convertible, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
Speak for yourself, interior volume and towing capacity are 2 major reasons I don’t want a wrangler
I do speak for myself Jake. I thought that's what forums were for.
 

Jake_zx2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
480
Reaction score
692
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
Ground Clearance:
Explorer - 7.9"
Ranger - 8.9"
F-150 Raptor - 11.5"
JL Wrangler Sport - 9.7"
JL Wrangler Rubicon - 10.8"

If the JL Rubicon came with 35" tires (which would fit stock) it would probably be around 11.8" of ground clearance beating the Raptor.

With a 3.5" lift on a Ranger, Icon says you can fit a 33" tire which would give a Ranger about 10" of clearance.

I don't think the Bronco will be much of an Icon if it is only sold with IFS. It might be a good vehicle and sell in the numbers that Ford wants with IFS it just won't be what I am looking for.

Will you be satisfied with a one inch increase in ground clearance (ride height) over an Explorer?
No, I will not, and that's precisely the point... The people saying "if you want IFS, get an Explorer" are misguided. An explorer doesn't provide what we're looking for.

However, implying that an IFS somehow limits the bronco to the ride height of an Explorer, while simultaneously posting an IFS vehicle that has a higher ride height than a SFA vehicle? Well, that's misguided

I do speak for myself Jake. I thought that's what forums were for.
Forums are to have discussion with peers. Yelp is to complain about things with no interaction
 

Hautian

Member
First Name
Chad
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20
Reaction score
27
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Silverado 1500
No, I will not, and that's precisely the point... The people saying "if you want IFS, get an Explorer" are misguided. An explorer doesn't provide what we're looking for.

However, implying that an IFS somehow limits the bronco to the ride height of an Explorer, while simultaneously posting an IFS vehicle that has a higher ride height than a SFA vehicle? Well, that's misguided



Forums are to have discussion with peers. Yelp is to complain about things with no interaction
What does the explorer lack that you want?

Yeah stock for stock an IFS Raptor has more ground clearance but if you put Raptor sized tires on the JL with a SFA the JL wins with more clearance. And you wouldn’t even have to touch the suspension to do it.

Do you think the Bronco IFS will be totally different than the Ranger IFS? I’d guess the IFS will be similar if not the same. That’s fine if a 33” tire is what you hope to run.
 

Jake_zx2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
480
Reaction score
692
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
What does the explorer lack that you want?
Ground clearance, low weight, smaller footprint, removable top and doors, lower price tag, and good looks
 

phillyfx4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2016
Messages
199
Reaction score
254
Location
Phila., PA
The Jeep is saddled with a problem that the Bronco won't be: to keep aligned with heritage the jeep must have protruding fenders. This makes the interior volume small compared to the overall width. I have owned 3 Bronco II's with a 94" wheelbase and a '05 LJ (unlimited) Wrangler 103" wheelbase, more or less same overall width, the BII's had much more useable interior space compared to the LJ.
I had an 1988 Bronco II Sport with the 2.9L V6.....thanks for the wheelbase info(94"). I honestly can't recall but did they have an IFS or SFA ?
I REALLY liked it till the 2.9L blew its head gaskets, TWICE :headbang: …..ended up putting a Jasper reman in it, went to NH on a fishing trip, nasty storm blows thru the campground and a tree fell on the Bronco bending everything, FRAME, total loss . That was 2001 . I hope the new Bronco's have that type of room inside …… What do you think will be the wheelbase for the 4 door model ? thanks :beer:
 

dmtndan

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
253
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
1991 Silverado, 2014 Malibu
I had an 1988 Bronco II Sport with the 2.9L V6.....thanks for the wheelbase info(94"). I honestly can't recall but did they have an IFS or SFA ?
I REALLY liked it till the 2.9L blew its head gaskets, TWICE :headbang: …..ended up putting a Jasper reman in it, went to NH on a fishing trip, nasty storm blows thru the campground and a tree fell on the Bronco bending everything, FRAME, total loss . That was 2001 . I hope the new Bronco's have that type of room inside …… What do you think will be the wheelbase for the 4 door model ? thanks :beer:
earlier on this thread I think we all pretty much agreed wheel base For the 4 door would be around 118” as that matches up with the wrangler 4D, Defender 110, and the current Explorer.
 

dmtndan

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
253
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
1991 Silverado, 2014 Malibu
I read 112"....but I can't find the source
I recall this in my first statement on this thread, but couldn’t remember where I read it either...

