New Ranger/Bronco SFA rumor

[Ivan]

The Expedition was the replacement for the Bronco. And the 1st gen Expedition stayed true to its "Bronco roots": ala F-150 based but shorter with 4 doors. The 1st gen Expedition wasn't as capable offroad as the Bronco- mostly due to its longer wheel base. The newer Expeditions are basically high profile minivans that get bad gas mileage. I agree that a 2 door utility vehicle would be a tough sell in today's marketplace. But Toyota did have the FJ Cruiser recently and I saw those all over the place when they came out (still see a bunch even now).

We shall see.

Not as much as you would think.

104" vs 119" wheelbase, 184" vs 205" overall.

To put it in context, the FJ Cruiser is similar in length and wheelbase as the Bronco, and the 100 series is pretty close to the Expedition.

The only reason they seem less capable is the lack of owners actually using them off road, and/or the lack of awareness (vis a vis social media and lack of cult following).

With that being said, the much older rumor surrounding the... 5th gen? Bronco is the frame and drivetrain (or at least the axles) will be shared with the new Jeep Wrangler. If that's the case, I can see the SFA rumor being true.

ETA: Hell I would be content with something like this:

 

[jschmidt]

As someone else implied, a solid axle is a dead end for model development. It is also an anchor regarding cafe compliance. If it does come with SFA it means a one-off model.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I doubt the frame will be shared with the Wrangler. Not sure what the competition would be for a shared platform with the FJ Cruiser production ending and I don't see any logic to Fiat sharing a cash cow like that with Ford. Now using the same Dana/Spicer axles isn't out of the question. I suppose Fiat could ask Dana to make them exclusive but I doubt they'd want to pay for that privilege.

 

[Comanche Scott]

Latest rumor has the new Bronco being a cross platform exchange with Mazda, as a re-badged CX-5
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-5/2017/

This makes a lot of sense as there is nothing in the Ford lineup currently that fits in this market. Supposedly it will be a graphics package and name badge change.

 

[Airmapper]

Latest rumor has the new Bronco being a cross platform exchange with Mazda, as a re-badged CX-5

Hardy har har :bigbossHL:

 

[DaveInDenver]

Hardy har har :bigbossHL:

He may be right. Here's a spy shot.

 

[Comanche Scott]

You may be right on there Dave. I had it wrong, it's not the Mazda cX5, it's the Tesla Model X they are talking about re-badging as a Bronco, now that Tesla has satisfied their Toyota contract.

But on a more serious note, take away the Jeep (which the Bronco was never designed to compete with), and there are some very capable SUVs, like the 4Runner, Xterra, Grand Cherokee. It would make a lot more sense to go after that market. The 4Runner TRD Pro, the Extera Pro 4X and the Cherokee Trail Hawk are extreme enough for a lot of folks. It's the perfect crowd to go after with a new Bronco, because it meets the Bronco heritage.
If they tried to go after the Wrangler, the world would just laugh at Ford (like they did at Toyota for their FJ, which was actually a great vehicle) unless they went body on frame and SFA.
If Ford does that, I'll eat my desert... and like it too.

 

[Airmapper]

But on a more serious note, take away the Jeep (which the Bronco was never designed to compete with)

Oh Yeah, never.....

 

[4x4junkie]

But on a more serious note, take away the Jeep (which the Bronco was never designed to compete with), and there are some very capable SUVs, like the 4Runner, Xterra, Grand Cherokee. It would make a lot more sense to go after that market. The 4Runner TRD Pro, the Extera Pro 4X and the Cherokee Trail Hawk are extreme enough for a lot of folks. It's the perfect crowd to go after with a new Bronco, because it meets the Bronco heritage.
If they tried to go after the Wrangler, the world would just laugh at Ford (like they did at Toyota for their FJ, which was actually a great vehicle) unless they went body on frame and SFA.
If Ford does that, I'll eat my desert... and like it too.

The Xterra isn't with us anymore.
4Runner sales are about half of what Wrangler sales are.
The FJC was laughed at because it had IFS and a non-removable top, and wasn't real accessible to the aftermarket (that should tell you something right there when people were buying 10 shoddy-quality Wranglers for every one FJC...). It's exposed sticky-outie taillights and other points of it's styling weren't difficult to make fun of either.
Ford's Explorer competes quite comparably with the current Grand Cherokee (very few GC buyers are taking them off road compared to buyers of Wranglers), Ford doesn't need another entry into that rather crowded segment.
And the new Cherokee Trailhawk may be "extreme" enough for some folks, but not for the hundreds of thousands of folks snapping up all those Wranglers each year.

And FWIW the Bronco was originally designed specifically to compete with Jeep.

