Ford USA - Ranger and Bronco Return?

[05XR8]

Well, I suppose you could say it's also Left Foot Drive.

For those that can't dance.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Baby Bronco seems pretty capable:

 

[CodeRedR51]

Baby Bronco seems pretty capable:

Yes.

Edit: Most impressive part at 5:54

 

[greenlightning]

So anyone purchased the sport or test drove one etc. If so whats your thoughts.

How many on the forum chain have pre-ordered the full size? What's the latest on when orders might start to be filled?

Myself still waiting around for another 6 months or so before make any decisions.
Unless I find a great deal on something that I am interested in.

 

[Keef]

Yes.

Edit: Most impressive part at 5:54

The traction control aspect of that is clearly best in class, likely better than whatever system Toyota has on the Rav4. I don't think the Rav4 has the same ATRAC system as the bigger Toyota trucks but they might call it that. Either way that's the main thing to gather from this - that obstacle is actually pretty mild, just a test of tire traction mainly. Those Moab rocks are actually really grippy when they're dry and this hill only requires as much articulation as a stock pickup truck would have.

 

[CodeRedR51]

The traction control aspect of that is clearly best in class, likely better than whatever system Toyota has on the Rav4. I don't think the Rav4 has the same ATRAC system as the bigger Toyota trucks but they might call it that. Either way that's the main thing to gather from this - that obstacle is actually pretty mild, just a test of tire traction mainly. Those Moab rocks are actually really grippy when they're dry and this hill only requires as much articulation as a stock pickup truck would have.

Tell that to people that have been up it. It's not quite that easy.

 

[Joey D]

Those Moab rocks are actually really grippy when they're dry and this hill only requires as much articulation as a stock pickup truck would have.

It doesn't even require that much articulation. You can pretty much do Hell's Revenge in anything with enough ground clearance and not bald tires. A few years back a guy even did it in a clapped-out Crown Victoria and I've seen videos of more than one Jeep Renegade doing it. I've had friends do it in fatass overland rigs too with zero issues.

Go do Cliff Hanger, The Pickle, Moab Rim, or Pritchett Canyon and I'll be impressed. Ok, Pritchett Canyon probably couldn't be done by anything that was remotely stock.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Speaking of.

 

[VXR]

Dang, that's impressive for what is essentially the Broncho Freelander!

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Fuel economy numbers are out for the big boy and I'd say they are....kind of dismal actually.

At best, you are getting 22mpg highway with the 2.3 liter, 21mpg combined. The fact that the 4 is barely better than the V6 is disappointing to me. Around town, you are looking at 17mpg with either engine.

The Jeep Wrangler's 3.6 liter N/A V6 returns 24mpg highway...and that engine doesn't even have direct injection! And it's ancient!

 

[Keef]

Fuel economy numbers are out for the big boy and I'd say they are....kind of dismal actually.

At best, you are getting 22mpg highway with the 2.3 liter, 21mpg combined. The fact that the 4 is barely better than the V6 is disappointing to me. Around town, you are looking at 17mpg with either engine.

The Jeep Wrangler's 3.6 liter N/A V6 returns 24mpg highway...and that engine doesn't even have direct injection! And it's ancient!

In what trim, Badlands? As in 35 inch tires? Because you know the Rubicon doesn't get anywhere near the "normal" gas mileage for lesser Wranglers. That said the Bronco is notably larger and likely heavier than the Wrangler so this isn't entirely unexpected. It's much better than my Sequoia and a Bronco Badlands is damn near the same size and weight as this thing. In almost every car I've ever driven I've easily managed better than the posted MPG numbers...I'm not really sure how other people get worse but I assume they just have crappy driving techniques or they're stuck in big-city traffic constantly which we don't have much of here in Dayton.

Edit: Looks like the small-tire V6 trims get 18 city 20 highway while the big-tire Sasquatch V6 gets 17 city 17 highway. Generally this is still an improvement on my Sequoia although I can see how those numbers aren't impressive on the surface. I wouldn't doubt this is lower than what realistic numbers will be. That Wrangler number seems unrealistically high as well, presumably that's the highway number for a small-tire trim.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

In what trim, Badlands? As in 35 inch tires? Because you know the Rubicon doesn't get anywhere near the "normal" gas mileage for lesser Wranglers. That said the Bronco is notably larger and likely heavier than the Wrangler so this isn't entirely unexpected. It's much better than my Sequoia and a Bronco Badlands is damn near the same size and weight as this thing. In almost every car I've ever driven I've easily managed better than the posted MPG numbers...I'm not really sure how other people get worse but I assume they just have crappy driving techniques or they're stuck in big-city traffic constantly which we don't have much of here in Dayton.

Edit: Looks like the small-tire V6 trims get 18 city 20 highway while the big-tire Sasquatch V6 gets 17 city 17 highway. Generally this is still an improvement on my Sequoia although I can see how those numbers aren't impressive on the surface. I wouldn't doubt this is lower than what realistic numbers will be. That Wrangler number seems unrealistically high as well, presumably that's the highway number for a small-tire trim.

