What's new
By:
Filters

Ford Bronco Release date set

From the guy pictured in the Bronco:

A2bambach said:
It was very far back and lowered all the way I wasn’t about to mess with the seat I just wanted a pic in the beast
Click to expand...
 
2big bronco said:
Cant figure out how to get the damn pre order thing to work. 100" wheelbase on 35s with lockers front and rear sounds like the perfect family wheeling rig that can mall crawl during the week and still drive nice.
Click to expand...

You have to create an account on the ford website. After that you will probably have to try multiple times to pay your $100 deposit. The site would do nothing, and after a couple tries it finally said the site was overwhelmed with traffic, it worked the next time I tried.
 
I'll wait till there are some real world reviews from the trails , that's a lot of cake to put out hoping ford didn't shit the bed with this.
 
I think I’m going to get one, the Tacoma I use for my mild wheeling and hunting is going to sold soon to make room:smokin:
 
Once V 2.0 comes around, and assuming the aftermarket steps up, I might be in.
 
.

Screenshot_20200714-191237_Facebook.jpg
 
rockota said:
I'm curious what Ford's goals are...

Mustang is becoming a brand...
Bronco, according to one article, is going to become a brand...

After collapsing brands in 08-09, seems like expanding brands is back in vogue?
Click to expand...

I mentioned this on the PBB thread a while back. It sure does seem that they are expanding.. but it's a completely different take than what we've seen in the past- 3 real groups targeted, and the brands never seeming to really hit any of their demographics on the money. GM sort of tried to specialize brands back during the bankruptcy but is failing as we speak with too many crossover style vehicles, too many trucks that do the same damn thing. But, having 4 total as family/trucks/suvs, luxury, performance, and offroad oriented are not bad ideas imo. I guess time will tell.


I personally really, really wanted to consider one of these for a first new vehicle, as I've never bought a new car. I'm happy about everything but the IFS. That's a deal breaker for me right now, especially because I have no idea what the IFS is like on these, and I haven't read the entire thread yet to find out. I might be able to be won over if it's some Humvee axle shit up front but I was really hoping on a 44 SFA.:rolleyes:

If Ford offered the SFA variant they tested in development for a modest increase in price, say as a performance upgrade, this thing would kill a lot of Jeep sales imo.
 
Just a guess but offering both straight axle and IFS options could open them up to lawsuits after crashes. Guy buys SFA and crashes, his lawyer points out that IFS vehicle would not have crashed or lost control in same situation. ford is on the hook for selling less safe design
 
ChiScouter said:
Just a guess but offering both straight axle and IFS options could open them up to lawsuits after crashes. Guy buys SFA and crashes, his lawyer points out that IFS vehicle would not have crashed or lost control in same situation. ford is on the hook for selling less safe design
Click to expand...


that would have already happened with the F150 vs F250 or JK vs grand Cherokee.
 
DMG said:
that would have already happened with the F150 vs F250 or JK vs grand Cherokee.
Click to expand...

Yep. Ford and Dodge have been offering both across their lineup of vehicles the entire time. Ford weathered TTB jacking as well as dumbasses trying to fly Raptors through the air... I'm sure they'll be fine on this front. It's all about the literature to CYA. But man, how sweet would it be to have the choice on the same model vehicle. It'd be a first I think.

These do have some killer ground clearance stock, and I'm just itching to see under her skirt right now. I'd realistically be a 2-5 years down the road buyer so that gives some time for these to fail or prove themselves. It is kind of what I want in a newer 4x4... a capable enough vehicle that I can use to drive my family to a place like Moab, wheel around and see the sights, and drive it back getting decent fuel mileage along the way. I KNOW a 44 SFA in a Rubicon can do that for me, and was very impressed by my buddy's for that and some moderate crawling. Can this IFS do the same for me?
 
It looks like a Scout II, and the Sport version looks like a Land Rover Discovery. It's pretty obvious they copied the C/D pillar design from an older Disco.

The front IFS looks decent. The control arms look cast, instead of fabricated sheet metal. It's still IFS though and the arms are short short short.

This might put Subaru out of business because all the lesbians will be riding around in Broncos.
 
I forsee a lot of "total loss" broncos in the future over the roll bar design. While the patents make it look removable, it seems somewhat integral to the body. Insurance want to write off whenever a crumple zone is compromised, if theres damage to a pillar or quarter it may be totaled.
Screenshot_20200715-011925_Gallery.jpg


I wonder how the aftermarket will find a solution for a "real" cage.
 
ChiScouter said:
Just a guess but offering both straight axle and IFS options could open them up to lawsuits after crashes. Guy buys SFA and crashes, his lawyer points out that IFS vehicle would not have crashed or lost control in same situation. ford is on the hook for selling less safe design
Click to expand...

A solid axle isn't "less safe", I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Ford and Dodge/Ram have been offering ifs and solid axle versions of the same trucks for a while now.

