Anyone have one of the new Broncos? How would you compare it to the Jeep Wrangler?

WestTexasAg said:

---

Anyone have one of the new Broncos? How would you compare it to the Jeep Wrangler?

---

I have one for a daily driver. Never had a jeep before so it took a while to get used to the noise and wind. But honestly you just gotta commit to it and take the the good, no doors and roof coming off in a few minutes, with the bad (road noise in traffic).

Was looking for an old Landcruiser or Scout to replace my 94, but couldn't get past the lack of safety features for my kids. And basically paying $45,000 for a decades old ride. This is a great compromise.

Most fun vehicle I've ever owned. If you don't want tot talk to randos all the time I also wouldn't recommend.

I've seen one in DFW (not the mini bronco) and might be above poster if you had Aggie plates

The small one looks terrible and I can't believe they released those first

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

WestTexasAg said:

---

Anyone have one of the new Broncos? How would you compare it to the Jeep Wrangler?

---

I have one for a daily driver. Never had a jeep before so it took a while to get used to the noise and wind. But honestly you just gotta commit to it and take the the good, no doors and roof coming off in a few minutes, with the bad (road noise in traffic).

Was looking for an old Landcruiser or Scout to replace my 94, but couldn't get past the lack of safety features for my kids. And basically paying $45,000 for a decades old ride. This is a great compromise.

Most fun vehicle I've ever owned. If you don't want tot talk to randos all the time I also wouldn't recommend.

---

I wondered about the road noise. That is the biggest negative for me on the Jeep. Was hoping the Bronco was a little better. Sounds like you are pretty happy with it overall.

I hope you guys like them but my impression from the ones i have seen is they put a hood on a minivan and marketed it as a bronco.

Of course they put out another minivan and called it a mustang too so….

I know their powerplants are deficient. I dont know yet if their suspensions and drivetrains are solid enough to really off road or not.

cbr said:

---

I hope you guys like them but my impression from the ones i have seen is they put a hood on a minivan and marketed it as a bronco.

Of course they put out another minivan and called it a mustang too so….

I know their powerplants are deficient. I dont know yet if their suspensions and drivetrains are solid enough to really off road or not.

---

Those are the little broncos.

Girls love them but it made me stop even looking. Theyre not a bronco but I guess Ford wants to hit all markets with one "bronco".

A really stupid play in my book for a vehicle you're recreating since people liked it.

It was manly, it was rough, it was off road, it was 4x4 and rugged. So you release a jeep Jr for girls.

Ho lee chit. No wonder automakers need bailouts

My post from the Auto board comparing Broncos to Wranglers:

Quote:

---

I've had three Wranglers (2 JKU Sports and 1 JLU Willys) and I like my Base Sasquatch Bronco a lot more.

People gripe about the interior quality, but their frame of reference is usually soft touch trim from a pseudo lux like Audi, Infiniti, etc. The interiors in off roaders are meant to get muddy/dirty and be easy to clean. Base Broncos have some lower level trim pieces than any other package and it's still comparable to all of my Jeeps. I can't speak to the quality of the leather - it's just not something I'd ever get in a vehicle that is going to get nasty. The seats in the Bronco are larger and way more comfortable than my Jeeps, though.

My Bronco rides better than my Jeeps in spite of the fact that it's a 2 door and all my Jeeps had 4. The 2.7 in my Bronco is more powerful than the Jeep 3.6s.

Ride height is what it is. I'm 6'2" and have never had issues getting in and out of anything, but I did add factory running boards to my Bronco so my 6yo can get in. He's able to get himself in and into the back seat 100% on his own.

The only place my Jeeps had the edge was in the hard tops. The Bronco hard tops are trash and my 2 door is way noisier than a Jeep. There's a section where the front panels and clamshell meet that isn't sealed well (part of the design, not anything wrong with mine specifically). It is loud at 70 and at any speed when it's windy outside. If someone would ever make a square back soft top for the 2 door Bronco, I'd buy it in an instant. The slant back Bestop just doesn't do it for me. I've spent limited time in a soft top 4 door Bronco and it wasn't as loud as my hard top.

---

The 2.7 has plenty of power, even with the 35s. It's easy to hit 90 on the on-ramps and when passing on 2 lane roads.

cbr said:

---

I hope you guys like them but my impression from the ones i have seen is they put a hood on a minivan and marketed it as a bronco.

Of course they put out another minivan and called it a mustang too so….

I know their powerplants are deficient. I dont know yet if their suspensions and drivetrains are solid enough to really off road or not.

---

The Sasquatch has 35 inch tires, a factory lift, billstein shocks, high and low 4 wheel drive, front and rear locking differentials, trail modes, and sway bar disconnects. It sits higher than my wife's 4Runner TRD Pro.

It'll handle Home Depot just fine.

Anybody have a 4-door? I need that with the kids.

Also, how much room is there in them compared to a 4Runner or 4-door Wrangler? I'm 6'3" and with growing boys (my 11-year old is almost 5'7" and my 7-year old is like 4'7" himself). Plus the Mrs. is 5'8".

The Bronco interior is bigger than the Wrangler due to the nature of the body style. The Wrangler cabin sits inside-ish of the wheels while the Bronco sits over them (like a normal vehicle).

Seems a better topic for the automotive board…

cbr said:

---

I hope you guys like them but my impression from the ones i have seen is they put a hood on a minivan and marketed it as a bronco.

Of course they put out another minivan and called it a mustang too so….

I know their powerplants are deficient. I dont know yet if their suspensions and drivetrains are solid enough to really off road or not.

---

As compared to what? The 2.7 is 330hp and 415lbft. That's 25hp less (but way more torque) than Chevy's 5.3 V8. For Jeep, you'd have to go to the 392 or the "combined" numbers of the 4Xe (which aren't run simultaneously in the real world). Even the 2.3 4cyl outperforms Jeep's 3.6 6cyl. Jeep's diesel has a little more torque (442lbft), but it's only 260hp and a different driving experience altogether.

cbr said:

---

I hope you guys like them but my impression from the ones i have seen is they put a hood on a minivan and marketed it as a bronco.

Of course they put out another minivan and called it a mustang too so….

I know their powerplants are deficient. I dont know yet if their suspensions and drivetrains are solid enough to really off road or not.

---

I absolutely love comments like this. "It doesn't have a v8! It's an underpowered girl car!!!"

5.0L v8 = 205hp/300tq
2.7L ecoboost = 310hp/399tq.









Edited: the source of my screen shot above was old info and the 2.7 is actually 330hp/415tq, haha. Hard to call
That underpowered.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36382845/2021-ford-bronco-power-increase/

Something that seems to be an issue here: There are 2 separate vehicles under the Bronco umbrella. The Bronco Sport is the smaller one. It is very capable for what it is, but it is not meant as a hard off-roading vehicle.
The Bronco is the bigger one and is very much intended for the use of being fantastic off-road.

As far as those poo-pooing the Bronco or the smaller Bronco Sport all I can say is if it is not for you that is fine. But they are good vehicles and meant for different uses and are equipped well for what they are meant to do.

My wife loves her Sport. It is a great daily driver and for hitting trails off-road to get back into a camp site or fishing spot it is fantastic. But if you are looking for rock crawling or buggying it is not meant for that.

Just my .02

That fact that somebody doesn't even know what vehicle they are talking about and they are potentially poo poo-ing on the real Bronco when they are actually thinking about the Bronco Sport just makes the comments even funnier.

This seems to be a good thing to place here:

I have both a 4 door Jeep Wrangler and a 4 door Bronco Badlands with the Sasquatch package. Both fully loaded. The Bronco wins, hands down. It drives better on the highway at higher speeds. It doesn't walk all over the place. The wind noise is there but manageable until hardtops are available. It's torqued better than the jeep and has plenty of pick-up and off road power. No, it's not just a pavement princess I actually take it off road. If I was doing it all over again with my family of 4, it would be a bit small in my opinion. Of course, we packed a ton of stuff with our kids so I drove a Z71 Tahoe during those years.

It's fun to drive, but like a Jeep, you can go BROKE accessorizing it. I added fog lights and shackles...that's about it. Gas mileage is on the average side but I drive like hell at times. The different GOAT modes are cool, and I'll use them more this fall during hunting season.

Overall, I love it.

drummer0415 said:

---

cbr said:

---

I hope you guys like them but my impression from the ones i have seen is they put a hood on a minivan and marketed it as a bronco.

Of course they put out another minivan and called it a mustang too so….

I know their powerplants are deficient. I dont know yet if their suspensions and drivetrains are solid enough to really off road or not.

---

I absolutely love comments like this. "It doesn't have a v8! It's an underpowered girl car!!!"

5.0L v8 = 205hp/300tq
2.7L ecoboost = 310hp/399tq.









Edited: the source of my screen shot above was old info and the 2.7 is actually 330hp/415tq, haha. Hard to call
That underpowered.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36382845/2021-ford-bronco-power-increase/

---

lol, ffs

by what standard? yes a 1970's 302 in factory trim was a hoopty POS. and most backyard mechanics putting a holley, cam and headers on it it was still a hoopty POS.

but someone who knew what they were doing would equal that 330/415 all day long, though not as fuel efficient, even with 70's tech.

but we arent talking about the 70's.

we are talking about modern fuel and ignition management. there is no reason whatsoever to build a 2.7 turbo and put it into something that is supposed to be a rugged vehicle, or an offroad vehicle.

it is a deficient design flaw, even though the ecoboost has pretty good power and reliability FOR WHAT IT IS, it is a completely ****ed concept.

if you want 425/425 with 25mpg, in a smaller, lighter, simpler package, cheaper to produce, MUCH easier and cheaper to service, with about 30% fewer moving parts, radically fewer high temp/high stress parts, much more reliable, accessible, etc., look no further than a basic GM gen IV v8. If ford wanted to improve on that package it would be real simple today, too. put half the R&D time into such a powerplant as ford did in a 2.7 ecoboost and you'd have a radically better platform.

so yes, it is underpowered. and yes, it is impractical, and yes it is a deficient powerplant.

a 2.7 ecoboost is a less than ideal powerplant for a minivan that has light use, a long warranty, and will be trashed in a junkyard after 6-7 years of sewing machine duty. yes, that minivan will out run a 70's bronco in a drag race. big deal.

it is a complete antithesis of an appropriate powerplant for a rugged mixed use partial off road vehicle that claims to be a capable off road platform.

i didnt do a lot of research because they were so deficient for my needs, but looking at it i see a number of big issues in addition to deficient engine choice.

-chassis integrated PCM - LOL. this is a serious design defect, one which i built my last car around. in a long lasting off road vehicle, you do not integrate your PCM into failure/flood/vibration prone bull**** like the same BCM that ford uses to control active hatch motors, alarm bells, auto dimming radios, and other bull**** in their minivans.


dana 44 based new electronic diffs.... well, not the worst, but they are going to break if you do much with them in a 4500+ lb vehicle, even though that little turbo is pretty gentle on the torque. there are much better choices. if ford ever comes out with some sort of 'off road' model i bet money it has different diffs, especially rear.

12" brake rotors less than an inch thick, with single piston calipers? That is underbraked, even for a very underpowered vehicle. Ford is typically among the worst manufacturers in putting proper brakes on their vehicles.

if you are trying to ride those brakes against the turbo to do much crawling you are likely to overheat both the turbo and the brakes pretty quickly, as you go about breaking one of those axles.

i assume that's a 10r80 ten speed. it works well in the ZL1 camaros, but i dont know what differences are. It has generally been a nightmare in the fords, dont know why, but there were massive recalls and lawsuits over it. bottom line, if they get it right, this might be the most solid part of the vehicle. if not, it could be a real achiles heel. just dont know. bottom line it is an expensive, complicated transmission and it would take a lot of development time in off road conditions for it to work well. dont know if ford put in the time or not.

