The day I bought it, 6 miles on the clock.
View attachment 384145
That looks like a nice truck (you wasted no time getting a little mud on it too I see
).
So it sounds like you didn't have any real issue with the axle/suspension other than with the automatic hubs (which mechanically-engaged automatic hubs tend to be problematic no matter what axle they are on).
The suspension works very well for me... It's never given me trouble, even with tires, which I strongly believe is due to the upgraded steering linkage I put on it (at stock height, the stock linkage should normally be fine also). I've driven some Jeeps and old solid-axle trucks with some pretty scary handling, this is quite tame by comparison.
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.
I disagree. The Scout was very much in the same market segment back then too (none of which were SUVs, they were all MPVs... The term "SUV" wasn't coined until the late-1980s or so). Ford's idea was to present a better and more comfortable option within that market segment (just like IH was trying to do too). It's all about competition and trying to appeal to the same buyers. Markets do evolve over time though, and sales of not just the Bronco, but the Jeep CJ and Scout too were all losing out to larger rivals such as GM's Blazer/Jimmy twins, Jeep's larger Wagoneer, and to some extent the Dodge Ramcharger/Trailduster. So it is then when Ford decided there would be more profit available in taking the Bronco bigger to better compete with those rivals.
I would agree however in today's market, the Wrangler is indeed now in a class all by itself, and is a VERY profitable vehicle that Fiat inherited. I think it would be great to see Ford give it some company.
4runner sales have never been as high as Wrangler sales because of the price/quality difference between the two (there is a solid $10k difference between the entry-level models).
Indeed there is. My point is people are willing to forgo that quality for a more crude (but much more durable/modifiable) vehicle. If you've noticed, many people have shelled out way more than (probably even double) what a 4Runner costs for their JK after the cost of all the accessories they've bought for it are factored in. I'm sure that if the 4Runner had something more to offer in that department, more would consider it instead.
I agree that the FJ's styling was somewhat controversial, but it's aftermarket support and it's overall offroad utility are hard to dispute. Pretty much any aftermarket company that makes Toyota accessories seems to have a section dedicated to the FJ, and the lack of initial market demand for them has turned them into pretty amazing bargains on the used market. Plenty of people wheel them hard; it's essentially built on the same platform as the 4runner and LC prado, so I'm not sure why you doubt its offroad abilities.
I didn't say there was no aftermarket for it. Certainly suspension lifts and some amount of bumpers and other stuff are available for the FJC. But compared to the Wrangler (TJ or JK) and all the armor pieces and the many-times-over amount of suspension and axle accessories they have, it pales quite badly. This is because of the Wrangler's much-more-accessible solid axle suspension, and a more utilitarian body design that is easier to design upgrade parts for (as opposed to having lots of swoopy curves & edges).
And it's also quite hard to dispute that a vehicle with solid axles tends to have an easier go of it on a rugged path than one having IFS (likely the one biggest thing all those Wrangler buyers are after, even if it's to present only an image that they actually go offroad).
I want the Ranger and Bronco to come to market, as I assume you do. I think there is plenty of enthusiasm for those types of vehicles. But I'm not sure why you feel the need to oversell your preferred brand, while underselling the other brands. The Jeep had been selling sub 200k until 2014, and even now it's only at ~250k...saying that they sell "hundreds of thousands" annually is a bit misleading.
Perhaps I should've been clearer on that... I meant hundreds of thousands as plural of a hundred thousand, of which 200K & up is. But regardless, that is no insignificant figure.
I'm no Ford loyalist (as someone else above seemed to think), I did give the new Colorado some serious interest when news first broke that it was returning... However when I was looking for a small pickup years ago, Ford was the one to have what I wanted (I still have that pickup too, it's been a great truck), and now that they seem to be in a good position to give the Wrangler company, my hope is to see something that I could potentially replace my BII with. The dang thing is 27 years old now and has probably the equivalent of 260K miles on it... I know better than to think it's going to last forever.
