In your mind, Bronco compares to what?

[Erock]

2 door

4door

Thought it was a thread for “what do you see”... not another argument about what is the best. These are what I see... fun as hell either way

Sponsored

 

[PSUTE]

The Ford Bronco II had more than five times more rollover fatalities in 1987 than the Suzuki Samurai. "There were 43 Bronco II rollover fatalities in 1987, compared with eight for the Samurai..."

Any Idea of the sales figures for these vehicles? I'd look it up, but not my post... Critical thinking is your friend up in here....

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

This probably isn't true, and it started with the Bronco II.

You're right, Ford did recommend a lower tire pressure for the Explorer, contrary to Firestone's recommended pressure. Ford recommended lowering pressure to increase ride comfort, and to reduce rollover risk. -https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-aug-24-mn-9479-story.html Ford recommended a tire pressure almost 15% lower than the tire manufacturer recommended.

The Ford Bronco II had more than five times more rollover fatalities in 1987 than the Suzuki Samurai. "There were 43 Bronco II rollover fatalities in 1987, compared with eight for the Samurai..."

"...one in 500 Bronco II's ever produced was involved in a fatal rollover."

"Stability problems with Bronco II were noted during the design phase, as well as in the verification tests by 1981." and "For example, the J-turn test was canceled during the testing procedures by Ford officials "out of fear of killing or injuring one of its own drivers." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Bronco_II

During Explorer stability testing, which Ford included a Bronco II and Chevy S10 as competing products, the Bronco II and Chevy S10 both passed the stability tests each run, whereas the Explorer demonstrated a rollover response in five out of twelve runs. Ford engineers had concerns about rollover stability and proposed four modifications to the vehicle prior to it coming out; however, the most impactful change(s) (widening the track) would have delayed production and were rejected. In addition, one of the constraints, one of the issues relative to stability, was the I-Beam suspension, which changed the center of gravity and track width as the suspension cycled. In subsequent years, Ford lengthened the vehicle and increased the track width and changed the suspension from I-Beam to SLA. Part of the issue appears to have been taking an SUV body and placing it on a truck chassis. Ford took an SUV body and placed it on a Ranger chassis and running gear.

"After the Explorer rolled over in company tests prior to production Ford decided to lower the suspension and remove air from the tires to 26 psi compared to 35 psi for the same tires on the Ranger." and "The Explorer was redesigned for the 2002 model year. The tire pressure was raised to 30 psi, it was widened by 2.5 inches, the suspension was lowered, and independent rear suspension and electronic stability control were added." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy

Ford produced a vehicle that didn't do well in stability/rollover testing when compared to similar vehicles (competitors vehicles), but had a production schedule that wouldn't allow for significant changes once those issues were realized. They brought that vehicle to market and have since paid hundreds of millions to settle claims that substantiate their own test results. After millions of dollars in claims, and tens/hundreds of deaths, they made the changes their own engineers suggested from the beginning, namely track width. Stability testing did not involve any tire separation, and was based on the vehicle, not the tires.

At least that's my educated opinion.

I don't know where you got your education from but I hope it was cheap.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the rear-drive Bronco II's rollover-related death rate between 1986 and 1990 was 3.78 fatalities per 10,000 vehicles, compared to 1.74 for the four-wheel-drive Bronco II, and 1.11 for the Suzuki Samurai.

Which is weird because the front suspension has the exact same geometry between 4wd and 2wd. Unlike the Ranger it is a bolt in conversion to go from one to the other. They even have a gutted t-case on the back of the trans for most of the production run. (why they went thru the effort of designing such a stupid thing I will never know...)

2wd Bronco II's did have the highly coveted in Ranger based vehicle circles 1" rear sway bar. They fit any Ranger 83-11 but are very rare since the 2wd version was never popular to start with.

