Iv known this for a while but i never thought much of it until now. the front bumpers on 96 broncos are not even bumpers. They are attached with a plastic peice, first mistake! second it is attached to the frame (that has a huge crumple zone which is about 1 foot long) by two small pieces of 1/8th inch steel that are bolted onto the back of the bumper. This set up dosent make any sence to me. Can anyone explain to me why ford used this flimsy design and has anybody done anything to make this bumper a BUMPER!
Thanks for any input.

 

Does your 96 have bumper shocks?

 

It was all about cost cutting. Granted, the nice neat crome bumper is kinda neat. But it lacks the functionality of the real world of 4wheeling, or even front end crashes(been there done that). Ford, and I'm sure that other companies do the same, was not really thinking about how hard some of us use these rigs. Especcially when we start adding a winch and need to have front attachment points. Try checking out some of these sites, and/or make your own.
http://broncoair.com/
http://www.bulletproofmfg.com/
http://www.buckstop.biz/
http://www.roadarmor.com/
http://tjmbullbars.com/

 

Looks like Bulletproof has really expanded their line. I've got their bumpers front and back on my Jeep, really like them, they are truely Bulletproof. If you ever bend it, they will replace it, lifetime guarantee. Theres a pic of my Jeep in my gallery for my F150.

I have the Warn Enforcer Bumper on my 94 F150 (in gallery). It's pretty tough. Last weekend we were up in the Sierras and a deer ran out in front of the truck, it appears that he hit just in and next to the fog light bucket on the bumper. The fog light was bent back and there maybe a ever so slight indent on the bumper, its really hard to tell if it bent it a little or not. This was the only evidence of the impact at 50 mph with the deer on the whole vehicle, unfortuatly for the deer it dident fair as well as the truck...

 

I read somewhere that that is ford's attempt to make a more safe truck. It is a huge crumple zone.

 

Anyone seen the comparison between a Mini Cooper (2001 IIRC) and a Ford Ranger? (I'll try to dig it up if I can) It's scary. Ford can call that safe, I don't.

Edit:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../html/0222.htm the Mini
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...html/98007.htm the Ranger
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../html/0110.htm F-150

 

Interesting thing they dont tell you ubermich is that in real life your chances are nil if you drive that "safe" mini cooper into the back of that F150, or more likely under the F150. I'll take my chances in the truck any day over that soda pop can your calling a car!

 

It just shows the differences in "crumple zones."
Your comparison between the mini and your truck is the same as if I were to say you ran your truck into a semi...
The way I see it, I like my bronco on a nice sturdy frame... Crumple zones may slow you down with less force, but you're still coming to a stop, and whether it's 60-0 in .5 or .7 seconds, in my head, isn't all that important.
So, in short, don't go driving your vehicle into other objects at 60 miles per hour.

 

uummm, excuse me but your the one in your above post that implied the mini is safer. You compared the safety of the mini to that of the Ranger and the F150, not me bubs, sorry.

 

I try not to imply anything. What I say is what I mean. I was curious if anyone had seen the difference. Nothing more. The pictures show differences in crumple zones under specific circumstances, that should be obvious enough. The thread was pointed toward crumple zones and cost-cutting, the pictures show the results of that (again, under specific controlled circumstances).
You changed it into a "my F-150 is safer if that mini hits my truck." However, if that were a controlled experiment, tests would be run with colisions at multiple heights. A low height, in which the truck would drive over it most likely and the mini would stop. A medium height, in which the truck would stop, and the mini would skid/stop (more than likely, the object would scrape across the hood before the front of the car would hit tires/diff. and/or the object would hit the towers/windshield and the car would stop). And a high height, in which the truck would follow a similar scenario to the mini in the mid-height and the mini would almost pass under it (it would probably hit the top, a situation where a driver could attempt to duck).
The problem there is that such collisions aren't as common, so it's not worth it to the insurance companies to spend their time running tests for it.
Also, I could've chosen many different cars, the only reason I chose the mini was because it is exceptionally small and fared that test (see: specific controlled circumstances) exceptionally well, a driver (assuming he still had his senses) could plausibly walk away from that vehicle. Whether you think the mini is safer or not is irrelevant, because the driver of the ranger is not getting out of that truck under his own power. Not unless the door was forced open by the crash and the driver could actually reach to the seatbelt latch... In short, I wasn't implying that the mini is safer in all situations. I was showing that the driver of the Ranger was not going to be getting out of the truck on his own, and that was not normal, but rather a result of substandard crumple zone placement and/or cost-cutting.

 

To get back to the original question, I don't think any bumper was meant to be crashed and reused. The bumper on my 47 plymouth is just a large piece of chromed steel tied to the frame rails with brackets. It's an identical setup to my 86 Bronco - neither will "survive" an accident. It's unreasonable to expect them to. They are consumables that can reduce the cost of repair if the accident isn't too severe. It's much cheaper to bolt on a new bumper than to paint a soft fascia panel, and install that with a new hidden bumper anyway. Case in point - 0735 this morning, my Bronco is suddenly worth about $300 less than is was a couple seconds ago. The minivan that ran into me? It's probably going to need about $3000 in repair because of all of the parts that were destroyed. I drove the Bronco away.. Check out the gallery!!

 

The crumple zone started around 93 or something. I don't believe that my 90 has a crumple zone. So look out!

 

Thats a good point cheggie, the bumper is cheaper. Glad your Bronco held up better than the minivan, although I'm not surprised.

ubermick, I guess your not saying that the Mini is safer with the statement "Anyone seen the comparison between a Mini Cooper and a Ford Ranger" , humm...

In most "real life" accidents that someone would get into in that mini, they will end up in the Hospital in that little thing, and you probably wont in the trucks in the majority of "real Life" accidents. You want to talk to those that know? Just ask any Highway Patrol or Tow truck driver which one they would rather be in, I'm sure you wont find many that say they would rather be in the Mini, despite what the controlled tests tell you.

I saw a accident just about a month ago where someone's little car ended up underneath a truck and they dident make it out alive and that scenario is quite common given the percentage of large trucks and SUV's on the highway now.

 

i have a bumper on my bronco that has survived 2 wrecks and left a light pole and andthoer truck in pieces....i still have the bumper on my bronc and love it....its great for being pulled out of the mud or running over stop signs