Bronco to Wrangler

[TheRaven]

99% of SUVs and pickups out there have the exact same front suspension as a Ford Bronco.

If that’s what you want, get a Toyota 4Runner TRD, a Toyota Tacoma TRD, a Chevrolet Colorado ZR2, or a GMC Canyon AT4, and you will get a comparably capable off-road vehicle without having to wait years to get it, put up with shoddy Ford quality, the abuse from its dealers, or pay the insane markups.

Yes and this is the case because overall that suspension is much better than the Wrangler's suspension. Sorry if this is news to anyone here but IF FCA were to ever change the Wrangler to IFS, it would only improve sales. I know it would greatly disappoint a big chunk of the membership here but you guys are the 1%. The Wrangler doesn't sell like crazy because it's the best rock-crawler you can get off a showroom floor. It sells like crazy because it's a really cool SUV with a removable roof.

That said, I fully support the Wrangler's ancient suspension because there's really no other way to get such a setup from a major manufacturer with a full warranty. Even though I don't need it I don't mind it because I admire the "F-it" attitude. Really that's why I have a 392 Challenger too...i'm impressed that after all these years Dodge is still committed to building badass vehicles that don't make a whole lotta sense pratically. Rock crawling is not a popular sport like Baseball or Football...or even Kayaking, Hiking or Mountain Biking. Not many individuals participate. So the fact that a major automaker still produces a vehicle that prioritizes rock crawling capability at the expense of many much more practical capabilities is quite remarkable.

Sometimes this place really reminds me of the Subaru forums from back in my wife's Subaru days. All the STI boys were thinking they were driving the best car out there because "it's fastAR in the rain YO!!". Nevermind that anyone racing a factory automobile in the rain without a million dollar contract or at least a salary to do so is a seriously stupid individual. This is a lot like crapping all over all other "off-road" offerings just because the Rubicon can drive over a bigger rock. Sorry but there's a lot more to off-roading than just rock crawling and IFS vehicles can handle many of those aspects better than the Wrangler.

Just to be clear, i'm not a Bronco fan at all. But that has nothing to do with the suspension. For me it's due to the fact that they somehow managed to build a vehicle with worse build quality than the Wrangler, despite having how many decades of Wrangler history to benchmark.

Sponsored

 

[aldo98229]

Yep. Coming from a Toyota 4runner TRD Pro, I had it for around 2 years while my friends bought Jeeps. We have been wheeling local FSR's, ATV trails and tight obstacles and some challenging terrains here. Our goal initially was to see what we could do with our stock vehicles. Here is where it gets fun, first couple months on moderate/light trails as we were getting accustomed to spotting, picking lines, learning about our vehicles my 4runner was fine. Once we did a trip every weekend for months and months and built our confidence, we decided to do Eagle Mountain , It's not advanced but it's technical.

That's when I realized why my IFS is going to have a tough time and the solid front axle of my friends Jeeps are going to perform. I couldn't take the same lines, didn't have the ground clearance, I was scraping left and right. I had trail damage to my rear bumper after that trip, basically it wasn't fun. My friends in stock Rubicon's made it, I was being winched out of places, scraping everywhere. It was a 80% rock crawling trail and I struggled big time. At one point I thought maybe it's my driving skill and we switched with another rig that offered me a chance to drive his Jeep. He struggled as well. Long story short , that 6km trail took over 2.5 hours for me one way.

Anyways, as we continued to start to go on more challenging trails I realized I needed to mod my stock TRD 4runner. Started looking into lifts, bumpers, rims, tires, body mount chops, rear tire carriers, etc. Next thing I know I'm $15,000 in to mods to basically do what a stock Rubicon can. That's when I decided to make the switch after 2 and a bit years with my 4runner. Traded it in for a '21 Rubicon in February. For me, my family and the trips we want to do, the on road ride is fine, more than tolerable, I'm fine with the driving. The off road is where it shines and what it was built for. We went back to Eagle Mountain that weekend and I tackled it, had an absolute blast. Of course in the future I will modify my Jeep but for now, 90% of the trails here can be done with my Jeep stock. We have soooo much more to explore. Anyways, sorry for the long write up

No need to apologize.

A bunch on here seem to believe that the grass is greener on the IFS side, and Jeep ought to adopt it to “keep up with the times.”

Thank you for sharing your personal perspective and reminding everyone of what should be more obvious on these forums.

