I feel like this is a lot of us right now

Nickp

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
1,937
Reaction score
6,042
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER 4 DOOR MT
D2B3B6C0-CCA3-4CA5-9CFB-DEB769BFE043.jpeg



Advertisement


 

Midnight Blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
236
Reaction score
243
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
‘15 Accord
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.
 

JimmyDean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
1,525
Reaction score
3,328
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
82 Bronco, 513 ci; 71 mach 1, 351C; 06 F-250, 6.0; 56 800, 172c.i. gas
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.
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.
 

Stampede.Offroad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
2,506
Location
SD
Vehicle(s)
junk
...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.

The Explorer, (next gen)Ranger and Aviator will all share the same architecture with the new Bronco.
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.
 

Jalisurr

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
702
Reaction score
1,474
Location
Vancouver,BC
Vehicle(s)
'97 Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution, '09 Corvette Z06, '08 ZX-6R
Vehicle Showcase
2
I remember when the mustang was finally getting IRS there were similar arguments on the stang forums too.
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.

Admittedly, I'm sure the people who ONLY want their mustang to drag race and nothing else were rightfully disappointed and will have to stick with their old solid axle mustangs. For the people whose only metric they care about is slow speed rock crawling, they will probably find that the Bronco doesn't quite match up to a wrangler, though that remains to be seen.

For me, SFA would have been a dealbreaker because I like speed so I'm very happy. Apologies to the SFA purists.
 
OP
Nickp

Nickp

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
1,937
Reaction score
6,042
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER 4 DOOR MT
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #9
I just think that people are seriously overestimating how much rock crawling ability the Bronco needs. The amount of people who “rock crawl” their brand new $45,000 rig is minuscule. If it can take on some hard, but not insanely difficult trails I’m sure it is gonna do well.
 

Stampede.Offroad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
2,506
Location
SD
Vehicle(s)
junk
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.

How do you keep your own opinion straight in your head from one day to the next?

Just a couple comments from you on the JL Wrangler forum over the last few days ...

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,

My money is on IFS with sway bar disconnect on top off road package.
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.
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.
 
OP
Nickp

Nickp

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
1,937
Reaction score
6,042
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER 4 DOOR MT
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #11
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.
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.
 

PAPA old school

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
74
Reaction score
38
Location
Mississippi
Vehicle(s)
1974 bronco. 2018 chevy z71
In my opinion, what your seeing in a Baha version is no way what will be offered in the retail market, And I think that is definitely not a 4 banger in that video. it's really not a comparison to the gen 1 models . body style is ok! but going to take some getting used to.
 

TeocaliMG

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
933
Location
Dearborn Michigarn
Vehicle(s)
1987 f-250 6.9 idi diesel, 2004 jeep liberty sport
Stampede I thought the memes were funny and I certainly mean no ill will toward you or your opinion. I would love to see you make a funny meme as well honestly! We can have fun here. Guys like you and OX1 and NM Bronco have been staunch fans of SFA from the start and I am glad you can back it up with experience and knowledge. I was not intimately involved with the Bronco development but I was lets say 99% sure what we were getting based off of what I did work on. I am however 100% sure I want to keep my job and not spill the beans on Fords competitive information. With the reveal of this "R" I am a bit more comfortable to speak on the subject, but still I would rather address this in theory.

The SFA "purism" you guys have does not bother me nearly as much as IFS passivism. Unfortunately a lot of the "support" for IFS from people here is that they don't really care or that it doesn't matter for their needs or the needs of most buyers, so I understand your frustration. (I also think that the Bronco will be more successful than the FJ by an order of magnitude for a number of reasons even if they half assed the IFS, but that's beside the point).

I am 100% on your side when it comes to the idea of building the best OFFROAD performing rig that still legal and safe to drive on the road. I have absolutely zero interest in the "nice road manners" of IFS. I want the performance it gets me. The other obvious supporter of this I see is Jalisurr. Like you guys we want a jack of all trades, but where you want the bias towards rocks, we want speed over rugged terrain. We can debate till the cows come home which is "cooler", or more necessary, or whatever but I just wanted to make it clear that I am not simply indifferent on this, my support of IFS is grounded in offroad performance. And my hope is to show you guys that Ford is of the same mind, at least with the "R". There is nothing indifferent/passive/civilian/boring about that chassis.

Also I hope none of you guys really count this out until you see it perform. Jeep does a lot of great things, but they have also left a lot on the table and the Bronco is going to show it. Lets not forget they are trying to run the Baja 1000 with 4x4 IFS! That is objectively bad ass, and if the suspension and driveline can make it through that there should no longer be any doubt that IFS can be brutally tough. (now I hope I didn't jinx them)
 

Carolina Jim

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
889
Reaction score
1,474
Location
Highlands
Vehicle(s)
Renegade
it doesn't matter for their needs or the needs of most buyers
I hope EVERYONE gets their dream vehicle matched to what they most enjoy doing.

But just to remind Ford there are quite a few non-desert racers...and non-rock climbers. Other capabilities do matter. I'm at 4,000 foot elevation with a pretty decent annual snowfall...spending off-road time on tight National Forest logging trails that require a nimble vehicle...needing at least 9"-10" ground clearance. So...a handful of different vehicles meet that need. I'm hoping 2-door Bronco is VERY comparable to Wrangler size, and provides some panache and individuality from the ubiquitous Jeeps.
 



 








Top