honestly, a very consistent, controllable torque and proper, predictable gear selection is what you want in an off road vehice. a 10 speed hunting around for the right gear behind a turbo trying to spool up and down is less than an ideal starting point.

anyway, i guess i'll lighten up; this vehicle is not for me, but my needs are very different than most people. if you like it, there is nothing really wrong with it. and there actually really isnt a ready made off road vehicle you can buy new from any major manufacturer that i know of anyway.

if you live in suburbia, cruise to work, like to hang out on the beach or poke around a ranch road now and then, this might be a fun choice.

To put things in perspective I used to be a service manager at a Hummer dealership and we pulled data from a ton of H2 and H3s and found out 85-90% of owners never put their vechile in 4wd.

cbr said:

---

i didnt do a lot of research because they were so deficient for my needs, but looking at it i see a number of big issues in addition to deficient engine choice.

-chassis integrated PCM - LOL. this is a serious design defect, one which i built my last car around. in a long lasting off road vehicle, you do not integrate your PCM into failure/flood/vibration prone bull**** like the same BCM that ford uses to control active hatch motors, alarm bells, auto dimming radios, and other bull**** in their minivans.


dana 44 based new electronic diffs.... well, not the worst, but they are going to break if you do much with them in a 4500+ lb vehicle, even though that little turbo is pretty gentle on the torque. there are much better choices. if ford ever comes out with some sort of 'off road' model i bet money it has different diffs, especially rear.

12" brake rotors less than an inch thick, with single piston calipers? That is underbraked, even for a very underpowered vehicle. Ford is typically among the worst manufacturers in putting proper brakes on their vehicles.

if you are trying to ride those brakes against the turbo to do much crawling you are likely to overheat both the turbo and the brakes pretty quickly, as you go about breaking one of those axles.

i assume that's a 10r80 ten speed. it works well in the ZL1 camaros, but i dont know what differences are. It has generally been a nightmare in the fords, dont know why, but there were massive recalls and lawsuits over it. bottom line, if they get it right, this might be the most solid part of the vehicle. if not, it could be a real achiles heel. just dont know. bottom line it is an expensive, complicated transmission and it would take a lot of development time in off road conditions for it to work well. dont know if ford put in the time or not.

honestly, a very consistent, controllable torque and proper, predictable gear selection is what you want in an off road vehice. a 10 speed hunting around for the right gear behind a turbo trying to spool up and down is less than an ideal starting point.

anyway, i guess i'll lighten up; this vehicle is not for me, but my needs are very different than most people. if you like it, there is nothing really wrong with it. and there actually really isnt a ready made off road vehicle you can buy new from any major manufacturer that i know of anyway.

if you live in suburbia, cruise to work, like to hang out on the beach or poke around a ranch road now and then, this might be a fun choice.

---

It's okay to not like the way they look but the Sasquatch bronco was literally designed to be a serious off-road vehicle out of the box. So I'm curious as to what else you think would be needed to achieve ready made off road potential?

Edit. Maybe your concept of off-roading is much more extreme than what this is capable of. So I'll drop it as well.

Dude, it sounds like you just hate everything about Ford.

If that's the case that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions, but in Ford's defense, GM isn't producing ANYTHING similar to a Bronco right now. Hell the Blazer is closer to actually being a minivan than the Bronco is like you're claiming.

And the Wrangler might be more offroad capable than the Bronco, but it sure as hell isn't making 425hp unless you get the 392 which has an MSRP of $75k. Yeah, no thanks.

I'm really not sure what you're wanting here? A full tube chassis rock crawler with a LS motor? If that's what you want you can build that, but it's not a production vehicle. People drive these to the beach and down dirt trails. The Bronco is just fine for 95% of buyers and the sales numbers will reflect that.

