Sponsored

The IFS vs SFA Thread

Nanook

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jonathan
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
461
Reaction score
689
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
Raptor, Bronco, Galaxie, Ducati Streetfighter V4S
Your Bronco Model
Wildtrak
Clubs
 
I still find it confusing the amount of reference the Raptor gets from the pro IFS crowd when they all didn’t want a full size bronco because it would be too wide.
The ranger raptor has around 10” of wheel travel and for many that maybe more than they will ever need. But the only way to get more is to get longer upper and lowers and extended axles essentially putting it at a full size raptor.
We don’t know what the body is going to be like on the new bronco but if it were a current model vehicle you would have to replace bumpers and fenders to clear larger tires. The cost to go long travel IFS that the aftermarket is ready to support is so much higher than an SFA lift when all components are included.
Not a technical comment but more an observation. Am I wrong?
Sponsored

 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Threads
45
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
1,299
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
I dunno about that..
About what. I was and still am talking about throttle response.

Turbo motors torque curve in not immediate, is not linear, and many times (even without nannies)
has not been immediately repeatable. Like bumping hard over a rock, but then you have to get
completely out of the throttle to instantaneously re-evaluate your line, then bump hard again.
And removing nannies means no warantee in extreme cases of engine or maybe trans loss
(unless maybe you get lucky or "know" someone at a dealer)

And I'm not talking internal engine reliability. I'm talking about offroad reliability when things go wrong.
2.3 is going to put out tremendous heat compared to a 5.0. Yes, you can add extra cooling, but the fine edge
you are on with that is much closer than a NA engine twice it's size. If/when the cooling gets degraded by
either trail damage (even minor cooling system pinhole) or older age, you have much less cushion until you
have issues (especially since manufacturers already push water, oil, and trans temps much higher these days).

Even octane, the 5.0 loses like 7 HP on regular. I'd wheel a 5.0 on regular all day long, not sure I'd push that 2.3
that hard and chance reg gas. And that is before you put 100K miles of blowby on the valves from running 20 lbs of boost.
There is a reason (probably 30 reasons overall and being a Ford fan, it kills me) the 5.3/6.0/6.2 LS's are pretty much the most
popular engine swap on the planet. Simplicity vs easily obtained power is at the top, which is what I'm really driving at.

So yes, I would take a 5.0, 10 spd bronco that had removable roof, even if it had IFS/IRS.
That I can "fix" (eventually), the drivetrain is an order of power higher to swap out.............
 
Last edited:

TeocaliMG

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
847
Reaction score
2,770
Location
Plymouth Michigan
Website
www.brokeninnovation.com
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco Badlands non-sas 4 door manual
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
What ever happened to the 4.3 v8 they were working on? It was essentially a scaled down version of the new 7.3 gasser. At one point, I know there was talk of it. That would be anperfect motor for something like this.
I haven't heard of anything like that but a key part of any engine is the powercylinder and the head design, so scaling down without cutting cyclinders basically removes any relationship to the original engine.
I don't think any sane person is saying that IFS is inherently bad, just that it is not the end all be all for all situations. And the most preferred use for the bronco, or most desired use for it for enthusiast, to rock crawl next to or ahead of the wrangler, is one of those spots that SFA excels over IFS for both strength and simplicity, as well as capability without having to spend outrageous wads of cash.
I agree with you here, but my next point would be there must be a healthy dose of insane people here because I have heard from more than a few that IFS is inherently garbage for an off-road application. I too would like to keep the premise that both systems are very capable when done right, and I am willing to challenge that rockcrawling is solo mic drop for an offroad king.

For example, there are many facets to offroading, and I think we can all agree that its important to be decently capable in most if not all of them. Imagine it like a spiderweb chart, I forget exactly what facets it covered when I saw it internally but i'll try to make something up here and you guys can toss out ideas if I miss something. Rock crawling, High speed (whether its desert or more technical rally), Low speed technical trail, mud, Overland/utility (think range, reliability, capability all in one, maybe it should be split up), [anything else? I think there was at least another item on the chart I saw, id like to add snow performance for us more northern buyers but a lot of that is already captured]

Anyway, once you have a chart like this and you agree that you must have some better than average vehicle performance in each to even qualify, I would say the goal is to maximize the area of the chart. Some vehicle attributes like larger tires may move the chart out in every direction which is why they are the most important part of an offroad rig, other attributes, namely the suspension depending on design may trade one point for another. To reiterate what I said above I am not sure it is 100% certain that the Wranglers dominance is because of the rockcrawling point alone, I personally think it is because its "chart" has wayyyyy more area than any competitor. It is a jack of all trades AND a master of one. By this logic one could argue that the Bronco could be a success by having the same or greater area, and perhaps it is easier to be a success if it too is a jack of all trades and master of one, but a different one. The Bronco will still have to hold its own on the rocks, obviously better than any previous IFS based attempt, just like the Wrangler still has to be decently fun to take to the dunes or speeding down some fire roads on the state land.

