yes...owned many of them over the past 47 years of driving.Bold statement right there, have you seen Jeep/AMC products
Sponsored
yes...owned many of them over the past 47 years of driving.Bold statement right there, have you seen Jeep/AMC products
Or 37's and a 3" inch lift (my 40k wheels and tires )They look good w/ 38’s and a 6in lift….
Otherwise…
Or 37's and a 3" inch lift (my 40k wheels and tires )
Yep can't take them anywhere LOLYep, the made a jeep with tacoma problems off road. The longer wheelbase makes them ride a little better than the wrangler, but the long wheelbase and rear overhang makes them not great offroad unless you put a huge lift and big tires on them. Add to that they're not really any more practical than a tacoma/ranger/colorado/frontier and you get slow sales. fwiw, gladiator sales have been slow since the initial novelty wore off when they came out.
Same thing where I live. It doesn’t feel like an exaggeration to say that half the 4-door Wranglers I see around my neighborhood are 4xe. This seemed to happen overnight.Oh, that explains it.
Part of me is wondering why you'd put a plug-in hybrid in a pickup that is most popular with the overlanding/long-distance travel crowd. BUT... the one thing my local dealer cannot keep on the lot is 4xe products. Those Wrangler 4xe's sell like crazy locally. So... pretty sure I just don't understand the market.
Same.Before the Bronco was announced I was test driving gladiators. The diesel was amazing to drive. That extra weight just made it solid and the torque..omg!
But I couldn't get past the price tag (This was back in 2020).
I agree, a stock Gladiator is ugly. But the moment you put 35/37s they completely change.
Things can change between now and then, but right now my next vehicle after this Bronco will most likely be a Gladiator (or if not a Wrangler).
Flat towable, alternator where it should be, Steering that is stong.
However, the Diesel is out...they have had alot of issues with those, especially with overheating when towing which is ridiculous.
Is there something wrong with the Bronco alternator?Flat towable, alternator where it should be, Steering that is stong.
The alternator on the 2.3 is at the bottom of the engine, well below the safe fording depth of a regular Bronco, so I can't fathom why it would matter with the Everglades. Submerged is submerged rather being 4 inches or 6 inches.On the 2.7L the alternator is mounted very low on the engine. Impacts water fording in a big way. And to make matters worse, it is driven by a belt that doesn't have a tensioner on it, so field repairs become much more difficult.
The alternator is a lot higher on the engine on the 2.3L (which is why I suspect the Everglades is 2.3L only), but it's still lower than you'd ideally want it for an offroad vehicle.
It's the alternator's location, and on both the 2.3 and the 2.7, they are at the bottom of the engine.Is there something wrong with the Bronco alternator?
Since the alternator on the Everglades would be completed submerged while at the it's safe fording depth, I have a tendency to believe that it's just the same false information repeated over and over again. The manual transmission weighs less than the auto, I guess it's more prone to water damage, and that's the reason Ford doesn't offer it in the Everglades.Yes you are correct, hence why I said both the 2.3L and 2.7L alternators are not in the ideal spot for off-road vehicles. But it is still physically higher off the ground on the 2.3L than the 2.7L by several inches. They have it mounted slightly below the crankshaft on the 2.7L. Basically in-line with the lowest part of the engine.
For Everglades I can't say for certain obviously, haven't talked to the engineers. My two best guesses are either the alternator location or the added weight of the winch (or maybe both?). But admittedly speculation on my part either way.