Isn't your Sequoia like a 15+ years old, full size SUV with a V8 and weighing over 6600lbs? The heaviest Bronco I can find is just over 5,300lbs. That's hardly insubstantial. The 2.3L Bronco is a full ton lighter than your truck.

 

[Keef]

Isn't your Sequoia like a 15+ years old, full size SUV with a V8 and weighing over 6600lbs? The heaviest Bronco I can find is just over 5,300lbs. That's hardly insubstantial. The 2.3L Bronco is a full ton lighter than your truck.

My '06 SR5 weighs about 5100 pounds lol. I'd call their weights similar. In practice I get about 14 city 19 highway @ 65 mph. Above 65 that 19 mpg starts to drop like a rock.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

My '06 SR5 weighs about 5100 pounds lol. I'd call their weights similar. In practice I get about 14 city 19 highway @ 65 mph. Above 65 that 19 mpg starts to drop like a rock.

Oops, I was looking at gross weight. I would still think that a truck made in 2022 with DI, a 7 speed or 10 speed gearbox, and a turbo 4 cylinder to do better than 22mpg highway. I can understand city rating being 20mpg or lower because it's still a heavy vehicle. I can only guess the body has a lot of drag bringing down highway economy.

 

[Keef]

Oops, I was looking at gross weight. I would still think that a truck made in 2022 with DI, a 7 speed or 10 speed gearbox, and a turbo 4 cylinder to do better than 22mpg highway. I can understand city rating being 20mpg or lower because it's still a heavy vehicle. I can only guess the body has a lot of drag bringing down highway economy.

A ton of drag, it's literally a box, the worst shape possible. And it's a notably larger box than the wrangler as well - the Wrangler's front profile including the gap under the truck is 5,476^2 inches but the Bronco Badlands's is 6,241^2 inches. That's a *does bad math that is probably wrong* 14% increase in frontal area. My Sequoia's frontal area is only 5,776^2 inches.

The Bronco is big as ****, I'm not really sure how many of us have wrapped our heads around that yet. It's a full-blown full-size SUV.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

A ton of drag, it's literally a box, the worst shape possible. And it's a notably larger box than the wrangler as well - the Wrangler's front profile including the gap under the truck is 5,476^2 inches but the Bronco Badlands's is 6,241^2 inches. That's a *does bad math that is probably wrong* 14% increase in frontal area. My Sequoia's frontal area is only 5,776^2 inches.

The Bronco is big as ****, I'm not really sure how many of us have wrapped our heads around that yet. It's a full-blown full-size SUV.

I've seen some images where it looks big, but that's typically the Sasquatch models. The 2-door black diamond looks smaller than a JL Rubicon to me, though it's hard to say for sure just based on pictures.

 

[Keef]

@Eunos_Cosmo Yeah that image isn't helping. There's 3+ feet between the cars, the Jeep is parked probably a foot in front of the Bronco, the photographer is standing on the side of the Jeep, and I'm not positive but those don't appear to be stock tires on the Jeep. You can tell the perspective difference by the tires - the Black Diamond comes stock with 32 inch tires while the Rubicon has 33 inch. Both the front and rear tires in the photo look massively different, especially the fronts but actually the difference is small.

Here's the difference between a mounted 32 and unmounted 33. Not much, and even less if the 33 were mounted.

A hardtop Black Diamond is 71.9 tall, soft top 73 (both without rails), a Rubicon (no specific top) is 73.6. The Ford is 75.9 wide, Jeep is 74.8. The Badlands and Sasquatch obviously both add more height and width. The Sasquatch is 2 inches taller from tires alone, besides the lift and roof rails which aren't measured.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Eunos_Cosmo Yeah that image isn't helping. There's 3+ feet between the cars, the Jeep is parked probably a foot in front of the Bronco, the photographer is standing on the side of the Jeep, and I'm not positive but those don't appear to be stock tires on the Jeep. You can tell the perspective difference by the tires - the Black Diamond comes stock with 32 inch tires while the Rubicon has 33 inch. Both the front and rear tires in the photo look massively different, especially the fronts but actually the difference is small.

Here's the difference between a mounted 32 and unmounted 33. Not much, and even less if the 33 were mounted.

I don't know @Keef Another photo which the perspective would tend to make the Bronco appear larger, and it doesn't really. The base models don't seem much bigger than Wranglers, if bigger at all. Google tells me the 2-door is 2" wider, 7" longer and about the same height (vs a 2-door Wrangler). Bigger, yes, but not substantially bigger. A Sequoia is another 4" wider than that and nearly 3 feet longer.

 

[Tornado]

Realistically it's the size of an S10 Blazer. It's nowhere near a full size SUV. The 4 door is a bit of a pig, but it's barely any larger than the Wrangler Unlimited even though the 2 door Bronco is a bit larger than the 2 door Wrangler.