The original Bronco was an ORV (Off-Road Vehicle), intended to compete primarily with Jeep CJ models and the International Harvester Scout. The Bronco's small size riding on a 92-inch (2,337 mm) wheelbase made it maneuverable for some uses, but impractical as a tow vehicle. The Bronco was Ford's first compact SUV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Bronco

TTB was nice offroad but a total POS on road. TTB has the steering manners of a class 8 truck with about 1.5,million miles on it.

There's no way in reality that Ranger will have a solid front axle. Ford never built a small truck with a solid axle, the Ranger was always TTB (which IMO was really the worst of both worlds). I don't see why in this market where the majority of people are worried about having "tech" in their truck instead of the mechanicals.

The Bronco could be fairly a special vehicle like the FJ Cruiser, which is underneath a variant of the 4Runner/Prado. Unless it's truly a just to get people in the doors it will have to be a derivative of an existing platform.

It seems obvious neither one of you have driven a TTB vehicle that was actually set up properly (that or perhaps you're just reiterating the opinion of someone before you who had his own flawed perception of it's road manners because he didn't set his steering linkage up correctly when he lifted it or ? ?). It is at the very least no worse than a solid axle truck would be (which indeed a solid axle's on-road handling is quite atrocious compared to the modern A-arm IFS setups that are out there), generally it is better. I'd be all for another TTB Bronco myself, but since perceptions such as these seem to be common among consumers, I don't think a TTB would be a viable option for Ford (the TTB is probably the most misunderstood suspension ever to be put into production). They'd do much better with the solid axle that most people seem to be more familiar with.

And the Ranger was not always TTB. After 1997 it had a conventional A-arm IFS w/torsion bars.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

The Xterra isn't with us anymore.
4Runner sales are about half of what Wrangler sales are.
The FJC was laughed at because it had IFS and a non-removable top, and wasn't real accessible to the aftermarket (that should tell you something right there when people were buying 10 shoddy-quality Wranglers for every one FJC...). It's exposed sticky-outie taillights and other points of it's styling weren't difficult to make fun of either.
Ford's Explorer competes quite comparably with the current Grand Cherokee (very few GC buyers are taking them off road compared to buyers of Wranglers), Ford doesn't need another entry into that rather crowded segment.
And the new Cherokee Trailhawk may be "extreme" enough for some folks, but not for the hundreds of thousands of folks snapping up all those Wranglers each year.

And FWIW the Bronco was originally designed specifically to compete with Jeep.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Bronco









It seems obvious neither one of you have driven a TTB vehicle that was actually set up properly (that or perhaps you're just reiterating the opinion of someone before you who had his own flawed perception of it's road manners because he didn't set his steering linkage up correctly when he lifted it or ? ?). It is at the very least no worse than a solid axle truck would be (which indeed a solid axle's on-road handling is quite atrocious compared to the modern A-arm IFS setups that are out there), generally it is better. I'd be all for another TTB Bronco myself, but since perceptions such as these seem to be common among consumers, I don't think a TTB would be a viable option for Ford (the TTB is probably the most misunderstood suspension ever to be put into production). They'd do much better with the solid axle that most people seem to be more familiar with.

And the Ranger was not always TTB. After 1997 it had a conventional A-arm IFS w/torsion bars.

Obviously you're a fanboy. An FJC is twice the vehicle of that turd in your avatar. And I no longer own an FJC so I'm definitely not in love with them. I've spent some time in a Bronco II, not impressed.

 

[4x4junkie]

Obviously you're a fanboy. An FJC is twice the vehicle of that turd in your avatar. And I no longer own an FJC so I'm definitely not in love with them. I've spent some time in a Bronco II, not impressed.

******** Jealous, are we? (sure sounds like it)

Definitely not a fanboy but yes I do like the vehicle. Just so happens that I knew what a good vehicle was that doesn't fall apart when you try to seriously offroad it, doesn't beat you up on the highway, and actually has some amount of room inside it without going to a prohibitively long wheelbase. It's low cost to own is only icing on the cake. If a Wrangler at the time happened to have a decent pair of axles under it along with something more than half the room of my BII, I potentially would've considered one. But the cramped interior and shoddy workmanship were all turnoffs. (and yes I do realize my BII's original axles were nothing much to speak of either. Unlike the Jeep at the time, there were bolt-in options from a wrecking yard available that quickly took care of that). If you don't like Fords, then thats fine, but then why are you even in this thread?

 

[quickfarms]

The ranger with TTB handles fine on the road. In my opinion it handles better than my LJ but not as good as the Durango or my wife's CRV.

The TTB does need regular alignments and can be hard on tires, you need to rotate and balance them regularly.