Now for the Explorer. It is much longer than a Bronco II, even the 2dr version. Lower slung too. Frame aft of the transmission crossmember flares out several inches wider. Spring to spring width for the rear suspension is the same between an Explorer and a Ranger. The frame is above the rear springs in an Explorer and inside the springs in a Ranger, that is the difference in width. Also the axle sits above the springs in an Explorer and below in a Ranger, 4wd Rangers have a 1.5" lift block making the axle that much farther below the spring. Frame being the same is 110% bogus. Frame is different, springs are different, sway bars are different, rear axle is wider... everything is different. Ranger had a narrower front axle until 1993 until it matched the Explorer (which came out for 1991) and the rear never did match the Explorer (they always had slightly narrower rear axles than fronts)

I don't know how they would have lowered the suspension. The front suspension is basically the same as a Ranger, they got saggy in the rear with age like the rest of us but they started out with a rake. Going SOA like a Ranger to SUA like the production Explorer would have been something like a 5" drop which is massive. IMO that is totally bogus as well.

Explorer was redesigned in 1995 with a SLA front suspension basically identical to what the Ranger would get in 1998 and would ride off into the sunset with in 2011. The rear suspension was pretty much the same as 91-94. Engine bay, interior and basic shell was a new truck otherwise. They were heavy hitters in the recall too.

Explorer was redesigned into an IRS turd in '02 (parent's had an '02, there was always something stupid going wrong with the rear end) while the Sport Trac and Sport lived on until around 04/05. Stability control was optional on the later ones at least at first (Advancetrac?), my parent's '02 did not have it. For the problems that car had I doubt it would have worked if it did...

A decal raising the suggested tire pressure was involved in one of the recall notices for my parent's '94 Explorer. With 160hp and 3.27 gears it was gutless but NEVER had a stability issue in the 15 years they had it.

The Twin I Beam that came out in the 1960's still lives on in brand new 2wd F-250/350 trucks...

I have pillaged many an Bronco II/Explorer in the last 20+ years for my Ranger build...

 

[timhood]

Unless your kids are infants or toddlers, a 2-door is plenty truck. I’m married with two kids. Not sure how a less-expensive vehicle is “luxury money” over the higher-priced 4-door, but I suck at math.

I grew up hunting and and daily driving/riding 2-door SUVs until 4-doors became the norm in the mid-90s. I later had a 2-door Wrangler I got rid of when I had babies, but not because of inconvenience, but rather safety in a possible crash. All our cars were two-door until I was 12 (1984) and my mom got a full-size Ford van. My dad still drove 2-door vehicles until the late 90s.

This. The two-door has back seats. So, unless people have 3 kids, what's the issue? Three kids is the only scenario where a four-door works when a two-door doesn't. And if you have 4+ kids, you're in two vehicles (or not the Bronco). I feel like the four-door people somehow think there's more legroom in the back of it compared to the two-door (there's not). The extra four-door space is the cargo area.

Four-door people looking to distract from why they don't want to slide a seat forward can say what they want. A four-door Bronco isn't the practical choice for your family. A minivan is.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

This. The two-door has back seats. So, unless people have 3 kids, what's the issue? Three kids is the only scenario where a four-door works when a two-door doesn't. And if you have 4+ kids, you're in two vehicles (or not the Bronco). I feel like the four-door people somehow think there's more legroom in the back of it compared to the two-door (there's not). The extra four-door space is the cargo area.

Four-door people looking to distract from why they don't want to slide a seat forward can say what they want. A four-door Bronco isn't the practical choice for your family. A minivan is.

If you are kids are out of car seats...

The rear seat of a 2dr is narrower so you will be limited to one car seat in the back seat. Also a major PITA to either reach across a vehicle to put kid in a car seat or to lift them over the front of a rear facing car seat to put them in it.

4dr should easily fit two car seats with much easier side access.

I don't think a 4dr will comfortably seat three of anything comfortably in the back seat.

We have a 17mo and hopefully at least one more on the way at some point so yeah, rear seat access is a big deal. I get by with a supercab F-150 and that is enough of a PITA.

 

[indio22]

I compare 21 Bronco to Top Gun 2.
1. It’s been rumored forever.
2. They keep saying it’s coming out.
3. It reminds me of my youth.
4. The original was epic!
5. It keeps getting delayed.
6. The trailers/previews are great.....but I get the feeling I might die of old age before it really happens. (And I’m in my 40’s).
7. The music better live up to the LUX package hype!

