I don't want it to be expensive. I want it to make sense, which means being available under $30K. The Raptor doesn't make sense in that regard, simply wouldn't fit my budget. I also don't want to deal with the crappy handling or maintenance of a solid front axle.

 

I've got this one; forced articulation. Offroad, as you go over obstacles, an IFS arrangement will go to a certain amount, but the opposite end of the X point will become unweighted and lose traction. Here's what I mean;


The wheeltravel in the rear is restricted to the weight of the tire pulling it down.

Now, a solid axled rig, since those tires are connected by that axle, when one side goes up, it forces the other down. My Jeep is an example;



As the drivers side wheel travels up, It forces the passenger side down, putting pressure on both tires, so you don't loose traction. Traction is important.

Also, Revolver shackles? Pft... only an issue with leaf springs. My Jeep is 4 link front and rear (with track bars) I have 36's on it now, and wheelbearings aren't an issue.

Also, the articulation thing I mentioned is good for all forms of offroad... not just rock crawling. Traction is paramount offroad.

If you want a direct comparision; We have 2014 and newer Ford F150's at work. They are run up a dirt road every once in awhile and with less than 40k miles, a lot of them are going in for front end parts... and most of them have a squeak or two in them. And that is not anything more than a dirt road.

The Bronco isn't going to be for everyone. Now, Ford just has to decide who they don't want to appease; the enthusiasts or the casual buyer. One will keep the nameplate fueled... the other finds something else when their lease is up.

 

^^^^^

I get that and thank you for the wonderful pics!!! That's some serious wheelin'! But, I'm not convinced that Ford is chasing Jeep as much as they are re-inventing an old name.

 

I'm sure it will be out of my price range. I can't justify the crazy prices of trucks. Who is going to pay $40-60K or more for a truck and then actually use it use it as one. I'd be too worried about dents and scratches.

So you want it to ride like a car and don't want to do any maintenance. What extra maintenance is required of a solid axle that isn't on an ifs axle? They both have ball joints and tie rod ends. I would say the ifs has more to go wrong since it has control arm bushings that the solid axle would not have.

 

Yup, more or less.

It's more to do with the complexity when things fail. I can replace a balljoint in most IFS setups in about an hour, perhaps 90 minutes if I have any issues. I don't have to monkey around with needle bearings, U-joints, knuckle seals, or any of that nonsense. My only experience with SFA is with a Super Duty, and those are a raging PITA to work on compared to just about anything IFS.

I like sealed components that don't require disassembling everything else to service. I also like a comfy ride and good handling, which are tough to pull off with SFA. A small SUV built like a Ranger, with IFS, RWD, and a solid rear axle would be awesome for my needs.

 

IMO what you want isn't a Bronco. I still own two Broncos : '67 and '87. I used to also have a '94 but downsized the fleet so it had to go.

 

Thank you.

But that's the advantage of the solid axle under a wheeling vehicle. Reading the different press release stuff, they do say that they want to enter into that "offroad" marketplace. They have a good grasp on it with their Raptor. A well executed solid front axle arrangement COULD make the new Bronco a fierce competitor for the Jeep. With Ford's engine program utilized, it could easily outperform the Jeep Wrangler in most areas.

And solid front axles aren't remotely complex. My Jeep comes apart quick... I can change a major component on one side in about 20 mins... meaning a ball joint, knuckle... I can have the axle laying on the floor in less than that. And for reference, the wheel bearings are sealed units. So to replace them, it's 3 bolts and an axle nut. Piece of cake.

Really though, the only thing I NEED from this Bronco is a manual transmission. I probably wont seriously wheel this thing (of course, I said that about my Jeep too...) but I want it tough enough that I could, or that I can still use it as a backup wheeler for easy trails. IFS won't destroy that. But I NEED to have it drive on the street in all weather and how I like... meaning I want a manual transmission and a manual tcase. A rear locker would be a rather large benefit as well.

 

So they're not all as complicated as what we see on the Super Duties. I guess that makes sense without the vacuum-actuated lockout hubs. Interesting.

