Increased towing.?

Erock

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
3,264
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
2018 F150 Alpine edition
Clubs
 
I previously thought they came with a class 2 hitch based on the 3500 lb limitation, but after seeing that it’s mounted to the rear cross member (presumably to maintain departure angle) I can understand the limitations. A full receiver mounted to the frame rails, coupled with some sort of spring assist should easily push the rating higher. Not trying to argue anything, only stating what I think can be done, warranted or not.





Advertisement

 

Laminar

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
1,614
Location
Iowa
Vehicle(s)
Cougar
@martyb is talking about the frame "rails", which run front/rear. Typically, a higher class hitch is bolted not just to the rear crossmember, but to the rails. You know, shear vs tension. Ford's Bronco design is weak. Don't use it for heavier loads.
Here's a class IV hitch for an F-150, capable of holding 12,000lbs:
1615900979913.png


There's a receiver attached to a square cross section of steel that's connected to plates bolted to the frame rails with 4 bolts. The vertical weight of the trailer puts the bolts in shear, and the horizontal push and pull of the trailer also puts the bolts in shear.

1615901235706.png


The Bronco has a receiver attached to a square cross section of steel that's connected to the frame rails. The vertical component of the trailer weight puts the bolts in shear. The push and pull of the trailer acts primarily on the welded joints and not the bolts.

I'm not seeing the fatal structural flaw here. I keep seeing people complain about how the receiver is "bolted on," but every real hitch is bolted on somewhere. I keep seeing people complain about how it's on the crossmember, but no one has posted any sort of real analysis showing that the 3x3" formed crossmember of unknown material properties is weaker than the generic 2x2" steel that the hitch companies use.
 

Mickey21

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mickey
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
212
Reaction score
330
Location
Round Rock, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2014 Ford Flex Limited AWD Ecoboost
Clubs
 
I keep seeing people complain about how it's on the crossmember, but no one has posted any sort of real analysis showing that the 3x3" formed crossmember of unknown material properties is weaker than the generic 2x2" steel that the hitch companies use.
Exactly, and if their generic 2x2 steel was stronger, isnt that still a complaint we should have?! Not that I think it is. Point is, this boxed frame crossmember AND the bolted on hitch portion is NOT the weak point we should be talking about and can't possibly be the reason of the lower tow rating. If only Ford explained their reasoning/test failure that resulted in the lessened rating. And if possible, offered solutions for the vehicle from the factory for this.

FWIW, I feel the lessened tow rating is either suspension/geometry/braking combination, or them tiering the entire vehicle lineup to the weakest link, ie, if the base 2DR 2.0 manual with the worst suspension geometry can do 3500lbs, then that is what they all are no mater how they are configured. Yes, I am aware they have a sheet that goes into each model specific max tow ratings, but I don't think that is the full story.
 

AcesandEights

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ace!
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
2,128
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
DR650
@Laminar I'm not sure why you quoted me, then showed pictures illustrating the point. It's not a fatal flaw. It is exactly how Ford designed and brought it to market. If it is a flaw, it is only a flaw to those that demand higher. For the rest of us, it just is what it is. Ford wanted to prioritize other things over the max tow rating being greater than 3,500 lbs.

@Mickey21 Ford designed the Bronco to compete with the Wrangler, not with vehicles that can tow more. They designed it primarily to compete with vehicles with a tow rating of 3,500. They offer other vehicles with a higher tow rating. They also still have fresh in their minds the millions/billions of dollars in rollover claims from the Bronco II and Explorer, which were also short(er) wheelbase vehicles with relatively small output engines. They don't want a vehicle that was designed as an off-roader to be pushed around by an overweight (greater than 350/3,500 lbs) trailer. When you apply weight to the hitch, you (may) lighten the front end. So, you preload the rear, lighten the front, and have an object pushing the vehicle from the rear. It's a dynamic situation and the vehicle just wasn't designed with towing as the priority. You're right, it is based on a combination of factors that impact the ability to pass certain, very specific, testing criteria. I know I, and others, have pointed to the test criteria in the past. It's standard, and if Ford thought they could sell more Broncos if the tow rating was 5,000 lbs, it would be tested to that standard (and probably will be in coming years if that's the will of the consumer). Right now though, they are trying to take Jeep Wrangler/Rubicon market-share, and that's why the Bronco was designed the way it was.

" The safety record was "frightening" with "one in 500 Bronco II's ever produced was involved in a fatal rollover."[16] Automobile insurer GEICO stopped writing insurance policies for the Bronco II.[15] By 2001, Time magazine reported that the "notorious bucking Bronco II" rollover lawsuits had "cost the company approximately $2.4 billion in damage settlements."[17] " - Ford Bronco II - Wikipedia (emphasis added)

That doesn't even touch on the Explorer rollovers we're all so familiar with. Questions about GVWR, rooftop rails, tow ratings; look to the past and see the future.
 

Mickey21

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mickey
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
212
Reaction score
330
Location
Round Rock, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2014 Ford Flex Limited AWD Ecoboost
Clubs
 
@Laminar I'm not sure why you quoted me, then showed pictures illustrating the point. It's not a fatal flaw. It is exactly how Ford designed and brought it to market. If it is a flaw, it is only a flaw to those that demand higher. For the rest of us, it just is what it is. Ford wanted to prioritize other things over the max tow rating being greater than 3,500 lbs.