Should be picking mine up in next week. 4dr Black Diamond with 2.3L manual transmission. I knew going in I would be giving up power but have been driving manual transmission for all of my adult life so that drove my decision. Hard top '22 model.

This will be my hunting vehicle heading into retirement a few years out - will give an update after I get it

drummer0415 said:

---

Dude, it sounds like you just hate everything about Ford.

If that's the case that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions, but in Ford's defense, GM isn't producing ANYTHING similar to a Bronco right now. Hell the Blazer is closer to actually being a minivan than the Bronco is like you're claiming.

And the Wrangler might be more offroad capable than the Bronco, but it sure as hell isn't making 425hp unless you get the 392 which has an MSRP of $75k. Yeah, no thanks.

I'm really not sure what you're wanting here? A full tube chassis rock crawler with a LS motor? If that's what you want you can build that, but it's not a production vehicle. People drive these to the beach and down dirt trails. The Bronco is just fine for 95% of buyers and the sales numbers will reflect that.

---

not brand loyal at all, though GM does meet a higher percentage of my needs than most manufacturers.

they all cut corners in different places, or make poor choices for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with their actual vehicles. ford typically skimps more on brakes than the other trucks.

just an example, i've had 1500 hd or 2500 trucks for thirty years now. ford, dodge, chevy/gmc. my use/abuse has been pretty consistent.

the longest i've ever had brake pads last on a ford was about 8000 miles. rotors less than 10,000. my most recent ford was a raptor and was about that.

the hemi dodge was about twice that, most of my 6.0 or 6.2 4x4 1500 hd GM trucks were about twice that.

i had a 2000 GM 1500 hd that went 80,000 miles on PADS, and never wore out the rotors.

my new 2500 GMC today goes about 10,000 on pads, 30,000 on rotors.

anyway, yes, i am generally frustrated at new vehicles, and take it out sometimes in threads like this. my use is much more demanding than what anyone puts out. this is a good suv/vehicle for the market we both identified, though they could have put a much better motor in it and used the money they saved to put better diffs and brakes in it and sold it at the same price point.


FWIW, i am almost done with my next daily driver truck. it is a 97 GMC 2500 quad cab short bed 4x4 body, has a motec controlled EFI big block, 750 hp/750 ft lb on 89 octane gas peaking at 5600 rpm, very strongly built 4l80e trans, 14bolt diff and np261. i have 16" wilwood brake rotors and 6 piston calipers all around, and did tube frame supports with a roll bar just in case. full nice interior, ac, sound, etc.,

my bronco equivalent is a 92 full size 2 door blazer. nothing too fancy in the drivetrain department now, and it has been very reliable, but when the motor finally gives, i have a 408" LS ready to swap in.

before anyone chimes in, yes, that 92 blazer has equivalently weak hp/torque, and drivetrain as the new bronco. but then again it can all be completely replaced for 15% of the cost.

I'm confused. I have never looked at and have no interest in a Bronco, but are there multiple sizes? I've only seen the ones like the yellow one in the pics above. For me, I have Superduties and an Expedition, so I cannot see any reason or need for a Bronco. I am not their target. It's the same reason I don't own a 6.5CM or a .17 HMR when I already own a .30-06 and a .22LR. That's how I roll. For me its the "Department of Redundancy Department".

finally, honest food for thought -

one reason my use is so much heavier than most is not because i am some super rambo rock crawler guy, though i have done a little of that and it is fun.

honestly, i have been caught by floods, hurricanes, riots, and all manner of unexpected bull****, either on my ranch or while towing across country, more times than i can count.

when the **** hits the fan and you really need your vehicle, you CANNOT rely on weak axles, overheated brakes, transmissions, etc., or DEF slowdowns or shutdowns, or getting broken down. Even with 2500 duramax's, or a 3500 cummings dually, they've broken down under duress a number of times and it is just not acceptable. every time i was stranded it was life threatening, and every time it was a deliberate design flaw that was easily preventable by the manufacturer.

recent example: GM put an important air temperature sensor in a ****ing side view mirror, and put the def tank in a high center location in their new 2500. Guess what you are for sure going to do when dealing with an approaching flood and trying to load cattle, horses, and trailers in the dark in a driving rain? You're going to for sure knock that ****ing sensor off and hole punch that *******ed dumb ****ing DEF tank. Ask me how i know.

if ford put a 2.7 eco in this bronco, well, that decision can't happen without the same kind of yuppie CPA driven bull**** mentality that destroyed the utility of my GM 2500 and put my life and everything i own at risk. Cars are being built by people who have no concept of what they are for, or what is important. those few engineers left that do know anything are not being listened to.

