And then some...but surely at least the 2.7 is available at launch?
Sponsored
And then some...but surely at least the 2.7 is available at launch?
I mean even my buddies who run TJ’s/YJ’s on 40’s with wheelbase stretches and one-tons get absolutely destroyed on some of those trails. I don’t think that’s what Ford was aiming for with this and for that matter neither is the JL.You have obviously never been to Table Mesa which is in your own backyard...
Looking at this realistically-why would Ford make the Bronco the same width as the current Escape (74.1", not sure if that includes mirrors or not) vs going for 77.9 inches as the current Ranger is-you don't have to "reinvent" the wheel with it comes to side impact standards etcMB - you ARE talented with this stuff. The best I could research, EBS were 68.5" wide. What do you think of Stampede's assertion that the new one is only 3.5" wider? (at the greenhouse)
It's possible the next-gen Ranger is going to be thinner, one of people's biggest complaints about it is that it's barely smaller than an F-150, but I really don't know enough about the fifth gen development to know if that's in the cards.Looking at this realistically-why would Ford make the Bronco the same width as the current Escape (74.1", not sure if that includes mirrors or not) vs going for 77.9 inches as the current Ranger is-you don't have to "reinvent" the wheel with it comes to side impact standards etc
The new Ranger is roughly the same size as the old Super Cab Ranger-it just looks bigger because it sits up higher then the old one does, but in overall length its roughly the same, considering the old Ranger didn't come in a quad cab configuration-at least in the USA for sale.It's possible the next-gen Ranger is going to be thinner, one of people's biggest complaints about it is that it's barely smaller than an F-150, but I really don't know enough about the fifth gen development to know if that's in the cards.
You're counting the mirrors.Looking at this realistically-why would Ford make the Bronco the same width as the current Escape (74.1", not sure if that includes mirrors or not) vs going for 77.9 inches as the current Ranger is-you don't have to "reinvent" the wheel with it comes to side impact standards etc
So why would they cut down on space even more by cutting another inch off what the Ranger has and make it 72 inches?You're counting the mirrors.
By Ford's own official numbers its 73.3" not counting the mirrors. By body width, yes, the Ranger is narrower than the Escape. So I expect the Bronco probably will be too.
"Small" cars aren't really that small.
The JK got a few updates. One big one was the Pentastar V6 and the HUGE update to the interior. Jeep also offered several special editions like the 25th Anniversary Edition which the JL's hood and bumpers are based off, MOAB edition which is rolling out to the JL now, and various trim combos. The FJ on the other hand never changed from day one really, just different paint colors and a TRD edition.While not the sole cause, I am firmly of the opinion that the lack of a solid front axle was certainly a contributing factor. As you pointed out though, the FJ Cruiser was lacking several components of the Wrangler and FJ40 formula. The lack of updates argument seems invalid to me considering that Wrangler generations traditionally span ~10 years. The JK was produced for 12 model years, and in that time, the interior was updated for the fifth model year, and the engine and automatic transmission were updated for the sixth. There were no other significant changes in that span.
It 100% saved the Wrangler. Wrangler sales were on a decline prior to the JKU. It was only after launching the Unlimited that it became a major profit center for Chrysler. Without it there is a good chance that the Wrangler would have been killed off like the FJ during the Daimler days.The 4 door didn't "save" the Wrangler, but it certainly broadened their appeal and lead to the runaway success it has been over the last decade.
For the average owner which I would say about 80% of them will never see more than a fire road heading to a trailhead, won't notice the difference between IFS or SFA except on the road. I have owned a Wrangler for the last 6 years and I can tell you the majority of the owners I meet never wheel them and are just average people that use them as fun cars the replace a convertible mustang. This is the group that when test driving a IFS Bronco and a SFA Wrangler back to back will like how the Bronco "drives better" and buy them over the Wrangler.I guess the new Bronco should basically offer the Wrangler formula minus the solid front, so we'll finally see whether or not the solid front axle is as important as us "fringe" enthusiasts make it out to be. My guess is the Bronco will be an initial success. The true test will be whether or not the sales start to peter out after five years like the FJ Cruiser and it gets axed.
I don’t know why a basic JK or JL on 35’s or 37’s would be able to do something that this can’t do. Sure a solid axle usually flexes better but we also don’t know what this setup will be capable of with sway bar disconnects. And like I said, not having the pumpkin hanging down in front can be a huge advantage.Why not? Plenty of full bodied Jeeps with factory drivetrains and production-based suspensions running the trails out there and similar trails throughout the west. If you frequent these types of trails, you would know that late model Jeeps are the only current production 4x4s you typically see out there.