at this point I'll take a TTB. simply put, ime, IFS axles cannot stand up to the pain I put them through. But then again I've busted more 9" units than I can count as well.I’m not sure that today confirms the SFA is out of the mix. The R is decidedly a desert runner. I like it a lot, but I can easily imagine Ford finding it profitable and good to offer a rock crawler trim as well.
At the same time, I don’t hear guys like TMG or ChrispyKC saying anything about SFA as even a remote possibility.
One of the first posts ChispyKC made when he came here was claiming the Explorer and Ranger were being built on the same platform. I wouldn't exactly rank that as having a deep understanding of the inner workings of upcoming models....At the same time, I don’t hear guys like TMG or ChrispyKC saying anything about SFA as even a remote possibility.
There might be a few people from inside Ford or with some connections in our community, but none of them have established any kind of rock solid reputation as well informed on the inner workings or final details of Bronco.The Explorer, (next gen)Ranger and Aviator will all share the same architecture with the new Bronco.
That might be a pretty good analogy actually. Solid rear axle on the mustang is better for drag racing. Solid front axle is better for rock crawling. Because they are the way it's always been done, there is much more support for that method and it's seen as the way things should be. However, by changing to IRS or IFS respectively, they gain not only better road manners, but also a larger breadth of ability. The IRS mustang is FAR superior on a racetrack with corners and still can drag race, the IFS Bronco will be superior in offroad situations other than trying to crawl up the biggest rocks you can find at 3mph, but I'm sure it will still do it if not quite as well. That's in addition to the general livability improvements.I remember when the mustang was finally getting IRS there were similar arguments on the stang forums too.
It's interesting how quickly you can change your opinion just to "be right" or on the cool kids/winning side. That must take a lot of cognitive dissonance.
People may not utilize the capability of the solid front axle but here’s what IMO will force Ford to do it: Ease of adding a lift kit. Lifting anything IFS is a whole different ballgame over a solid front, and it limits the effective tire size you can have. Only 1% of Jeep owners actually put a 37” tire on their Jeep but those are the jeeps that sell the image, and sell the mopar 2” lift kit as well. Ford realizes this and if they keep it IFS it will pretty much be limited to 35’s.
if anyone doubts this, here is a picture of Bill Ford’s personal bronco. He gets it,
Well that is based on absolutely no factual information so probably not a good bet. The only rumor we know is that Ford has tested both and made a decision but we do not know what that decision is.My money is on IFS with sway bar disconnect on top off road package.
From what I have read and rumors they basically gave the Bronco team a blank check so development cost is no issue. While the Bronco and Ranger will be made at the same plant, they are not sharing assembly lines and the Bronco is basically not going to share anything with the Ranger except powertrain and frame, and it will be with the next gen Ranger at that. Just because it shares a platform does not mean in any way it needs to share suspension components.... Ford literally has a vehicle that does this the Troller which is based off the Ranger platform but has a stick axle. Like I said I may be entirely incorrect but Ford has not spent 5 years and millions of dollars on one of their most iconic nameplate. They’re not going to cheap out on one of the most important dynamics of the vehicle to stick a basic ranger IFS setup or even a ranger raptor setup.
I mean yeah... it’s pretty clear that a $60k soft-roader and a Wrangler-fighter Bronco have a pretty different audience with different off-road capability expectations.
A vehicle with a <100” wheelbase is never going to be marketed as a high speed off-road vehicle. I just think there’s a sliding scale on one end you’ve got the 4Runner TRD pro, the other you’ve got the Wrangler Rubicon. I think the Bronco will definitely be better than the 4Runner but may either equal or fall short of the Rubicon. The top trim Bronco will definitely be a better off-roader than a Sport Wrangler, but where it falls in or above the wrangler lineup is completely unknown.
Well I was incorrect, and they addressed every single one of my concerns with this. Limited to 35’s? This has 37’s. Wheelbase too short for high speed under my previous impression of what’s needed? They’re running the Baja. And they obviously didn’t cheap out on the front suspension with a ranger set-up, this is Bronco-specific. So I had my concerns about an IFS but this removed those concerns.It's interesting how quickly you can change your opinion just to "be right" or on the cool kids/winning side. That must take a lot of cognitive dissonance.
I hope EVERYONE gets their dream vehicle matched to what they most enjoy doing.it doesn't matter for their needs or the needs of most buyers
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|FoMoCo... (with the recent leek, I'm feeling...)||General Bronco Topics||6|
|Are you going to custom-order your Bronco or pick one off the lot?||General Bronco Topics||114|
|How I feel not knowing||General Auto & Other Vehicles Talk||11|
|Ford Retractable Cloth Roof Patent possibly for Bronco||General Bronco Topics||9|
|Test drove a new Ranger today at the Charlotte Auto Show||General Bronco Topics||3|