@Mickey21 Ford designed the Bronco to compete with the Wrangler, not with vehicles that can tow more. They designed it primarily to compete with vehicles with a tow rating of 3,500. They offer other vehicles with a higher tow rating. They also still have fresh in their minds the millions/billions of dollars in rollover claims from the Bronco II and Explorer, which were also short(er) wheelbase vehicles with relatively small output engines. They don't want a vehicle that was designed as an off-roader to be pushed around by an overweight (greater than 350/3,500 lbs) trailer. When you apply weight to the hitch, you (may) lighten the front end. So, you preload the rear, lighten the front, and have an object pushing the vehicle from the rear. It's a dynamic situation and the vehicle just wasn't designed with towing as the priority. You're right, it is based on a combination of factors that impact the ability to pass certain, very specific, testing criteria. I know I, and others, have pointed to the test criteria in the past. It's standard, and if Ford thought they could sell more Broncos if the tow rating was 5,000 lbs, it would be tested to that standard (and probably will be in coming years if that's the will of the consumer). Right now though, they are trying to take Jeep Wrangler/Rubicon market-share, and that's why the Bronco was designed the way it was.

" The safety record was "frightening" with "one in 500 Bronco II's ever produced was involved in a fatal rollover."[16] Automobile insurer GEICO stopped writing insurance policies for the Bronco II.[15] By 2001, Time magazine reported that the "notorious bucking Bronco II" rollover lawsuits had "cost the company approximately $2.4 billion in damage settlements."[17] " - Ford Bronco II - Wikipedia (emphasis added)

That doesn't even touch on the Explorer rollovers we're all so familiar with. Questions about GVWR, rooftop rails, tow ratings; look to the past and see the future.
Blah blah blah, TLDR, you are ignoring what I said. I said I wanted accountability and transparency. I don't see why that is beyond your consideration. And it is also funny you bring the Explorer up which can tow approaching double.

You're also ignoring that they attempted to one up, and then some, Jeep on nearly every aspect of what they can do. What would have been the harm in addressing towing on at least ONE of their SEVEN MODELS?!! You can try to explain to me (a long time vehicle owner and tower) how towing works, that is not what is at consideration to me, it is just that it could have/can be addressed. Why not?
 

AcesandEights

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ace!
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
2,128
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
DR650
It's really clear, nothing technical, no ambiguous or hidden truths. The tow rating is 3,500 because Ford wants it that way, oh, and the testing criteria.
 

Laminar

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
1,614
Location
Iowa
Vehicle(s)
Cougar
@Laminar I'm not sure why you quoted me, then showed pictures illustrating the point. It's not a fatal flaw. It is exactly how Ford designed and brought it to market. If it is a flaw, it is only a flaw to those that demand higher. For the rest of us, it just is what it is. Ford wanted to prioritize other things over the max tow rating being greater than 3,500 lbs.
I quoted you, @AcesandEights, because you said that this design is weak, but you did not quantify your assertion. Like all complainers before you, you have measured nothing, you have analyzed nothing.

I'm still waiting for one of these armchair experts to actually demonstrate WHY it's weak.
 

Lakelife36

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
1,319
Location
Lee Creek, BC
Vehicle(s)
2010 Kia Borrego, 2012 Chevy Cruze
Clubs
 
Blah blah blah, TLDR, you are ignoring what I said. I said I wanted accountability and transparency. I don't see why that is beyond your consideration. And it is also funny you bring the Explorer up which can tow approaching double.

You're also ignoring that they attempted to one up, and then some, Jeep on nearly every aspect of what they can do. What would have been the harm in addressing towing on at least ONE of their SEVEN MODELS?!! You can try to explain to me (a long time vehicle owner and tower) how towing works, that is not what is at consideration to me, it is just that it could have/can be addressed. Why not?
Exactly. Even just 4-door BB and OBX with an optional higher-rated tow package would do the trick. Just please please please include the 7M. We all know that the powertrain is not the weak point.

They are marketing an enthusiast's vehicle and haven't bothered yet to even try giving a satisfactory reason why it can't outperform its competition in one of the few areas it does performs terribly in. Do they think that these enthusiasts won't wonder about it?
 

Mickey21

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mickey
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
212
Reaction score
330
Location
Round Rock, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2014 Ford Flex Limited AWD Ecoboost
Clubs
 
It's really clear, nothing technical, no ambiguous or hidden truths. The tow rating is 3,500 because Ford wants it that way, oh, and the testing criteria.
So you have a copy of their testing results, why waste our time, please post it so we can all see why? Because "Ford wants it that way", really putting the screws to them to earn your dollar I see. That hard hitting consumer journalism of yours.
 

AcesandEights

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ace!
Joined
Nov 19, 2020
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
2,128
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
DR650
@Laminar I have no complaint with Ford or the Bronco tow rating. It is what it is and I happily added it to my build. It's 3,500 lbs., which is far-far lower than my "tow" rig. Pointing out a truth isn't a complaint, because the truth is. It just is.