6 inches could be enough for most people to concern over in this context, it could effect break over a lot, interior spacing, etc. depending on design
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
636
Reaction score
530
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
The Jeep is saddled with a problem that the Bronco won't be: to keep aligned with heritage the jeep must have protruding fenders. This makes the interior volume small compared to the overall width. I have owned 3 Bronco II's with a 94" wheelbase and a '05 LJ (unlimited) Wrangler 103" wheelbase, more or less same overall width, the BII's had much more useable interior space compared to the LJ.
It's not just heritage, It's the ability to go where no other rig made today will.
The body shape already kills any other vehicle that is going to come out by
giving you a fighting chance of not trashing the sheet metal on a new $50K rig.

Hope the new Bronco has large flexible flares in the wheelwells (don't have to stick out,
but need to be removable for larger tires or just sheet metal protection/elimination).
Hope is has bumpers that run well up into the 1/4's and fenders, preferably virtually eliminating
any permanent sheet metal, at least 12-18 inches from lowest point of body line, in front of front
and behind rear tires.


main.php?g2_view=core.jpg
 

BAUS67

Well-Known Member
First Name
redneck
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
465
Reaction score
526
Location
Central PA
Vehicle(s)
88 5.0 LX, 08 F-150 Stepside, 13 Explorer XLT, 97 Jeep Wrangler
Somewhere along the size of my 1st gen Explorer would be good. Tons of usable room. The 103" wheelbase is perfect on 35s.
1578955200447.png
STOP THE PRESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!


its an explorer and it has SFA !!!!! that cant be an off roader it has to have IFS :)


seriously ………….. nice job on the rig !! not to mention this pic says it ALL LOOK AT THE FLEX !!!!!!!! NEVER HAPPEN IN IFS !!!!!!
 

BAUS67

Well-Known Member
First Name
redneck
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
465
Reaction score
526
Location
Central PA
Vehicle(s)
88 5.0 LX, 08 F-150 Stepside, 13 Explorer XLT, 97 Jeep Wrangler
F1 cars do just fine with motors smaller than a bottle of coke.
in case ya'all didn't know this ..... in the late 80's early 90's F1 started with fly by wire, drive by wire, electronic throttle activation, whatever term you would like to use. What are all vehicles now ????? It all trickles down.

how does an F1 car run from 1000 RPM to 20,000 RPM flawlessly ?? with electronic lifters. yes that's right just like and electronic injector squirts fuel in milliseconds instead of through a jet size by vacuum the lifters are not pushed by a cam anymore. I believe I heard the announcers say the valve opens and closes at 300 times a second at 20,000 RPM. Its mind boggling how this stuff works. and guess what it will end up in our production vehicles before you know it.

what's gonna happen when the pullrod suspension comes into play everyone will be screaming to the high heavens that shock ain't up and down it's sideways. It can't work like that. LOL

sorry didn't want to be off topic but just wanted to make the point about how technology can get carried away and it is supposed to be for the better. It's just more expensive.

I can't wait till the first person comes in and needs a replacement tailgate for their '20 denali and I tell them it's 5 grand !!!
 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,561
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI
in case ya'all didn't know this ..... in the late 80's early 90's F1 started with fly by wire, drive by wire, electronic throttle activation, whatever term you would like to use. What are all vehicles now ????? It all trickles down.

how does an F1 car run from 1000 RPM to 20,000 RPM flawlessly ?? with electronic lifters. yes that's right just like and electronic injector squirts fuel in milliseconds instead of through a jet size by vacuum the lifters are not pushed by a cam anymore. I believe I heard the announcers say the valve opens and closes at 300 times a second at 20,000 RPM. Its mind boggling how this stuff works. and guess what it will end up in our production vehicles before you know it.

what's gonna happen when the pullrod suspension comes into play everyone will be screaming to the high heavens that shock ain't up and down it's sideways. It can't work like that. LOL

sorry didn't want to be off topic but just wanted to make the point about how technology can get carried away and it is supposed to be for the better. It's just more expensive.

I can't wait till the first person comes in and needs a replacement tailgate for their '20 denali and I tell them it's 5 grand !!!
Electronic lifters? What? They have nothing of the sort ... they have fixed cams (they don't even use VVT) and use compressed air instead of conventional springs to get to 20,000 RPM (although in the v6 turbo era they're actually limited to 15,000 RPM and tend to shift closer to 13,500 ... oh and guess what happens when there's a leak in the pneumatic spring circuit ... good bye engine). Sure they're technological marvels but let's not start making things up ...

Also they use pull-rod suspension purely for the aerodynamic advantages, and in fact I'm not even sure any teams are using pull-rods any more (only a handful of teams even used them in the first place) ...

Very little F1 technology has any real application to road vehicles and it's been that way for quite a long time.

One thing and one thing only has been the primary reason for road car engine innovation for at least the last 2.5 decades - government mandated emissions control.
 








Similar threads




Top