 

[Headbarcode]

Yes and this is the case because overall that suspension is much better than the Wrangler's suspension. Sorry if this is news to anyone here but IF FCA were to ever change the Wrangler to IFS, it would only improve sales. I know it would greatly disappoint a big chunk of the membership here but you guys are the 1%. The Wrangler doesn't sell like crazy because it's the best rock-crawler you can get off a showroom floor. It sells like crazy because it's a really cool SUV with a removable roof.

That said, I fully support the Wrangler's ancient suspension because there's really no other way to get such a setup from a major manufacturer with a full warranty. Even though I don't need it I don't mind it because I admire the "F-it" attitude. Really that's why I have a 392 Challenger too...i'm impressed that after all these years Dodge is still committed to building badass vehicles that don't make a whole lotta sense pratically. Rock crawling is not a popular sport like Baseball or Football...or even Kayaking, Hiking or Mountain Biking. Not many individuals participate. So the fact that a major automaker still produces a vehicle that prioritizes rock crawling capability at the expense of many much more practical capabilities is quite remarkable.

Sometimes this place really reminds me of the Subaru forums from back in my wife's Subaru days. All the STI boys were thinking they were driving the best car out there because "it's fastAR in the rain YO!!". Nevermind that anyone racing a factory automobile in the rain without a million dollar contract or at least a salary to do so is a seriously stupid individual. This is a lot like crapping all over all other "off-road" offerings just because the Rubicon can drive over a bigger rock. Sorry but there's a lot more to off-roading than just rock crawling and IFS vehicles can handle many of those aspects better than the Wrangler.

Just to be clear, i'm not a Bronco fan at all. But that has nothing to do with the suspension. For me it's due to the fact that they somehow managed to build a vehicle with worse build quality than the Wrangler, despite having how many decades of Wrangler history to benchmark.

That's the only arguments that anyone has to try to justify the broncos lackluster attempt at the offroad vehicle segment. To say it won't be used for that anyway so it may as well be equipped to drive like a Hyundai, and to constantly compartmentalize the Jeep to only being needed in the rocks.

The heavy yearly sales of the Wrangler seems to clearly indicate that people want the offroader that they paid for, and the Bronco will eventually do good itself because plenty of people just want to look the part. And articulation isn't only for the rocks, but also for a rutted dirt road that isn't maintained. Good thing every Bronco has lockers, because they will get a whole lot of use and engaged a whole lot sooner than the Jeep it tries to mimic.

Look, no rocks...

 

[Mason1646]

That's the only arguments that anyone has to try to justify the broncos lackluster attempt at the offroad vehicle segment. To say it won't be used for that anyway so it may as well be equipped to drive like a Hyundai, and to constantly compartmentalize the Jeep to only being needed in the rocks.

The heavy yearly sales of the Wrangler seems to clearly indicate that people want the offroader that they paid for, and the Bronco will eventually do good itself because plenty of people just want to look the part. And articulation isn't only for the rocks, but also for a rutted dirt road that isn't maintained. Good thing every Bronco has lockers, because they will get a whole lot of use and engaged a whole lot sooner than the Jeep it tries to mimic.

Look, no rocks...

Not every Bronco has lockers, mine didn’t at least. Every Bronco can get lockers by way of the Sasquatch package, but add a sas to a base and you’re getting closer to Rubicon prices.

This is a large reason I did what I did. I can get a lot more wrangler than bronco in the current market. You could sell a first edition and get a 392 with some cash in your pocket right now. Which one you think will be worth more in 3 years?

 

[aldo98229]

Yes and this is the case because overall that suspension is much better than the Wrangler's suspension. Sorry if this is news to anyone here but IF FCA were to ever change the Wrangler to IFS, it would only improve sales. I know it would greatly disappoint a big chunk of the membership here but you guys are the 1%. The Wrangler doesn't sell like crazy because it's the best rock-crawler you can get off a showroom floor. It sells like crazy because it's a really cool SUV with a removable roof.

That said, I fully support the Wrangler's ancient suspension because there's really no other way to get such a setup from a major manufacturer with a full warranty. Even though I don't need it I don't mind it because I admire the "F-it" attitude. Really that's why I have a 392 Challenger too...i'm impressed that after all these years Dodge is still committed to building badass vehicles that don't make a whole lotta sense pratically. Rock crawling is not a popular sport like Baseball or Football...or even Kayaking, Hiking or Mountain Biking. Not many individuals participate. So the fact that a major automaker still produces a vehicle that prioritizes rock crawling capability at the expense of many much more practical capabilities is quite remarkable.