That has been my premise from the start, I am curious what you guys think that chart should include and how important chart area is vs mastering a single facet.
 

TeocaliMG

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
847
Reaction score
2,770
Location
Plymouth Michigan
Website
www.brokeninnovation.com
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco Badlands non-sas 4 door manual
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
I still find it confusing the amount of reference the Raptor gets from the pro IFS crowd when they all didn’t want a full size bronco because it would be too wide.
The ranger raptor has around 10” of wheel travel and for many that maybe more than they will ever need. But the only way to get more is to get longer upper and lowers and extended axles essentially putting it at a full size raptor.
We don’t know what the body is going to be like on the new bronco but if it were a current model vehicle you would have to replace bumpers and fenders to clear larger tires. The cost to go long travel IFS that the aftermarket is ready to support is so much higher than an SFA lift when all components are included.
Not a technical comment but more an observation. Am I wrong?
I don't think you are wrong from that observation, I have no proof to offer at this time but I think we should at least be neutral regarding the accommodation of large wheels and wheel travel with the body design, the Wrangler does it, certainly the Bronco can too.
 
Last edited:

TeocaliMG

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
847
Reaction score
2,770
Location
Plymouth Michigan
Website
www.brokeninnovation.com
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco Badlands non-sas 4 door manual
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
About what. I was and still am talking about throttle response.

Turbo motors torque curve in not immediate, is not linear, and many times (even without nannies)
has not been immediately repeatable. Like bumping hard over a rock, but then you have to get
completely out of the throttle to instantaneously re-evaluate your line, then bump hard again.
And removing nannies means no warantee in extreme cases of engine or maybe trans loss
(unless maybe you get lucky or "know" someone at a dealer)

And I'm not talking internal engine reliability. I'm talking about offroad reliability when things go wrong.
2.3 is going to put out tremendous heat compared to a 5.0. Yes, you can add extra cooling, but the fine edge
you are on with that is much closer than a NA engine twice it's size. If/when the cooling gets degraded by
either trail damage (even minor cooling system pinhole) or older age, you have much less cushion until you
have issues (especially since manufacturers already push water, oil, and trans temps much higher these days).
I cant argue that large engines don't have better transient response, they do! also it would be awesome for Ford to offer this in the Bronco! I just want to clarify two things, you are right that the boosted torque curve "curves-in" where the NA is more linear. The Boosted curve curve-in however will very quickly overtake the NA (of similar output) meaning you get peak torque at a lower RPM, which is more useful depends on the use case, I like both.

As for the heat output, this is dependent on two things, how much power are you making, and how efficiently are you making it. For similar engine outputs, under peak load, the larger displacement engine will be at a better BSFC and will therefore be dumping less heat. How often will you be there though? at light load, the downsized turbo engine will actually have the better BSFC and will therefore be dumping less heat for the same output. Again this depends on the use case. Too be fair though, the boosted engine will be dumping slightly less heat out the tailpipe and putting it in CAC instead, but i'd still argue the use case will dictate which is truly dumping more heat through the radiators. In either case the engineering specifications have to be met for some pretty grueling duty cycles.
 

Sponsored

Nickp

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Threads
100
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
17,763
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER THAT GEICO SPENT $14K FIXING
Your Bronco Model
Base
Imagine it like a spiderweb chart,
I did that. This is kind of how I picture the Bronco will turn out, might be completely inaccurate but this is what I'm hoping for.

Capture.PNG
 

Cybrrstarr

Base
Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Threads
1
Messages
19
Reaction score
42
Location
Pacifica
Vehicle(s)
Raptor
Your Bronco Model
Base
You gave the Bronco an 8 in rock crawling? Is that a JOKE.....

Let’s be honest, IFS in a mass production rig is best at a 5 so let’s just give it a modest 5.5.

and the wrangler for a mass produced vehicle should get a 10 in that category. There is nothing on the market that can compete with it. So it should hold the standard.
 

Tslater1989

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Tyler
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
375
Reaction score
748
Location
Central Michigan
Vehicle(s)
2001 f150, 2016 explorer, 97 f150
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
You gave the Bronco an 8 in rock crawling? Is that a JOKE.....

