Ford posts official Bronco mule off-road testing video

[OX1]

Ox have you spent any time in a raptor in a real gnarly terrain situation? Well I have

I'm extremely eager to see some IFS rigs getting it on steeper rock crawling trails covered in moss, wet leaves, mud, greasy barkless trees, etc...
By all means please post up Raptors on these types of trails, as I can not find anything except dessert or sand trail riding.

Sponsored

 

[Skeets]

Ox the hardest door to open is the one with the guy with the closed mind standing in front of it. Engineers are taught to think outside the box not always within it's confines. The place where i hunt takes 1 1/2 hours to get there in a tried and true SFA jeep. No complaints it works. Well we can do the same trip in any kind of weather in 30 minutes in a IFS SxS and it's not pushing it and it's a hell of a lot more comfortable.. Thank god the engineers at Ford have progressed into the new era because what they're going to give you will open your eyes. Jeep has marketed that design because they know if they don't they'll lose their market. They've indoctrinated folks to think it's the best and only way yet they sell vehicles that compete with that theory.

Why do you think they reengineered the Wrangler? BETTER RIDE!!!! MORE COMFORT!!!! Competitions coming!!! Even Toyota with the vaulted Tacoma is hard at work and that's a solid bullet proof rig...... Innovation is good and while you're crying about seeing the Raptor fail................ you need to open your eyes to see what it started.!New suspension and vastly improved shock technology that's better now than with the original. Hell Chevy was smart enough to seize on it with their ZR2 and that little truck will go most anywhere. The broncos some want can be had very easily today in junkyards all across the country and you can build one for thousands less than the new one will be. BUT it's going to ride like the old one just like an old jeep wrangler does in spite of the improvements to make it ride better. Technology changes and you need to open your eyes a bit. If they bring the new Bronco to market with a solid axle I don't care because I know they will have figured out a way to make it work and ride better. But when they bring it with an IFS get in one and go for a ride and open your eyes because they know what all the other guys know comfort sells, better performance comes in many forms and ride is certainly one of them along with getting to your destination without needing to rest. I'll get off my soapbox after I tell you a few more things an IFS vehicle will have gone to the top of the hill you're climbing and will be on to the next one while you're still chugging to the top to avoid being shaken to death of the one he's already been to. Go to Kawasaki's website and take a look at their new SXS and see what they put in it for suspension and see how it rides, Do the same for Honda Talon and search both on you tube. The new Bronco will most likely have some of the same forms of technology in it yet more advanced but you may have to open your eyes real wide to see them, but they'll most likely be there to improve the ride, comfort, and the ability to get it over most surfaces it will be driven on. Now take the training wheels off your bicycle and go for a real ride because there's a whole new world out there and that new Bronco will get you there and back........just like the old one, just nicer and the performance will put a smile on your face in spite of the new technology.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

...take a look at their new SXS... The new Bronco will most likely have some of the same forms of technology in it yet more advanced but you may have to open your eyes real wide to see them ...

Because it would have to be almost nine feet wide like the R prototype to accomplish it.

It's engineering, not magic. This vehicle isn't going to come from the factory with $50k worth of suspension parts. I for one certainly don't want to spend a fortune to add a few inches of lift either.

 

[Skeets]

Because it would have to be almost nine feet wide like the R prototype to accomplish it.

It's engineering, not magic. This vehicle isn't going to come from the factory with $50k worth of suspension parts. I for one certainly don't want to spend a fortune to add a few inches of lift either.

Oh yee of little faith..... It's obvious you don't have an engineering background or you wouldn't make such a remark. They told us we couldn't shoot guns at 1 mile and guess what it's happened and our elite troops have had them for decades, in fact a mile is easy. The same with other ordinances we use today.. isn't reality and progress a bitch. Your reading retention skills are as flawed as your logic and comprehension but then we know a bunch of guys like you stuck in a time warp unable to evolve..... That little Kawi KRS 1000 manages to do it and despite your feeble attempt to freeze progress it just went right by you......LOL All that wheel travel and ability and for less than $50K in suspension upgrades......get serious

 

[JimmyDean]

Oh yee of little faith..... It's obvious you don't have an engineering background or you wouldn't make such a remark. They told us we couldn't shoot guns at 1 mile and guess what it's happened and our elite troops have had them for decades. Your reading retention skills are as flawed as your logic and comprehension.....LOL

However, I DO have an engineering back ground. I am an engineer. I didn't just grab a degree out of a cracker jack box either. you CANNOT get the flex out of a streetable IFS that you can out of a streetable SFA. Simply put. the only ways to increase flex is to make the arms longer. And you have to either move mounting inboard, or make the wheelbase wider. Well, when trying to keep a small footprint the second is not an option. and you can only go to the center for the first option, so there are limits, but then, you have the differential and the engine in the way, so your spacing is at best 18" on a production. which would also end up with a weakened frame as well going that narrow.

The TTB was actually quite the setup., it had it's issues, it gave up a relatively constant camber throughout travel to increase the overall travel by inverting the mounting points.

 

[Skeets]

However, I DO have an engineering back ground. I am an engineer. I didn't just grab a degree out of a cracker jack box either. you CANNOT get the flex out of a streetable IFS that you can out of a streetable SFA. Simply put. the only ways to increase flex is to make the arms longer. And you have to either move mounting inboard, or make the wheelbase wider. Well, when trying to keep a small footprint the second is not an option. and you can only go to the center for the first option, so there are limits, but then, you have the differential and the engine in the way, so your spacing is at best 18" on a production. which would also end up with a weakened frame as well going that narrow.

