Serious question. What constitutes as some innovation?
Sponsored
Sponsored
Couple examples here:
https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/innovative-ifs.862/
I realize that mass production and crash testing constrain what is possible, but surely the standard Ranger suspension isn’t the end all for an off road oriented street legal vehicle.
Eh, in order to do those you need to raise the vehicle significantly because you need a sub frame down the centerline. I mean, if you want innovative, lets just go back to the TTB? best of most worlds?
Did you watch the second one? They said multiple times that it was setup for stock ride height.
Now that the wow factor has worn off a little for me with Ford showing a factory built bronco pre-runner...which is what I wanted but f150 chassis
My fear is looking to be more true, this is FJ Cruiser all over again, the cool bubble of having a new bronco will burst in 2 years without a SFA option or a V8 option.
My fear is looking to be more true, this is FJ Cruiser all over again, the cool bubble of having a new bronco will burst in 2 years without a SFA option or a V8 option.
Sponsored
Yeah but look at the graphics on that thing.
Apparently you missed the fact that I had already commented on that second video in that thread when it was posted.
but no. To sit at ride height with that setup you have to have the suspension at a true neutral position, which means you are losing inches of ground clearance for the entire width of the vehicle. This is because...…..you have a center subframe below the main frame. It is a solid idea for a lifted vehicle, but to achieve a factory ride height, it is not.
Also, it isn't exactly innovative. Ford worked on this same design over 30 years ago, and they had run a very similar concept in the TTB 40 years ago. (over 30 years ago they looked at moving the TTB from a single to a double A-arm setup, determined it wasn't feasible for a production truck for reasons...see above).
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2019
- Threads
- 18
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 2,845
- Location
- Plymouth Michigan
- Website
- www.brokeninnovation.com
- Vehicle(s)
- 2021 Bronco Badlands non-sas 4 door manual
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
Seriously guys, with the FJ... You cant even put 33"s on that stock without issues, and it never had any sort of impressive equipment/dimensions/maneuverability/articulation. The FJ did well considering what a joke it was compared to the Wrangler in stock performance. The Bronco would be FAR more successful on the name, style and unique features alone, but it is not JUST that. The Bronco is a whole different animal.
- First Name
- Tyler
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 375
- Reaction score
- 748
- Location
- Central Michigan
- Vehicle(s)
- 2001 f150, 2016 explorer, 97 f150
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
I already stated before, 99% certain this is the 2019 australian ranger raptor chassis. *edit* But with the 5 link rear they are going to be using.*edit* The overhang of that frame does not match the departure angle we gather from the bronco under the sheet. the IFS was danced around quite a bit. but like I said, although its not a deal breaker for me. I don't think they will be a DIRECT wrangler competitor like they are saying. I understand packaging constraints can make a SFA that rides decent, performs off road, and isnt 10 inches higher than IFS is not easy. BUT it can be done. it comes down more to being cost effective. if they eat into the profit margin 1% with R&D, will it justify a 2% increase in sales? Majority market doesn't care about that stuff. But the 10-15% of buyers who actually use these rigs in off road settings regularly, will be looking at it.
Last edited:
I don’t see how the sub frame in this is any different than the sub frame in any other modern Ford IFS. The lower a arms in new trucks sit pretty much level too. Even at a neutral stance it has more up travel than a standard IFS.
Sponsored
Yes seriously, mid size off-road friendly with retro styling. Nobody will say a 4Runner can’t be driven off-road but is it a wrangler competitor?... And I’ve said all along stock vs stock the bronco will compete against the wrangler and may even win some magazine compares based on the more friendly “on-road” manners of the bronco just as the FJ , the H3, and the Xterra when they were both hyped and compared directly to the Wrangler.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2019
- Threads
- 18
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 2,845
- Location
- Plymouth Michigan
- Website
- www.brokeninnovation.com
- Vehicle(s)
- 2021 Bronco Badlands non-sas 4 door manual
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
Though some may argue the FJ and 4Runner are not failures, i'll entertain that they were failures. At least at competing with the Wrangler head to head. Why? I just laid out why quite simply. The actual capability was lacking. You guys may expect the stock capability of the Bronco to be at the same level as the FJ, if it were, you would be right. But I am telling you it wont be the same! It is a cut above. Add to that the plethora of other features the Bronco will have that the yoda's didn't and you get a head to head competitor with the Wrangler. This is all aside from even wheel travel, which the Bronco will undoubtedly have more of than the yoda's
So no, not seriously, not an FJ...
It's not the end all be all. However it's pretty efficient for the host of requirements it has to meet. Biggest issue I see with these setups are:
- Packaging height
- Unsprung weight and overall mass.
Dear god do both of those setups take up real estate in the vertical direction. Roll centers would be crazy high, and you would have to have a completely unique frame, and powertrain layout, something more akin to a HMMWV to get everything low and where you need it to be.
On thing that simply doesn't make these setups viable is the unsprung mass. Both are TTB descendants, and for the axle on engine one you run those setups through OE testing regiments now adays and there would be negative results in comparison to what is being currently offered. Specifically in the dynamic handling portions. It's a lot of mass, and its a lot of asymmetrical mass. Which means you need mass and cost in springs/dampeners to control it.
In regards to the wide IFS, you need packaging room for powertrains, and the minimum space each on needs for movement/engine roll. There is also a lot of functional aspects to wide frame rails, for some torsional and crash load scenarios wide frame rails are ideal (Small Overlap) which is why you see tusks and splayed rails being added on body on frame vehicles.
I’m still not seeing how the second one leads to a higher ride yet. It only looks that way when the arm is at full droop. No mention of changing the frame rails or engine packaging either.
And the first one has absolutely no relation to TTB. The arms don’t cross. No radius arms. No floating diff. None or very little camber change throughout the suspension cycle. Other than the extra weight of the wider arms and axles I don’t see a significant difference in unsprung weight either.
- Banned
- #285
The current Ranger Raptor is a Watt's link rear, not 5 link. This isn't the current ranger raptor. It's possible this is the next gen ranger raptor chassis, but I'm still inclined to believe it's a 4 door Bronco underneath.
Sponsored
Similar threads