Sometimes this place really reminds me of the Subaru forums from back in my wife's Subaru days. All the STI boys were thinking they were driving the best car out there because "it's fastAR in the rain YO!!". Nevermind that anyone racing a factory automobile in the rain without a million dollar contract or at least a salary to do so is a seriously stupid individual. This is a lot like crapping all over all other "off-road" offerings just because the Rubicon can drive over a bigger rock. Sorry but there's a lot more to off-roading than just rock crawling and IFS vehicles can handle many of those aspects better than the Wrangler.

Just to be clear, i'm not a Bronco fan at all. But that has nothing to do with the suspension. For me it's due to the fact that they somehow managed to build a vehicle with worse build quality than the Wrangler, despite having how many decades of Wrangler history to benchmark.

Yes and No. Wrangler sales would inch up after going IFS, but then they would start a long, steady decline.

We have been studying consumer demand for automobiles over the last 12 years, and have identified the various elements that make up “demand.” But that’d require a separate discussion.

 

[SQTowelie]

You gotta remember Henry Ford was making Jeeps before most of us were born! I love our Jeep, but competition is good for everyone. I saw this FORD JEEP at the Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson last week. I think I remember seeing one at the Marine Corps Museum in Virginia about 6 years ago too. So no matter how much you love or hate Ford, remember there’s a little bit of Ford blood in your Jeep every time you turn your key or push the start button. They helped our wonderful veterans win WW2, so we wouldn’t be saluting Hitler and his followers. Thank our veterans, young and old!

My grandpa brought back one of these in Red from his time in the army. It was always a fun ride and now I'm getting my first Jeep and I'll be thinking of him every time I get in it. Just looking forward to actually getting it one day. It had the stiffest clutch I've ever felt, slow as hell of course, and you sat on the gas can. But that thing would get through anything, while other vehicles kept getting stuck around the ranch that we were on. Good times!

 

[Headbarcode]

Not every Bronco has lockers, mine didn’t at least. Every Bronco can get lockers by way of the Sasquatch package, but add a sas to a base and you’re getting closer to Rubicon prices.

This is a large reason I did what I did. I can get a lot more wrangler than bronco in the current market. You could sell a first edition and get a 392 with some cash in your pocket right now. Which one you think will be worth more in 3 years?

Forgive my inaccuracy on that one. I've spent more time digging into the architecture of and mindset behind their steering and suspension setups, than making sense of the 6 models and few different package bundles that can or can't be added to this trim but not that.

It still remains that the lockers are more important when it doesn't take much to lift a broncos wheel. Meanwhile, Jeep didn't need lockers available to every model because a Sahara or Sport can go a whole lot deeper into the woods, so to speak, before lockers would be needed.

 

[Mason1646]

Forgive my inaccuracy on that one. I've spent more time digging into the architecture of and mindset behind their steering and suspension setups, than making sense of the 6 models and few different package bundles that can or can't be added to this trim but not that.

It still remains that the lockers are more important when it doesn't take much to lift a broncos wheel. Meanwhile, Jeep didn't need lockers available to every model because a Sahara or Sport can go a whole lot deeper into the woods, so to speak, before lockers would be needed.

I was just pointing this out because the sport to base comparison isn’t talked about as much as the Rubicon/Badlands one. The base bronco is far less off road capable than a sport wrangler.

 

[Headbarcode]

I was just pointing this out because the sport to base comparison isn’t talked about as much as the Rubicon/Badlands one. The base bronco is far less off road capable than a sport wrangler.

That would certainly be an interesting video. The ultimate budget-minded mash up, each driven by a couple of people who never owned anything 4x4 or have even been offroad. Than have them trade vehicles and send them through a different trail of equal difficulty.

 

[TheRaven]

That's the only arguments that anyone has to try to justify the broncos lackluster attempt at the offroad vehicle segment. To say it won't be used for that anyway so it may as well be equipped to drive like a Hyundai, and to constantly compartmentalize the Jeep to only being needed in the rocks.

Cause it's true for 99% of buyers.

The heavy yearly sales of the Wrangler seems to clearly indicate that people want the offroader that they paid for...

How so? The only thing that the heavy yearly sales of the Wrangler indicates is that people want a Wrangler. We go on and on here complaining about how the vast majority of Wranglers never leave pavement...even the heavily modded ones. So why would we then go on to posit that most people buy a Wrangler for its off-road ability? That's paradoxical.

Wrangler sales would inch up after going IFS, but then they would start a long, steady decline.