Hopefully Bronco is not like the Avatar sequels. Are those ever getting completed?!

 

[Essmith94]

Except this mythical unicorn has green in its paint scheme

 

[Roger123]

The Ford Bronco II had more than five times more rollover fatalities in 1987 than the Suzuki Samurai. "There were 43 Bronco II rollover fatalities in 1987, compared with eight for the Samurai..."

Sami wouldn’t go fast enough to roll over, LOL

 

[Offroadrob]

When I think of the new Bronco I'm mentally comparing it to my previous EB's; 2 door, agile, utility, rugged, go anywhere etc. That's what I see when I look at a Gen 6 and it ticks all the boxes.

no lie

The 2D definitely is stronger invoking the old school vibe, if it was only about wheeling and looks I’d be 2drbasesquatch, but this will also serve as my DD six months a year. So 4dr with bells and whistles for me

To the original question - I’m comparing the Bronco to a fifth gen 4Runner, cause that’s what it’ll replace. So it’s a compromise vehicle, I need it to be composed and comfortable on the highway, I want it to be fun and capable Offroad. After Moab I have no doubts, it’s going to be a step up in almost every way.*

*cargo space and the swing gate being the only two negatives

 

[AcesandEights]

Any Idea of the sales figures for these vehicles? I'd look it up, but not my post... Critical thinking is your friend up in here....

Ford tested (stability/rollover) three (competitive) vehicles prior to Explorer production. Chevy S10 passed 100%, Bronco II 100%, Explorer failed 40%. Not that different than real-world death rates.

 

[Hoofnmouth]

 

[5280Bronco]

Not gonna lie, i like the look.

 

[timhood]

If you are kids are out of car seats...

The rear seat of a 2dr is narrower so you will be limited to one car seat in the back seat.

The two-door is wide enough for two car seats. Sure, there won't be any significant extra space, but if you're putting two car seats in back, they're probably not being taken in and out

Also a major PITA to either reach across a vehicle to put kid in a car seat or to lift them over the front of a rear facing car seat to put them in it.

I'll give you that. But we are talking about a pretty limited use case here. Kids that are small enough that they can't get into a car seat on their own. Are these kids that people are going to be taking off-roading? I would bet that most families in this position already have another vehicle suited for this or they've already been dealing with it. My point being not every vehicle can solve every problem, nor should it be expected to.

4dr should easily fit two car seats with much easier side access.

I don't think a 4dr will comfortably seat three of anything comfortably in the back seat.

The four-door back seat is wider than the Escape's. We've had three people--teens, adults, kids--in back. Two adults/teens plus one kid works fine. Maybe not ideal for longer trips. The two-door is definitely a four-passenger vehicle. The four-door is probably a 4+1. But that just underscores my point that the four-door isn't the automatic answer just because someone has kids.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that people may be in for unreasonable expectations about the four-door. Back doors provide easier access, but it's not going to change how many people are riding in back in most cases.

People with two kids who can get in the back on their own will do just as well with the two-door. People with kids in car seats have a temporary condition to deal with. People with three kids aren't solving their problems with a four-door unless those kids are all small enough.

 

[Paul Gagnon]

Just hopefully less flippy and murdery

That's an urban legend. The flippy killy thing is because people don't know how to drive.

 

[timhood]

...this will also serve as my DD six months a year. So 4dr with bells and whistles for me

I'm curious why you think the two-door won't be a perfectly fine daily driver. You think Ford created one model that drive nicely and the other one doesn't? The suspension is by far the most significant factor in drivability, and both models share the same suspension and tires. The two-door has a wheelbase and width similar to the Escape, which rides perfectly fine. The Bronco's more compliant suspension and tires and extra weight means it probably will probably ride better.

Unless you are bringing along more than one passenger during your daily driving, I'd recommend not driving a two-door after you buy your four-door, lest you be disappointed that you can't tell a difference in ride quality. Hopefully you have other reasons why you've justified the need for the four-door.

Sponsored