New full size Bronco spy pics / info???

[Bronco II]

It's a test mule. Without knowing what is being tested, everything is speculation.

Every F ing thing about the Bronco is speculation Ford has given us nothing solid

Sponsored

 

[Jimmy]

Those Bronco II's were downright dangerous. So were the Explorer 4 doors of the mid 90's, complete with Firestone ATX-Wilderness tires. Mine had a 5.0, and was all over the road. Like a tall, narrow 4 door Mustang....

 

[BroncoRevital]

Yeah let’s hope they learned their lesson with the Bronco ll and Explorer. I had a Bronco ll and loved it but it definitely wasn’t safe.
I’d rather have a narrower smaller Bronco. The Ranger Raptor is stupid wide but I also don’t want a Bronco flipping and throwing me like an actual horse either.

 

[Bronco II]

Those Bronco II's were downright dangerous. So were the Explorer 4 doors of the mid 90's, complete with Firestone ATX-Wilderness tires. Mine had a 5.0, and was all over the road. Like a tall, narrow 4 door Mustang....

I put my 87 Bronco II in all kind of driving conditions and never had a problem because I understood it's limitations. Bronco II's were safe as long as you didn't drive it like a idiot and push it past it's limits.

 

[OX1]

I put my 87 Bronco II in all kind of driving conditions and never had a problem because I understood it's limitations. Bronco II's were safe as long as you didn't drive it like a idiot and push it past it's limits.

Yeah, I never thought mine was spectacular offroad, but even with 3" BL and 31's,
it was fine driving around, even pushing moderately hard in the corners.

The oh my god stories about it were really over the top..............

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

Yeah let’s hope they learned their lesson with the Bronco ll and Explorer. I had a Bronco ll and loved it but it definitely wasn’t safe.
I’d rather have a narrower smaller Bronco. The Ranger Raptor is stupid wide but I also don’t want a Bronco flipping and throwing me like an actual horse either.

Which is why making the Bronco a low speed technical off roader makes a lot more sense than than trying to have it follow the same niche as the high speed Raptors. Broncos have always had short wheelbases and correspondingly high centers of gravity, it will always be ill suited to high speed maneuvers, including towing at speed.

Focus on torque, RTI capability, general maneuverability, and the ability to go places other vehicles can't. Off road exploration, in comfort.

"Raptor" has always been about high speed ...



.

This is probably where the idea of 'Bronco' as a line of products came from, because they fail this characteristic, speed. These new Ford models will have more compact wheel spacing and high centers of gravity, and are not suited to high speeds off road, thus needing something else to focus on. Maneuverability, a quality that is seriously hindered by wide and long tracks.

It's one of the big reasons Bronco ought to have a solid front axle. Ford is clearly capable of making them without unpleasant harmonics, and Bronco will need it to excel at a different kind of offroading, focussed on going places that Raptors can't (and Tacomas, ZR2s, etc.).

Unfortunately, only some randos uncle's neighbor's counsin's accountant's friend have seen/heard anything that would indicate Bronco will receive the equipment it needs to do this. To compete with a Wrangler instead of a defunct FJ, or street queen Defender.

 

[OX1]

Which is why making the Bronco a low speed technical off roader makes a lot more sense than than trying to have it follow the same niche as the high speed Raptors.

Agree and I've posted the same thing here. Most likely why I will not be buying
one of these new. Will wait to find one beat up, so I can swap in what I want.

Would be cool to have something a little newer, semi-streetable, that I could run on
the road, returning from some trails that don't end where they began, when I get back
out west.

 

[Bronco II]

Which is why making the Bronco a low speed technical off roader makes a lot more sense than than trying to have it follow the same niche as the high speed Raptors.

I agree but Ford needs to communicate this loud and clear or everyone will trash the Bronco a high speed roll over risk.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

I agree but Ford needs to communicate this loud and clear or everyone will trash the Bronco a high speed roll over risk.

The marketing language will need to be pretty clear that it is meant for something different. Making it all the more odd they haven't bothered to do any of that yet.

It will take time to build that expectation in the public -- there are a lot of people imagining a Bronco Raptor flying along in the desert just like the pickups ... people who will be massively disappointed very quickly the first time they try racing over some whoops, or even just a badly washboarded road, and struggle to get both ends of the vehicle going the same direction.

 

[BroncoRevital]

It will take time to build that expectation in the public -- there are a lot of people imagining a Bronco Raptor flying along in the desert just like the pickups ... people who will be massively disappointed very quickly the first time they try racing over some whoops, or even just a badly washboarded road, and struggle to get both ends of the vehicle going the same direction.

You would think people would be smart enough not to do this but they aren’t. Plus when you have IFS it can give it the false appearance of being a desert racer.

I mean if Ford truly were up to making a Bronco Raptor then it could do alright as a full size but I really don’t get the point.
I wouldn't mind them making a full size variant Bronco with Raptor parts (don’t call it a Raptor) and a V8 but it should still be allocated to trails.