Dr.Danger said:
Yep. Ford and Dodge have been offering both across their lineup of vehicles the entire time. Ford weathered TTB jacking as well as dumbasses trying to fly Raptors through the air... I'm sure they'll be fine on this front. It's all about the literature to CYA. But man, how sweet would it be to have the choice on the same model vehicle. It'd be a first I think.
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, plenty of vehicles have been offered in both IFS and solid axle (generally 2wd vs. 4wd). The '86-'97 F250 vs F350 is a good example of 4wd versions of both IFS and solid axle in the same vehicle.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
A solid axle isn't "less safe", I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Ford and Dodge/Ram have been offering ifs and solid axle versions of the same trucks for a while now.



As mentioned above, plenty of vehicles have been offered in both IFS and solid axle (generally 2wd vs. 4wd). The '86-'97 F250 vs F350 is a good example of 4wd versions of both IFS and solid axle in the same vehicle.
Click to expand...

I stated that how I did because I was thinking that on the same year and same exact model, I still don't think anyone has ever offered both SFA and IFS. For instance, Ford F-150 and 250 had TTB in 1986 and only the F-350 had solid 60. Technically not the same model designation.

Raptor, if technically an F-150 strikes me as the closest to offering two wildly different setups but both are still IFS.

What does really blow his liability argument up though is having a 4x4 option on a vehicle at all. That is where we have 2 entirely different front suspensions on the same vehicle. For instance Twin I Beam vs. solid axle on an F-250.
 
evernoob said:
It looks like a Scout II, and the Sport version looks like a Land Rover Discovery. It's pretty obvious they copied the C/D pillar design from an older Disco.

The front IFS looks decent. The control arms look cast, instead of fabricated sheet metal. It's still IFS though and the arms are short short short.

This might put Subaru out of business because all the lesbians will be riding around in Broncos.
Click to expand...

All of these descriptions make me happy.

Scout II.....I am good with that.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
A solid axle isn't "less safe", I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Ford and Dodge/Ram have been offering ifs and solid axle versions of the same trucks for a while now.



As mentioned above, plenty of vehicles have been offered in both IFS and solid axle (generally 2wd vs. 4wd). The '86-'97 F250 vs F350 is a good example of 4wd versions of both IFS and solid axle in the same vehicle.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that straight axles were less safe, I said it could be argued by lawyers in court. In case you are not aware a 250 and 350 are considered different models and 2 and 4wd are considered different. Please show me where a manufacturer in the same exact model of vehicle offers a sold or independent axle option in 4wd?
 
ChiScouter said:
I didn't say that straight axles were less safe, I said it could be argued by lawyers in court. In case you are not aware a 250 and 350 are considered different models and 2 and 4wd are considered different. Please show me where a manufacturer in the same exact model of vehicle offers a sold or independent axle option in 4wd?
Click to expand...

Stop tempting me...USA only? Or
 
I gotta admit, the more I see the pics, the more I like them.

I watched a you tube video on all the packages, weird take on how they did it. (ie: base model has carpet, you have to get a higher model for rubber floors) but they have a few packages with basically water proof (or at least resistant) interiors with easy to remove drain plugs. 1 is a lower model and the other is a higher model.

It's also weird how some models only come with the auto, and 1 only comes with the bigger motor.

Too bad they don't do the 2.7/7 speed manual. The 2.7 in my wife's F150 moves that big pig very well.

Once they're proven, I may look into switching the F150 for one.
 
Dr.Danger said:
I stated that how I did because I was thinking that on the same year and same exact model, I still don't think anyone has ever offered both SFA and IFS. For instance, Ford F-150 and 250 had TTB in 1986 and only the F-350 had solid 60. Technically not the same model designation.

Raptor, if technically an F-150 strikes me as the closest to offering two wildly different setups but both are still IFS.

What does really blow his liability argument up though is having a 4x4 option on a vehicle at all. That is where we have 2 entirely different front suspensions on the same vehicle. For instance Twin I Beam vs. solid axle on an F-250.
Click to expand...

I agree on the 2wd vs. 4wd in regards to ChiScouter's argument.

ChiScouter said:
I didn't say that straight axles were less safe, I said it could be argued by lawyers in court. In case you are not aware a 250 and 350 are considered different models and 2 and 4wd are considered different. Please show me where a manufacturer in the same exact model of vehicle offers a sold or independent axle option in 4wd?
Click to expand...

You are bordering on pedantic. The only differences between an '86-'97 F250 and F350 are the size of the blocks in the rear and the axle in the front. Who gives a fuck if it says "F250" or "F350" on the fender, they are the same damn truck, but with different front axles.

If that isn't good enough for you, how about the '80-'85 vs. '86 F350? Same body style, same model, but the '86 had the Dana 60 solid front instead of the Dana 50 TTB. Same thing with '85 Toyota 4Runners and trucks vs. the '86+ models.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
I agree on the 2wd vs. 4wd in regards to ChiScouter's argument.



You are bordering on pedantic. The only differences between an '86-'97 F250 and F350 are the size of the blocks in the rear and the axle in the front. Who gives a fuck if it says "F250" or "F350" on the fender, they are the same damn truck, but with different front axles.

If that isn't good enough for you, how about the '80-'85 vs. '86 F350? Same body style, same model, but the '86 had the Dana 60 solid front instead of the Dana 50 TTB. Same thing with '85 Toyota 4Runners and trucks vs. the '86+ models.
Click to expand...


How about this, same year, same model. I don't care what the differences are the manufacturer calls them different models
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh