I feel like this is a lot of us right now

[Carolina Jim]

That’s funny but the original was built for 12 model years

True...but the world is spinning 4X faster today than it was mid 20th Century

Sponsored

 

[Nickp]

True...but the world is spinning 4X faster today than it was mid 20th Century

 

[HoosierDaddy]

That’s funny but the original was built for 12 model years.

LOL, second post today where I screwed up the math!

 

[Maxxed Out]

Can't wait to see them!
Can't wait to see them!

 

[TeocaliMG]

For those interested (actually impressive):

 

[Cybrrstarr]

I’m really disappointed after waiting 2.5 years for this new Bronco to unveil. I’m a pretty hard core off weekend warrior fanatic where a “solid font axle” really shines in all occasions for my needs.

to give you guys examples of my rigs I drive a first generation tacoma extra cab with a solid front 1979 ford dana44 for my everyday driver. It’s handled trails like “Fordyce and going up Ol’ sluice in the rubicon”. It’s even my daily driver.

Being a Toyota fanatic I was hoping for some other company to build an off road rig capable of handling the trails like I mentioned other than a Jeep. So I waited and hoped for the new Bronco to have the same capabilities. But I guess I’m wrong. We just got another company that tried to rebuild an icon in which TOYOTA tried and failed, the FJ Cruiser.

 

[TeocaliMG]

I’m really disappointed after waiting 2.5 years for this new Bronco to unveil. I’m a pretty hard core off weekend warrior fanatic where a “solid font axle” really shines in all occasions for my needs.

to give you guys examples of my rigs I drive a first generation tacoma extra cab with a solid front 1979 ford dana44 for my everyday driver. It’s handled trails like “Fordyce and going up Ol’ sluice in the rubicon”. It’s even my daily driver.

Being a Toyota fanatic I was hoping for some other company to build an off road rig capable of handling the trails like I mentioned other than a Jeep. So I waited and hoped for the new Bronco to have the same capabilities. But I guess I’m wrong. We just got another company that tried to rebuild an icon in which TOYOTA tried and failed, the FJ Cruiser.

See previous remarks as to why the FJ failed, not because it didn't update so much as it never launched with anything but novel style, the Bronco is not an FJ.

 

[Cybrrstarr]

See previous remarks as to why the FJ failed, not because it didn't update so much as it never launched with anything but novel style, the Bronco is not an FJ.

Yes they were at 1 time back in the 70’s.

And again in the same generation trying to be reborn now. IFS is still IFS. No articulation at all.

why don’t you see any ifs vehicle on the harder trails? Because plain and simple. They can’t do them.

 

[rkj__]

I just looked up some sales figures for a couple recently unveiled vehicles like the Gladiator and Blazer.

For example, the 2019 Blazer. 2019 is almost over, and within 100km of me, there are only a few ( <10 ) vehicles for sale that are not high trim level $50k + (CAD) vehicles.

So, realistically, the chances of being able to buy an affordable Bronco before 2021/2022 in Canada seem low, since most units will go to US dealers first. That's a long way away.

 

[Sherminiator]

Yet Jeep just keeps selling them. They’ve sold so many that they’ve caught Ford’s attention.

What it boils down to is Ford see a section of the market that is only being served by one brand and plans on attacking Jeep with the Bronco and Baby Bronco in the next 14 months.

At the same time that segment of the market is PROFITABLE, so they are going to spend the resources on it. The CUV market is profitable-but I see it starting to have the same issues as the passenger car market-lots of players and some players are going to start cutting pricing to gain market share (See the Telluride and Palisades vs the Explorer for example) thus driving down profit margins like what happened with sedans. Ford tried to offset this by having higher end trim level cars-but people were only buying on price...

 

[TeocaliMG]

Yes they were at 1 time back in the 70’s.

And again in the same generation trying to be reborn now. IFS is still IFS. No articulation at all.

why don’t you see any ifs vehicle on the harder trails? Because plain and simple. They can’t do them.

I suggest we make a new thread for continued IFS vs SFA talk (I enjoy it, but I know many others do not). But to be short here, IFS can do rocks, strength being a given whether its IFS or SFA the next thing you need is clearance for big tires. Something that no stock IFS rig has other than maybe an H1 (which is a friggen beast). The Bronco will have this, the FJ never did. What you need next is wheel travel (you can argue you don't if you have lockers, see H1 again), that is after all what articulation is... Basically every IFS stock rig right now has less than 10 inches of wheel travel (look what the Zr2 can do with just 8"!), with the exception of the Raptor and it shows. The Bronco will reflect this as well. I would love to discuss in more detail but everyone reading these is getting tired of it.

 

[BroncoBuyer]

But to be short here, IFS can do rocks, strength being a given whether its IFS or SFA the next thing you need is clearance for big tires. Something that no stock IFS rig has other than maybe an H1 (which is a friggen beast). The Bronco will have this, the FJ never did. What you need next is wheel travel (you can argue you don't if you have lockers, see H1 again), that is after all what articulation is... Basically every IFS stock rig right now has less than 10 inches of wheel travel (look what the Zr2 can do with just 8"!), with the exception of the Raptor and it shows. The Bronco will reflect this as well. I would love to discuss in more detail but everyone reading these is getting tired of it.

That wasn’t short. See below for what “to be short” looks like...

But to be short here, IFS can do rocks.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

...But to be short here, IFS can do rocks.... Something that no stock IFS rig has other than maybe an H1.... The Bronco will have this, ... Basically every IFS stock rig right now has less than 10 inches of wheel travel..., with the exception of the Raptor and it shows. The Bronco will reflect this as well. ....

Your exception examples are all around 86" wide, reflecting the reality of how an IFS system gets it's travel and articulation. Modern crash safety and engine expectations push the front frame rails horns farther apart, leaving no choice but be either ridiculously wide or mechanically complex in order to achieve travel and articulation with IFS.

If the Bronco has to be a foot wider than the Wrangler in order to compete with it, then it doesn't compete. The Wrangler goes out of it's way to stay narrow in order to excell. Bronco will be catering to an even more niche segment than the Jeep does.

Unless it's goin to be some rear engine unicorn like the race rigs or UTVs people like to cite as examples, but I think we all know that isn't happening.

I don't think you have to worry about derailing a troll thread either.

 

[TeocaliMG]

Your exception examples are all around 86" wide, reflecting the reality of how an IFS system gets it's travel and articulation. Modern crash safety and engine expectations push the front frame rails horns farther apart, leaving no choice but be either ridiculously wide or mechanically complex in order to achieve travel and articulation with IFS.

If the Bronco has to be a foot wider than the Wrangler in order to compete with it, then it doesn't compete. The Wrangler goes out of it's way to stay narrow in order to excell. Bronco will be catering to an even more niche segment than the Jeep does.

Unless it's goin to be some rear engine unicorn like the race rigs or UTVs people like to cite as examples, but I think we all know that isn't happening.

I don't think you have to worry about derailing a troll thread either.

You're not wrong that the examples I cited are fairly wide, both are full size rigs. The H1 hilariously the wider of the two has shorter control arms and a wider cradle. Even if it didn't have springs made out of adamantium it would have poor wheel travel. As for the Raptor, they were going for desert runner from the start so it never had to be narrow.

I don't think for a second that the Bronco will be simultaneously narrower than the Wrangler while having wheel travel of the Raptor. Its just not possible, as you pointed out. I will say that the T6 cradle is narrower than the T3 so there is a certain advantage there, but the stock Bronco will not be stretched like the R or the Raptor. Because of this it will have less wheel travel than the Raptor, but it certainly can still get more than say a ZR2. There are A LOT of factors that determine wheel travel, and if Ford is willing to pay for better ball joints and driveline they can easily get something with wheel travel between the ZR2 and the Raptor with a track width as narrow as the ZR2 or narrower. It is worth noting that this is the FRONT as well, you still have a solid rear axle, which even on the Wrangler is more twisty than the front, so when you look at total articulation the difference between decent travel production IFS and Wrangler SFA is LESS than half the equation. At that point things like wheelbase start being more relevant for RTI score. And yet this is 3rd place on the priorities!

The reality is articulation plays 3rd fiddle to reliability and stock tire offering. You guys can scream all day about the awful reliability of IFS and then I bring up Ultra-4 and then someone cries fowl even though the linkages and axles on SFA Ultra-4 rigs are AT LEAST as beefed up as their IFS counterparts compared to decent IFS like the Raptor. This is so tiresome. Some of the most legendarily reliable vehicles ever made are IFS, nobody is buying this narrative anymore. That leaves stock tire offering. This is where Bronco could screw the pooch. Like I said the IFS go-to "failures" all "failed" because of this. (people seem to forget the JK even needed a lift for 35's but whatever it was easy). The Bronco is launching with a tire size the same as the Rubicon, a tire size that basically every other non full size IFS rig kicks the bucket at. Do you have any idea the DV that goes into a decision like that? There is a reason OEM's launch with conservative tire sizes and it aint just fuel economy. Its hard work and clearly the Bronco has done it!

I have already said this before but SFA has a cost basis advantage over IFS when it comes to rock crawling. This does not mean ALL OUT advantage, but costs are important. If you want a real argument, there it is. As for myself I'll gladly pay significantly more for an IFS system to be competitive with SFA on the rocks BECAUSE it will do literally everything else better. To me, that is a net cost basis advantage. If you do nothing but rock crawl, you have a different cost based optimization. Everyone here has one that's different and that's ok.

