Ford Creating Families Around Mustang, Bronco

[TeocaliMG]

To get a regular independent suspension vehicle to articulate like a solid axle can, you have to make it a foot wider (or hack the body off) -- the 'old' Ranger Raptor went from 73" to 85" wide. A Bronco that is already a foot wider in the body at 73" and equal track width flapping little A-arms is going to have a hard time competing with a Wrangler that has a 60" wide body and 74" outside track. If they have to push it out to 85" like the current Ranger Raptor, a lot of people are going to ask why the hell they didn't just make a full size Bronco if the F150 Raptor is only 1" wider.

All good points, I think we are getting off the rails a bit for this thread but i'll just add that we don't yet know how wide the bronco body will be (or the new ranger for that matter). At least I don't, and I worked on the current Ranger launch! That, along with the inner suspension hardpoints/hardware will determine how much travel they can get for a given track width. Lets not forget the rear is for sure a solid axle, so there is less overall compromise in articulation. I am not directly involved with the bronco program but my instinct tells me that it will not be an SFA and I can already hear the screams of horror.

Ultimately "competing with the wrangler" is about more than just improving on their platform with refreshed powertrain and styling. There is a whole array of vehicle attributes that need to be balanced for off-roading alone! I just hope people give it a shot, whether its SFA or IFS I can speak from experience that it will be heavily benchmarked and that particular team wont be satisfied with something uncompetitive.

Sponsored

 

[78CreamBrownie]

There is a whole array of vehicle attributes that need to be balanced for off-roading alone! I just hope people give it a shot, whether its SFA or IFS I can speak from experience that it will be heavily benchmarked and that particular team wont be satisfied with something uncompetitive.

As a 2018 JLU Rubicon owner I can say that Jeep and DANA nailed the compromise between on and off road. I commute ~60 miles a day and everyone who rides with me for the first time on this commute remarks how great the ride is. In fact just yesterday one of my coworkers who recently purchased an Acura RDX rode with me and said that he wish he would have rode with me before he purchased the RDX. He really wanted the Rubicon, but was afraid of the ride on the commute. After the trip he was convinced he made the wrong decision. He said he had seen to many reviews saying because of the solid axles is was terrible on road. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With that being said, if DANA and Ford can replicate what Jeep and Dana did with either SFA or IFS I will be a happy Bronco owner. If they cant get it right, the Bronco will be short lived in my garage.

 

[3crows]

How about just put a solid front axle under it and as far as AWD/Full time, I will pass. Just give me what the Rubicon has, real 4 WD, low range and high range and make the low range low enough I can crawl over a Prius or motorcycle hoodlum gangs and I will be good to go. AWD belongs in mini-vans. Give it factory lockers front and rear just like my Rubicon and room for large tires and wheels and make it easy to lift and install after market bumpers and accessories.

Y'all may all be in love with the Raptor but to me, outside of racing in the open desert, it is to big, to wide, to heavy, the front wheels stick out a mile, I see a ton of compromises on it just to make an inferior axle system work where a SFA would have been the better choice for a real off road truck. And it needs a tight turning radius, another thing a SFA vehicle is very good at.

 

[BroncoMike]

The AWD addition to the system is no compromise on the dual-range transfer case and is no detriment to the rest of the system if you don't engage it. It extends capability, rather than restricts it. It's a feature you don't have to use if you don't like it - like those pesky seatbelts, obnoxious air conditioner, and ridiculous 4-speaker fancy-pants radio.

You know, all that stuff that belongs in a minivan.

 

[3crows]

AWD, phooey and I agree on the speakers and built in obsolete electronics, I will keep the seatbelts/airbags and air conditioner. I guess I could live with selectable AWD but not full time AWD. I would really rather just have locking hubs and a shifter on the floor to engage 4WD. And rubber floor mats with drain scuppers.

In order to have AWD you have to have an inter-axle differential. So then it would need a locker function for 4WD. Just more money and weight.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

If you're throwing enough force into the diff often enough to need a HD setup without the AWD option, you were probably going to have to replace the axle anyway. Most of them will probably be 30-series Dana units, not 40's or 60's.