 

[BroncoMike]

This obviously has Raptor axles and suspension, and as far as drivetrain testing goes, why would they test the Bronco drivetrain in a shortened Raptor? I do not see a logical reason for that explanation.

For the simple fact that the existing Ranger frame won't fit a V6 for powertrain testing ahead of production of the new T6 platform. The next-gen frame that both the Bronco and the Ranger are purported to share is also allegedly capable of accomodating a larger powerplant; but for testing on a current Ranger frame (a la the mules previously bandied about), the option isn't there without modification. Would the modifications necessary be troublesome enough to instead go to the effort of shortening a Raptor? Crazier things have probably been done.

Now, I'm completely open to the idea that Ford, with their extensive resources, could do a handcrafted run of frames based off the next-gen design they have and do testing on those frames for the entire package. That argument accompanies the theory that they could also do literally ALL the testing they need to do in near complete secrecy, on company-owned proving grounds and other private facilities. For them to be around 18 months out from launch and not have several near-final prototypes in testing seems unlikely.

So, Full-size Bronco mule? Shorty Raptor? Drivetrain testbed? Publicity stunt? Curveball to confuse competitors? My guess is we'll never know.

 

[BroncoRevital]

People, the Bronco will not be based on the F150. This vehicle will be coming to market in the next year and a half, they do not have time to redisign the entire thing around the F150. I don't put any stock into the "Bronco" brand lineup of vehicles people keep speculating about. The "baby Bronco" I am sure will be entirely independent from the Bronco and compete with the likes of the Jeep Cherokee or Renegade. The only reason this vehicle has become associated with the Bronco is that Ford announced it at the same time the showed the tarped Bronco. I think Ford is trying to create an "offroad/rugged" lineup of vehicles, but I do not think they will have any more to do with the Bronco than the other Jeep models have to do with the Wrangler. So no, I do not think Ford is planning a fullsize Bronco to be sold along side the "baby Bronco" and Ranger-based Bronco.

We're not really speculating at this point. It's pretty obvious that the "baby Bronco" is suppose to be just that. A smaller Bronco like vehicle. Yes, in more the ways how the Cherokee and Renegade are related to the Wrangler but none the less Ford is associating it with the Bronco. Hence the shadow of a Bronco behind the leaked photos of it.
There was an insider here making the claim about a sub branding or a line up if you will for the Bronco. More in the sense of a Jeep line up rather then an off shoot brand like Ram is. He/she seemed to know what they were talking about but it's still speculation I suppose but makes sense at this point.

I doubt as well that they are making a full size Bronco version but it's fun to speculate about and makes more sense then a short wheel base single cab Raptor. My most educated guess is that they are using it to test the drivetrain for the Bronco but even that doesn't make a lot of sense but who knows.

Please explain to me with actual facts how Bronco IIs and Explorers are any more likely to roll than Samurais, FJ40s, CJs, YJs, TJs, Cherokees, S10 Blazers, or any other similarly sized vehicle? Yes a relatively high center of gravity (4x4s need ground clearance) and a narrow width, especially in conjunction with a short wheelbase (needed for maneuverability) will create a propensity to roll instead of slide. However, it is not like any of these vehicles were inherently unsafe, you just need to realize you can't try to abruptly maneuver on high-traction surfaces at high speed. Also anyone who rolls a vehicle due to a simple tire blow-out shouldn't have been driving in the first place.

I'm not trying to single out Ford. It's just in general (as you know) these types of vehicles had a much easier tendency to roll over. There is a whole documentary on Youtube about it. It's not so much that people didn't know how to drive them. Though I'm sure that was the case for many. It's that on the highway or just going over 30 miles an hour, things can happen suddenly out of your control including a blown tire and these older SUVs had a tendency to roll far too easily. It seems manufacturers have rectified this as it doesn't seem to be a major issue now but still is something Ford should take into consideration designing the Bronco as it's going to be used by the masses on highways. The real issue was not having strong A pillars.

 

[Bronco II]

I'm not trying to single out Ford. It's just in general (as you know) these types of vehicles had a much easier tendency to roll over. There is a whole documentary on Youtube about it. It's not so much that people didn't know how to drive them. Though I'm sure that was the case for many. It's that on the highway or just going over 30 miles an hour, things can happen suddenly out of your control including a blown tire and these older SUVs had a tendency to roll far too easily. It seems manufacturers have rectified this as it doesn't seem to be a major issue now but still is something Ford should take into consideration designing the Bronco as it's going to be used by the masses on highways. The real issue was not having strong A pillars.

A hellva lot of the problem is most people just can't drive. They try and drive a tall 4x4 SUV like it's a sports car and no matter how many nannies you have they can't change the law of physics and bad stuff will happen. I had a 2013 Escape 2.0 ecoboost 4x4 and I drove it hard but when I traded it for a new Ranger I knew I had to change my driving style or I'd roll it. Most people ether can't or won't change there driving style and that's where the problem arises

Sponsored