The 2-door isn't even really nearly as large as the previous generation with which The Juice was Loose or a K5 Blazer, and that's about as small as I'd think one could consider to be "full size."

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Realistically it's the size of an S10 Blazer. It's nowhere near a full size SUV. The 4 door is a bit of a pig, but it's barely any larger than the Wrangler Unlimited even though the 2 door Bronco is a bit larger than the 2 door Wrangler.





The 2-door isn't even really nearly as large as the previous generation with which The Juice was Loose or a K5 Blazer, and that's about as small as I'd think one could consider to be "full size."

Ford should definitely make a "The Juice is Loose" special edition Bronco.

 

[Keef]

Realistically it's the size of an S10 Blazer.

Wat. I'm 5'10 and at least half a head taller than a Blazer. Not sure when the last time is you actually walked next to one of those lol, they're tiny.

Edit: A 1995 Blazer is literally 64 inches tall. That's the same as a Honda HRV. A 1995 Bronco was 74 inches tall and 79 inches wide, although I don't know if that's factoring mirrors. I assume that is with mirrors, as my Sequoia's total width is 79 inches, bigger than the next gen F-150. Either way, the Badlands and Sasquatch will match those numbers.

I think visually the ridiculous fender flares on the Wranglers are conflating its size. If it weren't for those things mounted up high front and center, covering half the damn paint, the Wrangler's body would would actually be pretty sad looking.

 

[Tornado]

Wat. I'm 5'10 and at least half a head taller than a Blazer. Not sure when the last time is you actually walked next to one of those lol, they're tiny.

Edit: A 1995 Blazer is literally 64 inches tall.

So put a lift kit on it. GM even sold one from the factory, which seemingly all of the ones still left on the road had. It's still a much closer analog than comparing it to a Toyota Sequoia.

A 1995 Bronco was 74 inches tall and 79 inches wide, although I don't know if that's factoring mirrors. I assume that is with mirrors, as my Sequoia's total width is 79 inches, bigger than the next gen F-150. Either way, the Badlands and Sasquatch will match those numbers.

No matter how big of a set of tires you put on the new Bronco or how high of a lift they sell you from the factory, it won't be the size of an SUV on a shortened full-size pickup frame like the K5 and the Juicemobile both were.

I think visually the ridiculous fender flares on the Wranglers are conflating its size.

Every picture I've seen of the Bronco, including the ones in this thread regarding this point of discussion, show somewhere between half a foot and a foot in the presumed body width coming from the flares it has.


It's not a big SUV. It's certainly not a full size SUV. Actual big SUVs, like your Sequoia, don't have narrow bodies with huge fender flares and big tires as the only thing making their dimensions what they are.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Don't know if this is the right thread for this or if this is already common knowledge, but apparently the Electric F150 will be called the Lightning though it will not be performance focused like the previous Lightning - rather it will be more of a general purpose truck like the normal F150. More information coming tomorrow.

Lightning seems like a good name for an electric pickup.

 

[Keef]

Don't know if this is the right thread for this or if this is already common knowledge, but apparently the Electric F150 will be called the Lightning though it will not be performance focused like the previous Lightning - rather it will be more of a general purpose truck like the normal F150. More information coming tomorrow.

Lightning seems like a good name for an electric pickup.

It's debuting tomorrow and is worthy of its own thread. It's not related to the Bronco or Ranger in any way.

 

[Veinz]

I was hoping for the Bronco to be a little larger than that. That video posted above of the Bronco Sport was super impressive though.

 

[Darla Starch]

...if I was in the market for a new truck I'd be certainly listening.

 

[GranTurNismo]

A single-cab Ranger has been spied.

Good to know that simple, cheap pickups are not dead yet.

 

[Keef]

Sasquatch size comparison with a Rubicon:

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Initial impressions of the Bronco are starting to roll in, just as deliveries have started.

Certified Jeep addict: David Tracy

Former Jalop alum: Kristen "Fancy" Lee

It's promising. I can't get over how good the Bronco looks, particularly in 2 door form. Ford really nailed it on the design, inside and out.

 

[Joey D]

God Kristen Lee is insufferable. I respect her opinion as much as I respect Alex Roy's opinion, which is to say about as far as I can throw a Bronco. It's little wonder she ended up on the trainwreck that is The Drive.

David Tracy on the other hand is well worth listening to on the subject since he is pretty well versed in off-roading.

I do find it funny they were talking about on-road driving though and bringing up things like diving under braking and body roll. I mean I get those potential buyers might want to know that, but I feel like the market who'd be interested in the Bronco doesn't care about either of those things. I mean, they bought Jeeps which will quite literally wobble you to death without any concern.

At least Tracy brings up the point that engineers need to make compromises and buyers will likely not care as long as the Bronco does everything it's built for well. I'll be curious to read some other reviews on it.

Shame that Ezra Dyer at Car & Driver didn't review it since I've found most of his reviews to be well done. I'm curious to see Jeff Gilbert's take on it too. Looks like he posted a video on his Twitter but I haven't got a chance to watch it yet.