 

[Jalisurr]

In concept a transfer case with an AWD position is not an issue, but in my experience the transfer cases with AWD modes (NP242, NP203, etc.) are not as durable as their counterparts without the AWD mode (NP241, NP205, etc.) Certainly not a deal breaker provided a proper low range without any torque biasing were also part of the deal.

I personally have never really understood why people want AWD settings so badly. 2Hi and 4Hi have always been sufficient for my road going needs.

For one simple example from us up here in Canada - winter. When the roads are patchy (some dry pavement, some ice - depending on if it's been in the shade or not) you can't leave it in 4Hi for going around corners on the dry patches, but you don't have time to change out of 2WD when things start going sideways. Obviously it's entirely possible to use a 2WD vehicle in such conditions, but I don't think anyone will argue that AWD is preferable.

 

[Jalisurr]

You absolutely can leave it in 4Hi when hitting dry patches. It is not ideal compared to a system that can allow for speed differential between the axles, but it certainly is not a big deal either. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to notice it is in 4Hi except when making tight maneuvers on a dry, paved surface such as a parking lot. Regardless, most all transfer cases can shift between 2Hi and 4Hi on the fly, and it is really not much different than shifting your transmission.

You CAN leave it in 4Hi on the dry. You definitely shouldn't. See: all owner's manuals of simple transfer cases that say for use on loose, slippery surfaces only. It's bad for all the components involved.

And I don't know about you, but when the rear end starts losing traction because I've hit an icy patch, I don't want to have to think about shifting from 2Hi to 4Hi on the fly in that moment. I want the front wheel to already be receiving power to pull me straight.

 

[Jalisurr]

What exactly do you think is going to happen if you leave it in 4Hi? It is not going to hurt a damn thing. Do you think everyone driving the trails in Moab should be doing them in 2 wheel drive? Slick rock, despite its name, is like driving on 100 grit sand paper and has far more traction than asphalt. Driving in 4Hi constantly on dry pavement is dumb and will cause accelerated wear, primarily on the U-joints/CV joints and tires, but driving on intermittent dry patches on a snowy day, especially when not making hard turns is not going to hurt anything. I four wheel on rocks that generally have similar or better traction than asphalt. My transfer cases are holding up just fine. Nor have I ever had an issue running in 4Hi on the street when 2 wheel drive wasn't cutting it.

The statement in owners' manuals are intended more for idiots who would daily drive in 4Hi in non-inclement weather if they weren't otherwise explicitly told not to. Also it causes drivetrain bind in tight, low-speed maneuvers that scrubs the tires. If you are constantly doing this when 4WD is not warranted, you are just needlessly wearing out your tires and driveline joints. Running in 4Hi on snowy/icy roads is perfectly fine, even if there are dry patches.

There's a big difference between crawling over rocks at walking speed and driving along twisty mountain highways at high speeds. What exactly do I think will happen? Every time you go around a corner you are causing binding in the drivetrain, because the rear wheels want to take a shorter path than the front ones. That would require them to spin at a different speed, but they aren't able to because you have everything locked together. That causes wear in various drivetrain components. If your running gear is stout, then you will likely not have issues doing it for a while, but rest assured it's causing premature wear. It may only be tight corners where it binds enough for you notice the issue from behind the wheel, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[TeocaliMG]

What exactly do you think is going to happen if you leave it in 4Hi?

You are forcing it to break traction (which you absolutely don't want to do on the road, 4H/4L is borderline reckless on the hwy if any turns are involved).

Let me set the record straight here, there is no "special engineering sauce" with a basic transfer case! Why do trucks/off road suv's generally use it? Cost. That's it, it simply not that necessary to have a full time capable transferase when off-roading where you are generally continuously breaking traction. Now why would I want a center diff? or raptor style transfer case? so I can have maximum traction on the road, when needed, as Jalisurr pointed out. Now for obvious reasons you wouldn't use a Subaru center diff in a truck platform, its not heavy duty enough. It is foolish to assume a properly sized one couldn't be designed for the Bronco. That said it probably wont have anything that fancy for cost reasons (yes I say fancy because a lockable center diff is objectively better if available).