Let’s be honest, IFS in a mass production rig is best at a 5 so let’s just give it a modest 5.5.

and the wrangler for a mass produced vehicle should get a 10 in that category. There is nothing on the market that can compete with it. So it should hold the standard.
I think this is his ideal all stock ratings, that being said. The jeep only has 8in of travel stock. IFS should be relatively competitive stock vs stock.
 

Nickp

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Threads
100
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
17,763
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER THAT GEICO SPENT $14K FIXING
Your Bronco Model
Base
You gave the Bronco an 8 in rock crawling? Is that a JOKE.....

Let’s be honest, IFS in a mass production rig is best at a 5 so let’s just give it a modest 5.5.

and the wrangler for a mass produced vehicle should get a 10 in that category. There is nothing on the market that can compete with it. So it should hold the standard.
Honestly if anything stock VS stock it’s probably more Wrangler 6/10 Bronco 5-4/10. To be a 10/10 rock crawling is going to require 42” tires, one ton axles, 5.38 gearing, atlas transfer case, coil over shocks, lightweight tube chassis, etc.

So basically not a wrangler.
 

TeocaliMG

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
847
Reaction score
2,770
Location
Plymouth Michigan
Website
www.brokeninnovation.com
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco Badlands non-sas 4 door manual
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
Honestly if anything stock VS stock it’s probably more Wrangler 6/10 Bronco 5-4/10. To be a 10/10 rock crawling is going to require 42” tires, one ton axles, 5.38 gearing, atlas transfer case, coil over shocks, lightweight tube chassis, etc.

So basically not a wrangler.
True, but for the sake of comparison I think its fair to call Wrangler the benchmark at "10" and if that's the case, the Bronco is not a "5" unless a 1 is a Tacoma TRD pro.

You could put the geometry/angles in with ground clearance or just get rid of that line and assume its baked into the other performance characteristics.

You get the idea, this is still all fairly subjective regardless. I don't mind talking about IFS vs SFA specifically I mainly wanted to see if we could lay to rest the idea that SFA is the SOLE key to Wrangler success before talking about what each system can or cant do by both OEM example and theory.
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

Cybrrstarr

Base
Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Threads
1
Messages
19
Reaction score
42
Location
Pacifica
Vehicle(s)
Raptor
Your Bronco Model
Base
Honestly if anything stock VS stock it’s probably more Wrangler 6/10 Bronco 5-4/10. To be a 10/10 rock crawling is going to require 42” tires, one ton axles, 5.38 gearing, atlas transfer case, coil over shocks, lightweight tube chassis, etc.

So basically not a wrangler.
remember we’re talking about mass production standards. And there is nothing in the current market that can “do” what a stock wrangler can “do” out of the factory. So that’s why I gave it a 10.

BTW, I’m a TOYOTA guy, but the reason why they named the wrangler model the “rubicon”, is because it can do that trail in stock form. The FJ Cruiser tried to do that too when they first came out, but all they did was build a freeway for it to go through unscathed.
 

Toyhoarder

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Threads
4
Messages
345
Reaction score
563
Location
The west
Vehicle(s)
Early Bronco, F-150, F-450
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
How does the Bronco outscore the Wrangler in off-road tech?

How does it get better than F/R selectable lockers, disconnecting sway bars, and a 4:1 transfer case?
 

Fosters

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
170
Reaction score
167
Location
Phoenix AZ
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford F450 2018 Mustang eb premium vert, 2013 Mustang 6A, 2004 mustang gt, 2001 Jeep Cherokee, 2019 Can-Am Maverick Sport X RC
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
About what. I was and still am talking about throttle response.

Turbo motors torque curve in not immediate, is not linear, and many times (even without nannies)
has not been immediately repeatable. Like bumping hard over a rock, but then you have to get
completely out of the throttle to instantaneously re-evaluate your line, then bump hard again.
And removing nannies means no warantee in extreme cases of engine or maybe trans loss
(unless maybe you get lucky or "know" someone at a dealer)
You're essentially talking about how the engine feels to you, not actual time until it reaches its peak torque. Ecoboosts will make their max torque way before a coyote. And if you want to talk about performance, we can also bring up the fact that one will lose power at altitude and one wont - most wheeling is done at higher altitude in my area.