Jason_InfinityRoofer said:

---

I'm confused. I have never looked at and have no interest in a Bronco, but are there multiple sizes? I've only seen the ones like the yellow one in the pics above. For me, I have Superduties and an Expedition, so I cannot see any reason or need for a Bronco. I am not their target. It's the same reason I don't own a 6.5CM or a .17 HMR when I already own a .30-06 and a .22LR. That's how I roll. For me its the "Department of Redundancy Department".

---

Their naming convention is stupid.

The Bronco Sport should have been named something else. It's named as such to sell product on nostalgia. It would be akin to calling a Ford Maverick and F150 Sport.

The Bronco has various trim levels same as your F150.
Base, Big Bend, Black Diamond, Outer Banks, Badlands, and Wildtrack. Basically you're going up in off-road capabilities with each level.

And no, none of them will fit a sheet of plywood. Sorry roofer man.

Meh, I'm A PM. We all know project managers don't actually haul anything. We just sit in the AC and keep our phone on the side of our head…occasionally shuffle some Papers around and wave our arms so it looks to the crew like we're on a serious call. This vehicle is actually perfect for any variety of construction project manager.

Wait…air conditioning comes standard, yes ?

If you're REALLY into Broncos....these are a treat. Not for the causal fan though.

https://vintagebroncos.co/

Blitz88 said:

---

If you're REALLY into Broncos....these are a treat. Not for the causal fan though.

https://vintagebroncos.co/

---

Oh my. Those are 200k at the cheapest

Dude....you dont have to turn rotors every time, and if your brake pads only last 8k miles....maybe you should stop riding your brakes while you drive.

I had a F250, only went through 4 rotors total in well over 400k miles, and 2 of them were because a caliper failed at about 250k and i went ahead and swapped bothout sincei had to replace 1 anyway. Not easy driving either.

And when the caliper failed, i was in Sunnyside. Andi am a garden variety white boy. But even then my life wasnt on the line because my truck broke down. Guessing you revel in drama or somthing?

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Jason_InfinityRoofer said:

---

I'm confused. I have never looked at and have no interest in a Bronco, but are there multiple sizes? I've only seen the ones like the yellow one in the pics above. For me, I have Superduties and an Expedition, so I cannot see any reason or need for a Bronco. I am not their target. It's the same reason I don't own a 6.5CM or a .17 HMR when I already own a .30-06 and a .22LR. That's how I roll. For me its the "Department of Redundancy Department".

---

Their naming convention is stupid.

The Bronco Sport should have been named something else. It's named as such to sell product on nostalgia. It would be akin to calling a Ford Maverick and F150 Sport.

The Bronco has various trim levels same as your F150.
Base, Big Bend, Black Diamond, Outer Banks, Badlands, and Wildtrack. Basically you're going up in off-road capabilities with each level.

And no, none of them will fit a sheet of plywood. Sorry roofer man.

---

Guessing the naming thought process is similar to when Ford had the full sized Bronco built on F150 frames and the Bronco II built on Ranger fames back in the old days (80's and 90's) more than anything.

I traded my Raptor at 32k, it's brake pads looked new. Rotors were perfect. I like to drive it hard and took it off roading in several states.

However, I would only ride the brakes in certain off-roading situations.

Bro, that's a lot of words of hate. Lol, find me a more "when the s*** hits the fan" capable stock vehicle off the dealer lot. I'll wait. Have you seen or driven one?