 

Independent suspension can have advantages. It does keep the tires more vertical relative to the body, and as long as you're not looking at Fiat cars, it can be had in fairly long travel.
I have a 2002 Explorer with the independent rear suspension, and that is a street design rather than off-road, but has a fair bit more than the "trail rated" Fiat. Even then, it can get into that same situation fairly easily.
I am currently building (have been for more than a few years) a Courier 4x4. D44 straight axle from a J2000, Toyota rear end, and a Ford-style three link system. It'll still run into that same situation, although not as readily.
Since any non-SVT version will have shorter travel, why not go with the stopgap route and put a good locker in it? The problem with lifting a wheel on the trail is that it doesn't put power to the ground, but a locked axle will. Even some of the ABS-based fake lockers are getting pretty decent. Land Rover/ Range Rover has some impressively capable SUVs despite their modern plastic looks.

 

It's nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this way!

 

If Ford builds a Rodeo/Rodeo Sport type 2 and 4 door it'll do well, for awhile. They were great if unispiring SUVs. The Rodeo Sport even had a removable half top like a '78-'96 Bronco.

However, the Bronco name is legendary. To slap the nameplate on an Everest would be an injustice. Why not continue to use the Everest name?

Bronco needs to stand out. It should create a desire to own one. Even if it's not practical. It should draw men into dealers who want one, but then end up buying the 4 door Everest, Explorer, Edge etc for it's practicality. However, Ford will sell then Broncos to those men (and women) who don't have a domestic driven need for practical conveyance. Let's face it. Ford, and the SUV market in general, needs an SUV that appeals to men.

They'll sell all they make. The front suspension can be IFS, but it should ride impractically high and have long travel. It needs to be boxy, slab sided and chunky. Think Land Rover Defender 90, 2 dr G wagen, 2 door Trooper II. It should be simple, uncomplicated and rugged.

Imagine a Defender 90 frame used as a starting point. Perfect. A vehicle built on it or a similar layout would be a home run.

Don't mess this up Ford, but I fear you may have already.

 

You're not alone. Right now, actually... the only running vehicles we have (my girlfriend and I) are manual transmission vehicles. Both cars and the Jeep. The truck is a project at the moment and will stay auto for nostalgia's sake (it was dads truck that he bought new, so the AOD stays in it and it'll be just a cruiser) but I plan on owning as many manual transmissions as I can get away with. I love the connection.

I'm with ya. The Bronco's name is in fact legendary. It would be a shame if they pulled a Chrysler and slapped "Bronco" on something that was extremely pedestrian... like Chrysler did with the Dart. I absolutely think that they have room in their SUV lineup for a more enthusiast fueled SUV. They do it with the stang...and the F150... Give Jeep a run for their money!

And Ford_Six... that Fiat DOES have a rear locker (my brother has one very similar). The Trailhawk version of those Cherokees is good on paper. But the practical usage of them isn't great. Meaning they have great approach/departure angles, a rear locker, etc... but the plastic, low rockers, independent suspension front and rear and such kill any actual performance. They just wouldn't be a durable weekend wheeler.

 

Fixed that for you. Every year of Bronco production had a removable roof unless you got a roadster which didn't come with a roof.

 

I was comparing the Rodeo Sport to what a new Everest size and based Bronco could be like. The Isuzu Rodeo Sport/Amigo was a 2 door variant that had a removable rear top section similar to the '78-'96 Bronco.

I know that the '66-'77s had a full removable hard top.

My point was that, in my opinion, a 2 door Everest would look a lot like a Rodeo Sport. If Ford builds that, it should have a removable rear half top at a minimum. Is it ideal? No. Sadly, I doubt there will be a 2 door.

The Everest is a nice SUV with a proper body on frame setup. Please Ford, don't call it a Bronco. It will compete well with a 4Runner, but not a Wrangler.

 

More like what they did to the Cherokee. The XJ Cherokee was a revolution. An amazing, compact unibody SUV with integrated frame rails and a solid axle setup. It was offered, and sold well, for 18 model years with very few changes. More like what a Bronco should be than what it's proposed to be. What replaced it is a competitive crossover that in no way embodies the spirit of the original. They do seem to sell well though, despite their looks and it being more of an Outback/V70 Cross Country/Highlander kind of vehicle.