Resisting the advantages of IFS in the face of HUGE progress and development that has been made is as silly as the first guys who probably made fun of "solid axles" ever being separated from the chassis in the first place. Look at Tractors for example! Somewhere out there is a farmer who looks at a suspended solid axle on the front of a 4x4 tractor (yea they have those now) and thinks, what a weak unreliable POS, back in my day axles WERE the chassis, SMH, they don't build em like they used too!

Sorry if that seems mean. Can we just wait and see what the specs are? You guys can yell at me later if its a worthless POS, my punishment will be having to deal with owning one anyway

 

[JimmyDean]

You're not wrong that the examples I cited are fairly wide, both are full size rigs. The H1 hilariously the wider of the two has shorter control arms and a wider cradle. Even if it didn't have springs made out of adamantium it would have poor wheel travel. As for the Raptor, they were going for desert runner from the start so it never had to be narrow.

I don't think for a second that the Bronco will be simultaneously narrower than the Wrangler while having wheel travel of the Raptor. Its just not possible, as you pointed out. I will say that the T6 cradle is narrower than the T3 so there is a certain advantage there, but the stock Bronco will not be stretched like the R or the Raptor. Because of this it will have less wheel travel than the Raptor, but it certainly can still get more than say a ZR2. There are A LOT of factors that determine wheel travel, and if Ford is willing to pay for better ball joints and driveline they can easily get something with wheel travel between the ZR2 and the Raptor with a track width as narrow as the ZR2 or narrower. It is worth noting that this is the FRONT as well, you still have a solid rear axle, which even on the Wrangler is more twisty than the front, so when you look at total articulation the difference between decent travel production IFS and Wrangler SFA is LESS than half the equation. At that point things like wheelbase start being more relevant for RTI score. And yet this is 3rd place on the priorities!

The reality is articulation plays 3rd fiddle to reliability and stock tire offering. You guys can scream all day about the awful reliability of IFS and then I bring up Ultra-4 and then someone cries fowl even though the linkages and axles on SFA Ultra-4 rigs are AT LEAST as beefed up as their IFS counterparts compared to decent IFS like the Raptor. This is so tiresome. Some of the most legendarily reliable vehicles ever made are IFS, nobody is buying this narrative anymore. That leaves stock tire offering. This is where Bronco could screw the pooch. Like I said the IFS go-to "failures" all "failed" because of this. (people seem to forget the JK even needed a lift for 35's but whatever it was easy). The Bronco is launching with a tire size the same as the Rubicon, a tire size that basically every other non full size IFS rig kicks the bucket at. Do you have any idea the DV that goes into a decision like that? There is a reason OEM's launch with conservative tire sizes and it aint just fuel economy. Its hard work and clearly the Bronco has done it!

I have already said this before but SFA has a cost basis advantage over IFS when it comes to rock crawling. This does not mean ALL OUT advantage, but costs are important. If you want a real argument, there it is. As for myself I'll gladly pay significantly more for an IFS system to be competitive with SFA on the rocks BECAUSE it will do literally everything else better. To me, that is a net cost basis advantage. If you do nothing but rock crawl, you have a different cost based optimization. Everyone here has one that's different and that's ok.

Resisting the advantages of IFS in the face of HUGE progress and development that has been made is as silly as the first guys who probably made fun of "solid axles" ever being separated from the chassis in the first place. Look at Tractors for example! Somewhere out there is a farmer who looks at a suspended solid axle on the front of a 4x4 tractor (yea they have those now) and thinks, what a weak unreliable POS, back in my day axles WERE the chassis, SMH, they don't build em like they used too!

Hey don't be making fun of my 57 Ford tractor and the axle being bolted onto the engine.

Teo, I agree with a lot of what you say, and respect the knowledge you have about this program and certain experiences.

However, (there's always a however, or a but, or a butt), size for size (not pound for pound) the solid axle is physically stronger than the IFS, the simple reason is the lower number of joints, and the straight angles. Those two things are what weakens and axle. For certain uses, that extra strength is very important, more important than the plethora of benefits of IFS, namely, in Rock Crawling, Mudding, extreme towing, and fording in your Ford (Ha, Ha, Ha, I made a joke, and SFA isn't all that important for fording anyways). For these uses, the loss of camber when flexing is not nearly as important as being able to increase to the absolute maximum tire size. These are also generally not high speed activities so the unsprung mass increases if the SFA are generally acceptable.

You can bring up Ultra4, or Side by Sides all you wish, but those are completely different beasts in their setups. Ultra4 IFS suspensions have nearly zero in common with any production IFS, except the fact that they are IFS. Hell, their control arms are nearly as big around as the frame on an F-150 (ok, that may be a slight exaggeration, but you get the point). In 99% of use time/cases however, IFS is a better choice for a myriad of reasons. But for the same amount of beefiness (not even costs, just beefiness, same size joints, same thickness axles, same size bearings, etc), the SFA can hold either larger tires, or a more powerful engine, or both at the same time, than an IFS assembly.

Sponsored