Now let me set something else straight, I am not on the Bronco program but I am a Ford Engineer who works on trucks and I can tell you the Bronco is 100% going for the Wrangler. I have seen the attribute charts and let me tell you, rock crawling is not the only thing Wrangler buyers want, you guys are wayyyy over represented here (and no, the rest of the chart wasn't mall crawling/cars&coffee). I already made an in depth post on IFS vs SLA so I wont get into that again other than to say if you don't think a properly designed IFS Bronco can beat a jeep in 9/10 of those OFFROAD attributes and still hang with it in that 1/10 (rock crawling) (especially STOCK) then you don't deserve one. That said I don't know with 100% certainty that it will be IFS and if I did know I wouldn't tell you (for obvious reasons). I have stated that it is likely to be IFS from an engineering perspective and have done my best to inform some of you of 2 important things: 1) IFS can indeed kick ass. 2) You have not seen the best production midsize IFS can offer. (The ZR2 is slick, but still only 8" of travel, if Bronco is indeed IFS it will easily beat that.)

 

[BroncoMike]

In order to have AWD you have to have an inter-axle differential. So then it would need a locker function for 4WD. Just more money and weight.

You don't understand how the system works.

 

[BroncoMike]

It all boils down to this: AWD is an incremental improvement over 4x4 in terms of capability and driveability on-road in dynamic traction environments. If it can live peacefully beside real 4x4 in the same box, where is the downside? Cost? Reliability? Are we seeing those objections in the Raptor?

Sure, stare blankly at the frozen keyhole as your remote unlocks the doors. Long for the days of lacing up your waterproof boots to break through the ice so you can lock in your hubs. Gaze forelornly at the blank space on your transmission hump where the shifter used to be as you press the dash button for 4x4. Silently seethe as the seat warmer and window/mirror defrosters make your life more tolerable.

I'm sure there are dozens of builders ready to make your dream 1961 International Scout restoration. And for the money of a new Raptor, probably give you a warranty with it. If you want 1961 technology, someone out there is burning to fulfill your dreams. If you want 1961 technology, a new Bronco isn't for you - a rare sample of official verbiage from Ford is "...Bronco boasts the latest in smart technology..."

I don't need over-the-top technology, but when proven, durable systems make our lives easier, I'm in.

 

[OX1]

YNow let me set something else straight, I am not on the Bronco program but I am a Ford Engineer who works on trucks and I can tell you the Bronco is 100% going for the Wrangler. I have seen the attribute charts and let me tell you, rock crawling is not the only thing Wrangler buyers want, you guys are wayyyy over represented here (and no, the rest of the chart wasn't mall crawling/cars&coffee).

Then why is it Wranglers, easily 100 to all other rigs combined, out on the hard core rocks?
If jeep could increase their sales with IFS, then why haven't they?
Why are there 100's of solid axle swap kits, but only one to go to IFS on a Wrangler?

Yes, I agree that Ford will 100% go IFS and probably initially outsell the Wrangler.
It's the solid axle AND the rest of the package that will keep Jeep way ahead of the bronco
in hard core wheeling, except high speed desert. (maybe!!)....

 

[Nickp]

Then why is it Wranglers, easily 100 to all other rigs combined, out on the hard core rocks?
If jeep could increase their sales with IFS, then why haven't they?
Why are there 100's of solid axle swap kits, but only one to go to IFS on a Wrangler?

Yes, I agree that Ford will 100% go IFS and probably initially outsell the Wrangler.
It's the solid axle AND the rest of the package that will keep Jeep way ahead of the bronco
in hard core wheeling, except high speed desert. (maybe!!)....

I think he’s more implying that the Bronco, if it does get IFS, is going to get an IFS the likes we’ve never seen on a production vehicle. This was one theory from a while back that maybe Ford would say fuck your solid axle, we’ll build something even better. Idk.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

I think he’s more implying that the Bronco, if it does get IFS, is going to get an IFS the likes we’ve never seen on a production vehicle. This was one theory from a while back that maybe Ford would say fuck your solid axle, we’ll build something even better. Idk.

Physically possible, and probably very technically interesting, but there are a lot of practical hurdles like cost and packaging influences.

Too late to change it now, whatever they decided was probably months ago. I think most of us would much rather move on to the part of the conversation where we know what the general plan is.

Sponsored