The vehicles are not new, except the CRV, but are well maintained

My opinions are based on just shy of 200,000 miles driving the ranger

 

[DaveInDenver]

It seems obvious neither one of you have driven a TTB vehicle that was actually set up properly

The day I bought it, 6 miles on the clock. Bought it for cash brand new when I was 24, almost 25. To be single again with nothing owned to speak of, a job that kept me on the road 150 days a year so all the money did was pile up in savings. Met my future wife, quit that job and moved to Colorado.



How it looked most of the 3 years before the transmission (it had the 4R55E automatic, one and only non-stick vehicle I've ever owned actually) went south, replaced that and sold it.



So my memories are admittedly clouded by the general POSness of it. I dunno if it was set up properly or not, it was like Ford built it. I never lifted it. By the time I started thinking about that stuff (I was looking at the James Duff stuff IIRC) I had moved on to Toyotas. I converted the auto hubs to manual and that was about it. I'm also not stupid, I know from experience that the factory suspension is a poor comparison, so it of course rode like a stock truck. My Tacoma is TRD that had the progressive coils and Bilsteins. The FOX/King/OME stuff I have now blows it away. Same as the all OME kit on the '91 did compared to stock. I'm sure that Ranger needed a good suspension.

A 1978 FJ40 replaced it in 1999, which didn't scratch the itch. I sold that for a 1991 Toyota Pickup in 2000. That I had until 2015 when I got my current 2008 Tacoma. I loved my Pickup and beat the living snot out of it over the years. It went to its new home with almost 300K on it and it's still doing daily driving and utility for a friend in Iowa. It was solid but, yeah, slow. If I could have it back I probably would, but I do like the 4.0L, 6 speed, the ride of this Tacoma, though. I'm not one who think a solid front axle is all that. For what I do with my truck I feel the IFS is fine.

I'm actually looking forward to the new Ranger primarily because I think Ford (and GM to some extent) have come a long way since 1996 and Toyota has gone backwards (less simple, reliable, more unnecessary stuff). So I'm willing to take a look, check them out. The new Ranger is reviewed favorably in Australia and those guys love their Toyotas, so we'll see I guess.

 

[Comanche Scott]

The Bronco was designed to compete with the Scout, not the CJ. The Scout was designed as an upscale sporty 4 wheel drive. opening a new market by offering folks a more comfortable and refined ride with a longer wheel base.
This market became the SUV, versus Jeep which was very entrenched in Utility Vehicle status.

The Bronco raised the bar on the Scout with a coil sprung front suspension system, and even nicer interior amenities.
Later when the Scout got bigger and more refined (i.e. the Scout-II), Chevy entered the game with the Blazer, and Ford followed suite with a redesigned bigger Bronco. Leaving Jeep behind, in the race to coddle the masses.
Jeep finally came out with the CJ8 to try and compete in the SUV market. Fortunately it was still all CJ and maintained it's utilitarian status.

Had the Bronco been designed to compete with the CJ, it would never have morphed into the big beast it became.

Journalists to this day draw parallels between SUVs and the Wrangler, but they are truly two different classes of vehicles. So it is easy to be confused, if you don't know the origins.

 

[Martinjmpr]

The Bronco was designed to compete with the Scout, not the CJ. The Scout was designed as an upscale sporty 4 wheel drive. opening a new market by offering folks a more comfortable and refined ride with a longer wheel base.
This market became the SUV, versus Jeep which was very entrenched in Utility Vehicle status.

The Bronco raised the bar on the Scout with a coil sprung front suspension system, and even nicer interior amenities.
Later when the Scout got bigger and more refined (i.e. the Scout-II), Chevy entered the game with the Blazer, and Ford followed suite with a redesigned bigger Bronco. Leaving Jeep behind, in the race to coddle the masses.
Jeep finally came out with the CJ8 to try and compete in the SUV market. Fortunately it was still all CJ and maintained it's utilitarian status.

Had the Bronco been designed to compete with the CJ, it would never have morphed into the big beast it became.
.
Journalists to this day draw parallels between SUVs and the Wrangler, but they are truly two different classes of vehicles. So it is easy to be confused, if you don't know the origins.

.
Minor quibble but the Blazer was introduced in 1969, 2 years before the Scout II which didn't come out until 1971.
.
Also Jeep tried to get into the more car-like SUV market in 1966 (same year as the first Bronco) with the Jeep Commando, which sat on the same 101" wheel base as the long wheelbase CJ-6. The CJ-6, in turn, was the "civilian" version of the M170 field ambulance, the ambulance version of the M38A1.
.

Unlike the CJ, the Commando had real doors with roll up windows and a removable steel top.
.
As for Jeep competing in the sporty, 2 - door SUV category, they introduced the Cherokee in 1974 which was designed to compete head-to-head with the likes of the Scout II, Blazer, Ramcharger/Trailduster (the Trailduster was the same thing as a Dodge Ramcharger but was sold under the Plymouth name) and Bronco.