No. IFS would only make the Wrangler more desirable to the type of buyer that overwhelmingly makes up the Wrangler-buying demographic. It would only lose a fraction of the true off-road demo, and it would gain a massive chunk of buyers who won't buy it now because of its poor on-road manners and discomfort.

It really seems like we here at JLWranglerForums.com have a very distorted view of the type of person that is the typical Wrangler buyer.

I want to make clear again that i'm not here to be anti-Wrangler. I own one and love it. But i'm very honest about the shortcomings of my vehicles (all of them) and it's not hard to see where the Wrangler stands in terms of strengths and shortcomings.

 

[Headbarcode]

Cause it's true for 99% of buyers.



How so? The only thing that the heavy yearly sales of the Wrangler indicates is that people want a Wrangler. We go on and on here complaining about how the vast majority of Wranglers never leave pavement...even the heavily modded ones. So why would we then go on to posit that most people buy a Wrangler for its off-road ability? That's paradoxical.



No. IFS would only make the Wrangler more desirable to the type of buyer that overwhelmingly makes up the Wrangler-buying demographic. It would only lose a fraction of the true off-road demo, and it would gain a massive chunk of buyers who won't buy it now because of its poor on-road manners and discomfort.

It really seems like we here at JLWranglerForums.com have a very distorted view of the type of person that is the typical Wrangler buyer.

I want to make clear again that i'm not here to be anti-Wrangler. I own one and love it. But i'm very honest about the shortcomings of my vehicles (all of them) and it's not hard to see where the Wrangler stands in terms of strengths and shortcomings.

It makes zero difference how they are used. These are vehicles designed and built for the offroad vehicle segment, so the offroad capabilities of the two are what's worth talking about. We get it. The Bronco handles better on the road. But that's not to say that the Jeeps handling is akin to a shopping cart at highway speeds. I'm just pointing out that on road handling is the only straw that the bronco has to grasp, now that it's offroad prowess has proved to not have what it takes to replace the Wrangler.

The Wrangler has no reason to downgrade to ifs. Would those looking to own a modern muscle car, but have no intention of bringing it to a track, still buy one with an economy engine in it that couldnt go more than 60mph? Doubtful at best.

If fuel economy and car-like handling are ones priority, there's a slew of other vehicles to buy with their own forums to join. Take your pick. Just do them a favor and don't bitch about how easy it broke or got stuck after taking it out to a trail.

 

[aldo98229]

Cause it's true for 99% of buyers.



How so? The only thing that the heavy yearly sales of the Wrangler indicates is that people want a Wrangler. We go on and on here complaining about how the vast majority of Wranglers never leave pavement...even the heavily modded ones. So why would we then go on to posit that most people buy a Wrangler for its off-road ability? That's paradoxical.



No. IFS would only make the Wrangler more desirable to the type of buyer that overwhelmingly makes up the Wrangler-buying demographic. It would only lose a fraction of the true off-road demo, and it would gain a massive chunk of buyers who won't buy it now because of its poor on-road manners and discomfort.

It really seems like we here at JLWranglerForums.com have a very distorted view of the type of person that is the typical Wrangler buyer.

I want to make clear again that i'm not here to be anti-Wrangler. I own one and love it. But i'm very honest about the shortcomings of my vehicles (all of them) and it's not hard to see where the Wrangler stands in terms of strengths and shortcomings.

Sorry, consumer data doesn’t support your position.

Broadly speaking, consumer demand, or desirability to borrow your word, has two key components:

1. Volume - this is what we normally see in terms of sales numbers
2. Price justification - this is consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium

Volume is impacted primarily by things like the number of doors, the number of seats, cargo capacity, interior comfort, utility, efficiency, etc. Automakers, Jeep included, can grow sales volume by simply growing the number of doors (as it did with JK Unlimited), increasing seating capacity (as it did with Grand Cherokee L), by increasing utility (as it did, again, with JK Unlimited), or by increasing comfort (is it would do by moving Wrangler to IFS).

On the other side of the demand equation, price justification comes from unique product characteristics around performance/capability, styling and design, level of craftsmanship/fit and finish, and a reputation for innovation. Lack of a price justification results in hefty discounting. A position no automaker wants to be in.

The fact that WE are willing to buy Wranglers despite its many short comings, and even pay a premium for it, is because Wrangler has a reputation as an uncompromising off-road vehicle (which goes back to performance/capability); has an instantly recognizable design/styling that can be traced back 80+ years and more recently, has a level of fit-and-finish that is somewhat unexpected. Now 392 only adds to Wrangler’s performance/capability. Wrangler is simply not known for innovation.