This question has been asked dozens of times, by "complainers" (I guess) and it's been answered every different way, from philosophically, from posting the actual test (links previously provided), talking about individual components, etc. None of that changes anything though, because people want an outcome, they want a higher tow rating; so, the reason for the low tow rating, the "answers" are meaningless, because they don't support the conclusion or the desired outcome of a higher tow rating.

The way Ford has attached the rear receiver is weaker than the design you provided pictures of, where it is mounted to the frame rails. It is a weak way to do it. There are stronger ways to do it.
 

Monster79

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
E
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
499
Reaction score
1,352
Location
Alabama
Vehicle(s)
15' Eco Mustang, 07' F150, 96' Bronco, 93' Bronco, 79' Bronco
Clubs
 
Maybe when one of you Fan Boys spout out your dislike about towing and that those of us who do, should buy a truck and that the Bronco is designed for Off-Road, we should tell you that you just need to buy a Side-By-Side, as you don't need an On-Road Vehicle.......
I dislike towing when people don't know what the hell they are doing..
 

EvlNvrDys

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2019
Messages
3,462
Reaction score
13,553
Location
Hunterdon County, NJ
Vehicle(s)
'84 Bronco, '93 Bronco, '94 Bronco, 2012 Mustang
Clubs
 
I dislike towing when people don't know what the hell they are doing..
Not to choose a side here...
Because:
1. I take @The Pope's side on the fact that Ford could've offered a Tow Package that maybe included stiffer springs (assuming that's the reason for the low tow rating, I don't know).
2. I also dislike people that don't know how to tow, but that's probably better than 50% of all people that tow.....

You know that guy who drives his BMW during the work week, then figures hell I got all this money, I'm gonna buy a big ass boat and tow it on the weekends. So it's best to just avoid those people as best you can.
Or
That person with the mini-van who buys a little 5 foot trailer for the weekend Home Depot trips, swerving all over the road.

So to sum it all up, most people can't tow and I wish my new Bronco could hit 5,000 lb. tow rating. Do I need exactly 5k pounds? Probably not, but would like to have it if I needed it.
 

Monster79

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
E
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
499
Reaction score
1,352
Location
Alabama
Vehicle(s)
15' Eco Mustang, 07' F150, 96' Bronco, 93' Bronco, 79' Bronco
Clubs
 
Not to choose a side here...
Because:
1. I take @The Pope's side on the fact that Ford could've offered a Tow Package that maybe included stiffer springs (assuming that's the reason for the low tow rating, I don't know).
2. I also dislike people that don't know how to tow, but that's probably better than 50% of all people that tow.....

You know that guy who drives his BMW during the work week, then figures hell I got all this money, I'm gonna buy a big ass boat and tow it on the weekends. So it's best to just avoid those people as best you can.
Or
That person with the mini-van who buys a little 5 foot trailer for the weekend Home Depot trips, swerving all over the road.

So to sum it all up, most people can't tow and I wish my new Bronco could hit 5,000 lb. tow rating. Do I need exactly 5k pounds? Probably not, but would like to have it if I needed it.
I'm on this road as well, I could care less if it tows more. It's gonna be a family vehicle first, and it may occasionally tow the side by side places. In the same breath though I can see the frustration with it towing so little and I do think Ford can do better and my comment was not a jab at people that are gonna tow more with their bronco.. It's their choice not mine. I just made a blanket statement that I see so many people cause wrecks because they have absolutely no idea what is going on.

But I do hope Ford can get the testing re done or re work whatever they have to so they can offer it with more towing.
 

Laminar

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
632
Reaction score
1,614
Location
Iowa
Vehicle(s)
Cougar
Ford's Bronco design is weak. Don't use it for heavier loads.
I keep seeing people complain about how it's on the crossmember, but no one has posted any sort of real analysis showing that the 3x3" formed crossmember of unknown material properties is weaker than the generic 2x2" steel that the hitch companies use.

I quoted you, @AcesandEights, because you said that this design is weak, but you did not quantify your assertion. Like all complainers before you, you have measured nothing, you have analyzed nothing.

I'm still waiting for one of these armchair experts to actually demonstrate WHY it's weak.
The way Ford has attached the rear receiver is weaker than the design you provided pictures of, where it is mounted to the frame rails. It is a weak way to do it. There are stronger ways to do it.
Rereading through your responses a few times, it seems like you think I'm asking you to justify the low tow rating. I'm not. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that the design is "weak." You keep saying it's "weak" but you haven't quantified anything.

Numbersssssssssss. Show me numberssssssssssssss.

Here are some numbers. You talk about the bolts being loaded "tension" (they're not). But let's say they are - if those are 3/8" grade 8 bolts, each of them has a minimum yield strength of 11,418lbs. Four of those bolts would give a yield strength of 45,672 lbs. In no way, shape, form, or universe does the Bronco have enough traction or power to create that kind of pull.

But like I said, the trailer forces aren't putting the bolts in tension.

1615914610245.png


So, for like the third time, could you please quantify for the class why this design is "weak."
 

Advertisement





 
Apollo Optics


Advertisement
Top