And I'm not talking internal engine reliability. I'm talking about offroad reliability when things go wrong.
2.3 is going to put out tremendous heat compared to a 5.0. Yes, you can add extra cooling, but the fine edge
you are on with that is much closer than a NA engine twice it's size. If/when the cooling gets degraded by
either trail damage (even minor cooling system pinhole) or older age, you have much less cushion until you
have issues (especially since manufacturers already push water, oil, and trans temps much higher these days).
If you wanna talk about engines getting hot, the 4.0 in my XJ is pretty much like a nuclear reactor... My 2.7 ran way cooler when working it hard, a low power low stress 4.0 should make almost no heat, but yet most XJs can't even handle stop and go traffic in 115F weather... let alone crawling with the AC on. That was my point on the cooling system being the limiting factor and not as much the engine. The cooling system on the XJ is garbage at best. The cooling system on fords is pretty much overkill. I've pulled 28k lbs with my F450, and yeah, it makes a lot of heat too, but the cooling system in that puts an end to that quick - sounds like a cessna taking off when the fan clutch gets locked in. Don't sweat the cooling, Ford does that extremely well.

Even octane, the 5.0 loses like 7 HP on regular. I'd wheel a 5.0 on regular all day long, not sure I'd push that 2.3
that hard and chance reg gas. And that is before you put 100K miles of blowby on the valves from running 20 lbs of boost.
There is a reason (probably 30 reasons overall and being a Ford fan, it kills me) the 5.3/6.0/6.2 LS's are pretty much the most
popular engine swap on the planet. Simplicity vs easily obtained power is at the top, which is what I'm really driving at.

So yes, I would take a 5.0, 10 spd bronco that had removable roof, even if it had IFS/IRS.
That I can "fix" (eventually), the drivetrain is an order of power higher to swap out.............
There are plenty of high mile ecoboosts, diesels, etc running 20+ lbs of boost and not having any issues. At the same time, there are plenty of hard ran coyotes that give up the ghost - especially due to the oiling system. Both powertrains are consumer vehicles meant to go 100-200k tops; some may go well beyond that, some may go with less, but honestly, the amount of people who buy a car new and hang on to it for over 100k miles is tiny.

And BTW, the LS is the most popular swap because GM hasn't made a car good enough to want to drive :p They are cheap though, but it's always the 4.8/5.3 iron ones that are cheap that get swapped. You don't see aluminum 6.2s going for 300 bucks, that's for sure. And you're right, it is the simplicity of it... but people who get power out of em, still end up adding a snakepit of turbo piping around it, at which point all of that simplicity is gone... The coyote has gone great lengths to reduce the overall package size. Gonna be interesting to see once GM finally ditches the pushrod relics how their fanboys are gonna act...

I wouldn't sweat either powertrain choice. Yeah, the 5.0 would be awesome, and if Ford wanted to steal customers away from the wrangler, solid axles with a V8 would be the ticket judging on how many swap their wranglers for a hemi/LS... But even as good as the pentastar is (compared to the old 3.8 it replaced especially), just about any powertrain between the 2.3/2.7/3.5/5.0 would be better.

You gave the Bronco an 8 in rock crawling? Is that a JOKE.....

Let’s be honest, IFS in a mass production rig is best at a 5 so let’s just give it a modest 5.5.

and the wrangler for a mass produced vehicle should get a 10 in that category. There is nothing on the market that can compete with it. So it should hold the standard.
Exactly...
 

TeocaliMG

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
847
Reaction score
2,770
Location
Plymouth Michigan
Website
www.brokeninnovation.com
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco Badlands non-sas 4 door manual
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
How does the Bronco outscore the Wrangler in off-road tech?

How does it get better than F/R selectable lockers, disconnecting sway bars, and a 4:1 transfer case?
Well its not released yet so most of this scoring is irrelevant at the moment. All we have are assumptions, as stated, I just wanted to challenge some of the stated premises.

To answer your question the Bronco very well could have F/R selectable lockers, disconnecting sway bars, and a 4:1 T-case, among a few more advanced tech features the Wrangler either cant or doesn't offer.

If it doesn't offer a front locker you can bet it will at least be an LS, and Wrangler will have some advantage there, though LS's are preferred for a lot of other applications too. Maybe you can get either one? we'll see!
 

Cybrrstarr

Base
Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Threads
1
Messages
19
Reaction score
42
Location
Pacifica
Vehicle(s)
Raptor
Your Bronco Model
Base
391968E8-3A49-4968-BB6A-E28969E5D11C.jpeg

This is what I hope the new bronco will be. The FORD TROLLER.

solid front axle, short wheelbase go and play in some rocks rig. Would love a 4 door version but this will do too. Has tons of aftermarket support already and ready to hit the US and compete with the wrangler.
Sponsored

 
 


Top