Jeep has to balance these two opposing forces in order to not just maximize sales but, most importantly, maximize profits.

Moving Wrangler to IFS would strike at the heart of what makes Wranglers so uniquely different on the trails. It would be live knee-capping Wrangler where it hurts the most.

As the segment challenger, Ford doesn’t need to worry about half of these things. It simply needs to position Bronco as a credible alternative to Wrangler, and stick with it for the next 10+ years.

There’s no doubt Ford has done an excellent job positioning Bronco as a credible alternative to Wrangler. Whether it will stick with it for the next 10+ years remains to be seen. Both Xterra and FJ Cruiser gave up after trying for a number of years.

Bronco has an uphill battle. I can’t imagine Ford is making any money on Bronco given the number of production hiccups, supplier issues and quality problems. The vehicle is not even a year old and warranty costs have got to be already through the roof. Just imagine how much Bronco will cost FoMoCo in warranty expenses after those vehicles are 2 or 3 years old.

Jeep needs to do what it always does: focus on what it knows best and let the competition come and go.

But we digress...

 

[jjvincent]

In the end, it all depends on what you do with it. Most never off road their Jeep. Many will never off road their Bronco. So the bulk of the people just cruise around the urban jungle. I suspect that for even off roading, you can have a Jeep and still have problems while an experienced off roader with a Bronco can do quite well.

Case in point. I'm here at VIR and for a test day, some guy in a Honda CRV (looks to be about a 2020) Took it out and flogged it for around 50 laps (many more laps than I would ever think it would go) and got that thing down to a 2:38. It's bone stock. All while I watched a guy in a brand new Cayman GT4 (the race verson) struggle to get to a 2:30. Looking at that scenario, we could say that a $250K Cayman GT4 (race version) is a much better track car over a $35K CRV.

 

[TheRaven]

It makes zero difference how they are used. These are vehicles designed and built for the offroad vehicle segment, so the offroad capabilities of the two are what's worth talking about. We get it. The Bronco handles better on the road. But that's not to say that the Jeeps handling is akin to a shopping cart at highway speeds. I'm just pointing out that on road handling is the only straw that the bronco has to grasp, now that it's offroad prowess has proved to not have what it takes to replace the Wrangler.

The Wrangler isn't "just better" off-road either. There's a long list of IFS equipped off-road focused vehicles that can keep up or even surpass the Wrangler on everything short of straight up rock crawling. That's the point. IFS is not only better on-road, it's also pretty good off-road. Yeah solid axles are better...but they aren't that much better. However they are much worse on-road.

I am also a member over on the TahoeYukon forum and there are several members that take their Tahoes into the rocks right alongside the Wranglers. Yeah they aren't AS GOOD as the Wranglers are in the rocks, but they're still there.

The Wrangler has no reason to downgrade to ifs. Would those looking to own a modern muscle car, but have no intention of bringing it to a track, still buy one with an economy engine in it that couldnt go more than 60mph? Doubtful at best.

Wut? Yeah they would...the vast majority of Challenger/Camaro/Mustang sales are and have always been the slow V6s.

If fuel economy and car-like handling are ones priority, there's a slew of other vehicles to buy with their own forums to join. Take your pick. Just do them a favor and don't bitch about how easy it broke or got stuck after taking it out to a trail.

But what if I like the Wrangler the best? Despite the fact that i'm never going to take it off-road.? Sounds like you're telling me I should buy a vehicle I like less than the Wrangler just because i'm not going to be off-roading. If people followed that logic the Wrangler would have been discontinued decades ago.

 

[TheRaven]

Sorry, consumer data doesn’t support your position.

What data?

The fact that WE are willing to buy Wranglers despite its many short comings, and even pay a premium for it, is because Wrangler has a reputation as an uncompromising off-road vehicle (which goes back to performance/capability); has an instantly recognizable design/styling that can be traced back 80+ years and more recently, has a level of fit-and-finish that is somewhat unexpected. Now 392 only adds to Wrangler’s performance/capability. Wrangler is simply not known for innovation.

No, the fact that we are willing to buy Wranglers despite their many shortcomings is because they are unique and cool while being pretty useful at the same time. There is a very high level of desirability as evidenced by their resale value that just feeds back into the demand side. People want vehicles that are cool, and people want vehicles that other people want.

You and I had a similar discussion last year where you basically said the same thing - that you had some data that proves that people buy Wranglers because of their capability. But none of the data you've presented either then or now proves that. It only proves that people BUY Wranglers.

Sponsored