The TTB was actually quite the setup., it had it's issues, it gave up a relatively constant camber throughout travel to increase the overall travel by inverting the mounting points.

 

[Skeets]

Yes it was but in order to get more flex out a SFA you have to lift up something to get more flex too which in effect raises your center of gravity and we both know what happens then don't we..........we also know the bean counters and liability guys are going to make some decisions in the process aren't they? What was almost jeeps waterloo? Oops....... The point I'm trying to make is no matter what system they make it will be better but I'm smart enough to know they'll most likely bring a IFA to market because of all the factors involved......and there's far more than just what the public wants when attorneys are salivating about big checks and caviar dreams from any auto manufacturer. If I'm wrong we still win because it will be better than the original!

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Yes it was but in order to get more flex out a SFA you have to lift up something to get more flex too which in effect raises your center of gravity and we both know what happens then don't we..........we also know the bean counters and liability guys are going to make some decisions in the process aren't they? What was almost jeeps waterloo? Oops....... The point I'm trying to make is no matter what system they make it will be better but I'm smart enough to know they'll most likely bring a IFA to market because of all the factors involved......and there's far more than just what the public wants when attorneys are salivating about big checks and caviar dreams from any auto manufacturer. If I'm wrong we still win because it will be better than the original!

Hence why there's no lawyers in heaven.

Ford probably saw the frivolous lawsuit brought by Malibu Barbie, Stacey's Mom and a bunch of other useless idiots who complained about Death Wobble (Since they only know Jeeps look cool and wouldn't be able to change their blinker fluid if their lives depended on it) and figured, "Fuck it, we'll just stick with a IFA, that way we won't have to deal with Saul Goodman"

They're gonna take what worked for the Raptor and apply it to the Bronco, simple enough.

 

[Skeets]

Hence why there's no lawyers in heaven.

Ford probably saw the frivolous lawsuit brought by Malibu Barbie, Stacey's Mom and a bunch of other useless idiots who complained about Death Wobble (Since they only know Jeeps look cool and wouldn't be able to change their blinker fluid if their lives depended on it) and figured, "Fuck it, we'll just stick with a IFA, that way we won't have to deal with Saul Goodman"

They're gonna take what worked for the Raptor and apply it to the Bronco, simple enough.

A man of few words, that really grasps the situation and my intent!! It really isn't about leaves and moss and shiny wet rocks afterall. It's about practicality and bringing something appealing to market that performs in most situations.........that was always Fords #1 idea and the Raptor took the game to the next level and hopefully so will the Bronco. The hazards the vehicle has to avoid aren't only in the terrain where it functions they're in the big arena where you minimize the liability Ford could potentially have to deal with and in that arena safety is job #1.

 

[Nanook]

Oh yee of little faith..... It's obvious you don't have an engineering background or you wouldn't make such a remark. They told us we couldn't shoot guns at 1 mile and guess what it's happened and our elite troops have had them for decades, in fact a mile is easy. The same with other ordinances we use today.. isn't reality and progress a bitch. Your reading retention skills are as flawed as your logic and comprehension but then we know a bunch of guys like you stuck in a time warp unable to evolve..... That little Kawi KRS 1000 manages to do it and despite your feeble attempt to freeze progress it just went right by you......LOL All that wheel travel and ability and for less than $50K in suspension upgrades......get serious

Stop with the UTV comparisons, they do not have a motor sticking between the front frame rails!!!!!!!!

 

[THEMANatwar]

I know there are more like me but I'm not too worried with what suspension it has honestly. Maybe they'll go back to the I-Beam design

 

[Skeets]

Stop with the UTV comparisons, they do not have a motor sticking between the front frame rails!!!!!!!!

Open your eyes the frame is narrower and that enables them to do some things. The motors are lighter and getting smaller is also a plus. The comparisons are so that you realize new things are coming this ain't your grand daddy's bronco...........because frankly the sales it ended with would be about the same......open your peepers.

 

[OX1]

However, I DO have an engineering back ground. I am an engineer. I didn't just grab a degree out of a cracker jack box either. you CANNOT get the flex out of a streetable IFS that you can out of a streetable SFA. Simply put. the only ways to increase flex is to make the arms longer. And you have to either move mounting inboard, or make the wheelbase wider. Well, when trying to keep a small footprint the second is not an option. and you can only go to the center for the first option, so there are limits, but then, you have the differential and the engine in the way, so your spacing is at best 18" on a production. which would also end up with a weakened frame as well going that narrow.

The TTB was actually quite the setup., it had it's issues, it gave up a relatively constant camber throughout travel to increase the overall travel by inverting the mounting points.

Not much point wasting time with the spewing talk of "engineering", since he's not able to grasp
some of the most obvious constraints. Bronco might be an above average IFS, but the trails near me
(not including the NJ pine barrens mud, which are still ruled by old Samis and light Toys) are still
going to be owned by solid axle jeeps.

Even though the Rubicons are not that great out of the box, as mentioned, are pretty easy to get 37-40's
under and at that point, are more tight, hard core trail friendly than anything else made (even if they need
full axle upgrade, it's not that much to buy and pay someone to weld on a link kit on one tons).

Thank god only 5 more months.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

For a few minutes I thought Skeets might have been someone with a horse in the race because of the one track mind on IFS in thread after thread, going on like a preacher in a brothel blind to the lack of traction he was getting with his audience, but after the posts this morning it seems far more like juvenile trolling.

 

[Uncle Gump]

I thought there was a dedicated thread to have this debate?

Sponsored