Bronco to Have a Solid Front Axle? - Page 4 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Go Back  Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Bronco > 2020 Bronco
Reload this Page >

Bronco to Have a Solid Front Axle?

Notices
2020 Bronco Discussion for the upcoming 2020 Ford Bronco!

Bronco to Have a Solid Front Axle?

 
  #46  
Old 02-20-2017, 06:25 AM
Tom's Avatar
Tom
Tom is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Isanti, MN
Posts: 23,588
Tom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputation
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.
 
  #47  
Old 02-20-2017, 08:41 AM
2Door's Avatar
2Door
2Door is offline
New User
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 20
2Door is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by tseekins View Post
Off road in general or rock crawling?

I've solid front axle trucks, TTB trucks and now an IFS truck. Can someone please give me solid advantage to having a solid front axle truck as opposed to any of the others that I mentioned?

Additionally, why in hell would Ford build the Bronco with a solid axle when the Ranger will likely come with IFS? This vehicle is already going to be expensive, how much more so does it have to be?
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.
 
  #48  
Old 02-20-2017, 12:29 PM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is offline
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 29,026
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
^^^^^

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.
 
  #49  
Old 02-20-2017, 04:09 PM
My4Fordtrucks's Avatar
My4Fordtrucks
My4Fordtrucks is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,012
My4Fordtrucks is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.My4Fordtrucks is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
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'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.
 
  #50  
Old 02-20-2017, 04:30 PM
Tom's Avatar
Tom
Tom is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Isanti, MN
Posts: 23,588
Tom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by My4Fordtrucks View Post

So you want it to ride like a car and don't want to do any maintenance.
Yup, more or less.

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.
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.
 
  #51  
Old 02-20-2017, 07:59 PM
My4Fordtrucks's Avatar
My4Fordtrucks
My4Fordtrucks is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,012
My4Fordtrucks is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.My4Fordtrucks is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
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.
 
  #52  
Old 02-21-2017, 07:27 AM
2Door's Avatar
2Door
2Door is offline
New User
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 20
2Door is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by tseekins View Post
^^^^^

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.
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.
 
  #53  
Old 02-21-2017, 07:32 AM
Tom's Avatar
Tom
Tom is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Isanti, MN
Posts: 23,588
Tom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by 2Door View Post
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.
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.
 
  #54  
Old 02-21-2017, 10:14 AM
Ford_Six's Avatar
Ford_Six
Ford_Six is offline
Super Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Big, Oregon
Posts: 18,488
Ford_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputation
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.
 
  #55  
Old 02-21-2017, 10:39 PM
Azryael's Avatar
Azryael
Azryael is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 929
Azryael is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.Azryael is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by 2Door View Post
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.
It's nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this way!
 
  #56  
Old 02-22-2017, 05:03 AM
JKBrad's Avatar
JKBrad
JKBrad is online now
Postmaster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,379
JKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to behold
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.
 
  #57  
Old 02-22-2017, 08:28 AM
2Door's Avatar
2Door
2Door is offline
New User
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 20
2Door is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by Azryael View Post
It's nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this way!
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.

Originally Posted by JKBrad View Post
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 in who want one, but then most buy the 4 door Everest, Explorer, Edge etc for it's practicality. But they will sell to those men and women who don't have a domestic driven need for practical conveyance.

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 whould 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.
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.
 
  #58  
Old 02-22-2017, 12:32 PM
My4Fordtrucks's Avatar
My4Fordtrucks
My4Fordtrucks is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,012
My4Fordtrucks is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.My4Fordtrucks is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by JKBrad View Post
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 '66-'96 Bronco.........
.
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.
 
  #59  
Old 02-22-2017, 02:14 PM
JKBrad's Avatar
JKBrad
JKBrad is online now
Postmaster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,379
JKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by My4Fordtrucks View Post
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.
 
  #60  
Old 02-22-2017, 06:17 PM
JKBrad's Avatar
JKBrad
JKBrad is online now
Postmaster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,379
JKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by 2Door View Post
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.
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.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Bronco to Have a Solid Front Axle?


Contact Us About Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: