New full size Bronco spy pics / info???

[BroncoRevital]

A hellva lot of the problem is most people just can't drive. They try and drive a tall 4x4 SUV like it's a sports car and no matter how many nannies you have they can't change the law of physics and bad stuff will happen. I had a 2013 Escape 2.0 ecoboost 4x4 and I drove it hard but when I traded it for a new Ranger I knew I had to change my driving style or I'd roll it. Most people ether can't or won't change there driving style and that's where the problem arises

I agree that most people don't understand how to properly drive a top heavy vehicle. However, you can't deny that there used to be a pretty serious issue with the smaller SUVs being rollover prone. Any of us that even understand how to drive them could end up flipping just with a deer running across us or another car swerving into us on the highway. You have to account for that and unfortunately you have to account for people not knowing how to drive them. Nothing is completely inevitable but minimizing this effect and creating a safer cabin space is crucial. It appears that other SUV manufacturers have rectified this well enough but Ford hasn't been in the SUV off-road game for a while and it would be catastrophic if cases started pilling up about rollovers.
I loved my Bronco ll but I know a vehicle like that wouldn't make it in today's standards. Chalking it up to just bad drivers is frankly careless and if Ford is smart it will take this matter seriously.

Sponsored

 

[Jimmy]

I agree that most people don't understand how to properly drive a top heavy vehicle. However, you can't deny that there used to be a pretty serious issue with the smaller SUVs being rollover prone. Any of us that even understand how to drive them could end up flipping just with a dear running across us or another car swerving into us on the highway. You have to account for that and unfortunately you have to account for people not knowing how to drive them. Nothing is completely inevitable but minimizing this effect and creating a safer cabin space is crucial. It appears that other SUV manufacturers have rectified this well enough but Ford hasn't been in the SUV off-road game for a while and it would be catastrophic if cases started pilling up about rollovers.
I loved my Bronco ll but I know a vehicle like that wouldn't make it in today's standards. Chalking it up to just bad drivers is frankly careless and if Ford is smart it will take this matter seriously.

Exactly. The Bronco II and first Gen Explorers were unsafe. When someone runs 35"s on them and widens the track by doing so, they become somewhat more stable. They were a bad design, too narrow and under "tired". Worse than a Jeep.

 

[Bronco II]

They were a bad design, too narrow and under "tired". Worse than a Jeep.

I completely disagree you are looking the Bronco II through 2019 eyes and not in the time it was sold. The Bronco II was really the one of first sport utility vehicles made. If driven as intended with factory tires and height they where great cars. They were much like the modern CUV's of today intended for sometime bad weather.

 

[phillyfx4]

what ?? …..loved my 88 Bronco ll …..better than my 02 or 08 F 150's in the snow …...head gaskets went twice, put a Jasper reman in it then a BIG tree fell on it in NH during a storm …..bought the 02 F 150

 

[Bronco II]

what ?? …..loved my 88 Bronco ll …..better than my 02 or 08 F 150's in the snow …...head gaskets went twice, put a Jasper reman in it then a BIG tree fell on it in NH during a storm …..bought the 02 F 150

Me to I took my 87 5spd every where snow, mud it didn't matter she went and I never got stuck

 

[Jimmy]

I have seen several vehicles rolled on the road, and anecdotal as it may be, I have yet to see one of the infamous Bronco IIs or Explorers rolled. I have seen a Blazer, a Tahoe, a TJ & a Lj, a FJ Cruiser, and a few pickups of various makes. The things they had in common: 4x4, and people driving recklessly. I have never seen a vehicle roll on the road from what could be considered normal use. Most are from people skidding into a ditch or curb trying to take a corner too fast. Most any 4x4 vehicle will roll instead of skidding if you get it sideways enough while going fast, that is why there are rollover risk labels on the visors of new vehicles with a high COG.

You keep shirking the culpability of the drivers, but the excuses you use are invalid for the most part. A blow out is not a valid excuse for rolling a vehicle. I have blown out several tires on the highway for various reasons in various vehicles, and not once have I ever felt that I was anywhere close to rolling or losing control. The people who are rolling as a result of a blow out are almost without exception over-reacting (swerving, locking up their brakes, etc.). I could forgive someone who rolled due to a blowout while cornering at the vehicle's limit, but then again, that is not very prudent driving. As far as you deer example, you shouldn't be swerving for a deer in a high COG vehicle, you just hit it if you can't stop in time. That is something they teach in driver's ed (if it is below your hood don't swerve). Finally, your example of a car hitting you causing a rollover. Well unfortunately most 4x4s, especially lifted ones have a propensity to roll when T-boned, especially if hit by a lower vehicle that can wedge under the 4x4.

I would be extremely interested in seeing some credible statistics of the percent of rollovers by vehicle model. I suspect that the Bronco II and Explorer would be right in line with similar vehicles.

As far as designing out roll over potential, that is no mystery. Make the vehicle as low, wide, and long as you can. Less grippy tires also will help mitigate the roll over risk. All of these things are counterproductive in regards to making an offroad vehicle. The trick is maximizing clearance and maneuverability (smaller foot print) while maintaining a relatively low center of gravity. The way modified vehicles achieve this balance is by running wide axles on a narrow body, pushing the axles to the extremities fore and aft, while running the biggest tires possible while keeping the chassis low. Obviously, many of these techniques are not an option for manufacturers since tires need to remain covered, big tires with a low chassis eats into interior space and causes packaging challenges, and tires cant stick out past the ends of a highway vehicle.



So let me get this straight, you are claiming that significantly raising the center of gravity makes a vehicle more stable? You realize that 35" tires on stock height suspension raises the center of gravity 4" on a Bronco II, not to mention that even with a 4" lift, you would need to cut into the cab to run 35s without limiting travel. My point is that in order to run 35s, most people run about 6" of lift (or an equivalent combination of suspension and body lift).

I'll use my TTB Bronco II as an example. Its suspension sits 4" over stock on 37x12.50 Tires (10" larger diameter than stock); therefore, My center of gravity is approximately 9" higher than stock. I am running Explorer axles which are 3" wider, and my wheels have .5" less back spacing, and my tires are about 5" wider than the factory tires. That makes my overall width (outside tire to out side tire) about 9" wider than stock. The increase in COG height is disproportionally greater than the width I have gained with the wider axles and tires in addition to running less backspacing. Without knowing the angle of tilt a stock Bronco II would roll at it is difficult to say how much wider you need to go to offset an increase in COG height. Assuming the roll over angle is around 45º, you would need to increase the width by two times the increase in COG height; therefore, to offset the 9" COG height increase in my example, you would need to increase the overall width by 18" to maintain the same roll over angle.

Now the saving grace in my case is that I have added a lot of weight down low in my Bronco II between the heavier axles and tires (104Lbs each), so my center of gravity is likely lower than the 9" over stock you arrive at by simply adding the total suspension lift to the increase in tire radius. Similarly, an increase in tire diameter will raise you center of gravity the most since every part of the vehicle is raised and the COG of each tire is at hub height regardless of diameter. A suspension lift leaves the COG of the axles and tires at the same point, but raises the COG of everything else. The result is that the overall COG doesn't rise 1:1 in correlation to suspension lift. Body lifts have the smallest effect on COG since the only part that is raised is the body itself and everything else stays at the same height (consequently ground clearance is not really improved).

You realize that Explorers, Cherokees, and CJs all have almost identical widths and tire sizes, right? By your and other's logic anyone who has ever lifted a narrow short wheelbase vehicle should have rolled and died because they were "unsafe" to begin with and these people went and made matters worse. Please stop beating the "Bronco IIs/Explorers are dangerously prone to rolling" dead horse. Now if you want to talk about a vehicle that is actually dangerously prone to rolling over, look up the Reliant Robin, particularly the piece Top Gear did on it several years ago.

I drove a full size Bronco in the late 80's. Then a 2 door Explorer Sport V-6, 4 door Explorer V-8, a Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited and graduated to the Tahoes while having a TJ Jeep Rubicon. All were bought new by myself or a family member and not modified. Stock tires and suspension.
The Explorers were the worst of the lot. By far. People that drove them after being in a full-size truck or SUV said "you better take these things in..."

And the Explorer was supposed to replace the Bronco II....

 

[BroncoMike]

Numerous early Broncos, a couple FSBs ('79, '85, and '96), and a '94 Explorer - I wouldn't call any of them "squirrely" or top heavy. You drive them differently than, say, a Turbo Supra, but none of them seemed inherently dangerous.

 

[DesmoDog]

Back when my job used to involve working with pre-production cars, I was following one down 94 when a van pulled up, the side door slid open, and a lens appeared. Spy shots happen. I also just had to take "camo training" in order to be able to work with a new model under development right now. While I'm not saying what you propose has never happened, I'm sure it's not the norm. OEMs are serious about keeping these things under wraps, so photographers are just as serious as getting shots of them.

For grins, here is a picture of a Jeep Track Hawk, a lowered sporty version of the Grand Cherokee, on two wheels during a lap around Virginia International Speedway for Car and Driver's annual Lightning Lap:

Track cars get on two wheels... point taken but one picture doesn't prove much.

 

[Bronco II]

I think this Jimmy guy is GM lover and has a axe to grind with Ford

 

[BroncoRevital]

I have seen several vehicles rolled on the road, and anecdotal as it may be, I have yet to see one of the infamous Bronco IIs or Explorers rolled. I have seen a Blazer, a Tahoe, a TJ & a Lj, a FJ Cruiser, and a few pickups of various makes. The things they had in common: 4x4, and people driving recklessly. I have never seen a vehicle roll on the road from what could be considered normal use. Most are from people skidding into a ditch or curb trying to take a corner too fast. Most any 4x4 vehicle will roll instead of skidding if you get it sideways enough while going fast, that is why there are rollover risk labels on the visors of new vehicles with a high COG.

You keep shirking the culpability of the drivers, but the excuses you use are invalid for the most part. A blow out is not a valid excuse for rolling a vehicle. I have blown out several tires on the highway for various reasons in various vehicles, and not once have I ever felt that I was anywhere close to rolling or losing control. The people who are rolling as a result of a blow out are almost without exception over-reacting (swerving, locking up their brakes, etc.). I could forgive someone who rolled due to a blowout while cornering at the vehicle's limit, but then again, that is not very prudent driving. As far as you deer example, you shouldn't be swerving for a deer in a high COG vehicle, you just hit it if you can't stop in time. That is something they teach in driver's ed (if it is below your hood don't swerve). Finally, your example of a car hitting you causing a rollover. Well unfortunately most 4x4s, especially lifted ones have a propensity to roll when T-boned, especially if hit by a lower vehicle that can wedge under the 4x4.

I would be extremely interested in seeing some credible statistics of the percent of rollovers by vehicle model. I suspect that the Bronco II and Explorer would be right in line with similar vehicles.

As far as designing out roll over potential, that is no mystery. Make the vehicle as low, wide, and long as you can. Less grippy tires also will help mitigate the roll over risk. All of these things are counterproductive in regards to making an offroad vehicle. The trick is maximizing clearance and maneuverability (smaller foot print) while maintaining a relatively low center of gravity. The way modified vehicles achieve this balance is by running wide axles on a narrow body, pushing the axles to the extremities fore and aft, while running the biggest tires possible while keeping the chassis low. Obviously, many of these techniques are not an option for manufacturers since tires need to remain covered, big tires with a low chassis eats into interior space and causes packaging challenges, and tires cant stick out past the ends of a highway vehicle.

You guys are ridiculous. You take being a fan boy to new levels. Again, I loved my Bronco ll. It was my first vehicle I owned and I drove it off-road and drove it hard. I didn't have issues with it rolling over. However, just because I didn't or didn't see anyone rollover easily doesn't mean it didn't happen. My examples are just emergency examples and there are infinite examples of emergency situations. That's the issue. How the vehicle reacts in an emergency situation that even a skilled driver can't avoid. A blown front tire can definitely make one of these older vehicles flip in an emergency situation.
Again, Im not singling out Ford, the Explorer or the Bronco ll. All the SUV's back before the 2000s had issues with this. It's just common knowledge and thankfully we learned from this time period and now make safer SUVs.

I did't want to post this video because I don't enjoy this fact that our beloved SUVs have had such issues but if you're so interested and so into denying it then here you go. Go to the 9:00 minute marker and the 19:30 marker.

For grins, here is a picture of a Jeep Track Hawk, a lowered sporty version of the Grand Cherokee, on two wheels during a lap around Virginia International Speedway for Car and Driver's annual Lightning Lap:

They got one pretty tipsy on The Grand Tour as well, and this is arguably one of the sportiest SUVs ever made. Point being, anything with a relatively high center of gravity will have a propensity to roll, the Bronco II and Explorer were just the ones that were crucified for it.

Thank you for showing us how gravity works and what common sense looks like. . . The point isn't that they can rollover more easily then a car, the point is to try to minimize this issue and make it safer when it does rollover. Like strong roofs and A pillars. I saw a newer F150 flip and roll in front of me at 60 miles and hour and the whole truck was mangled but the cabin was fully intact and the driver crawled out with only a scratch. They can do it and I just hope they have this as a focus because we don't want this new Bronco to have a major set back or be scrapped because of safety concerns.

 

[OX1]

You guys are ridiculous.

What you are ignoring is the speed that new SUV's are driven at. 90 or more
on the garden state parking every day. So does our 17 escape handle better than my 88 BII.
Yes, but I'm not sure I ever even hit 90 in the BII, where today plenty do in SUV's (1/2 tons etc...) are doing it
sustained for miles and not leaving any cushion between cars. Clear dry day you see new SUV's driven straight into
the woods all the time on the highways.

None are not safe at that speed. Even my Fusion Sport was not what I considered really safe at those speeds
until custom sway bars and Mich 4SPS summer tires were added. I can now cut over a lane as fast as I want,
upwards of those speeds. There is a reason that NJMP only lets a very select few SUV's on the race track.

 

[BroncoRevital]

What you are ignoring is the speed that new SUV's are driven at. 90 or more
on the garden state parking every day. So does our 17 escape handle better than my 88 BII.
Yes, but I'm not sure I ever even hit 90 in the BII, where today plenty do in SUV's (1/2 tons etc...) are doing it
sustained for miles and not leaving any cushion between cars. Clear dry day you see new SUV's driven straight into
the woods all the time on the highways.


None are not safe at that speed. Even my Fusion Sport was not what I considered really safe at those speeds
until custom sway bars and Mich 4SPS summer tires were added. I can now cut over a lane as fast as I want,
upwards of those speeds. There is a reason that NJMP only lets a very select few SUV's on the race track.

Did you just read my first line and get triggered?

I don't even know how to take your logic here into account. So you're argument for not being ridiculous is that people drive faster now and the high speeds make any car unsafe without modification . . ? This and your Escape example is even more ridiculous and proves my point further.
My point being that SUVs are safer now and can sustain excessive highway speeds.
Does that mean that people should, no. Or that people are stupid and tail gate and cause accidents, of course they do. This doesn't mean that older SUVs were just as safe or unsafe back than. This doesn't mean we can't learn from their mistakes. People have always been shitty drivers and always will be but we have to minimize the risks. The biggest risk for people like us that ( hopefully ) know how to drive these trucks is other drivers and other situations that are out of our control. Making an SUV that minimizes the effects of a rollover and keeps us safer are still true. The fact that the older SUVs were less safe and less stable are still true.

 

[Bronco II]

You guys are ridiculous. You take being a fan boy to new levels. Again, I loved my Bronco ll. It was my first vehicle I owned and I drove it off-road and drove it hard. I didn't have issues with it rolling over. However, just because I didn't or didn't see anyone rollover easily doesn't mean it didn't happen. My examples are just emergency examples and there are infinite examples of emergency situations. That's the issue. How the vehicle reacts in an emergency situation that even a skilled driver can't avoid. A blown front tire can definitely make one of these older vehicles flip in an emergency situation.
Again, Im not singling out Ford, the Explorer or the Bronco ll. All the SUV's back before the 2000s had issues with this. It's just common knowledge and thankfully we learned from this time period and now make safer SUVs.

I did't want to post this video because I don't enjoy this fact that our beloved SUVs have had such issues but if you're so interested and so into denying it then here you go. Go to the 9:00 minute marker and the 19:30 marker.




Thank you for showing us how gravity works and what common sense looks like. . . The point isn't that they can rollover more easily then a car, the point is to try to minimize this issue and make it safer when it does rollover. Like strong roofs and A pillars. I saw a newer F150 flip and roll in front of me at 60 miles and hour and the whole truck was mangled but the cabin was fully intact and the driver crawled out with only a scratch. They can do it and I just hope they have this as a focus because we don't want this new Bronco to have a major set back or be scrapped because of safety concerns.

Yep this proves it Mr Know it all you can tell because he won't leave it alone he has to prove he's right

 

[BroncoRevital]

Yep this proves it GM fanboi

Yup this proves that you're either illiterate or didn't read my post.

 

[LordVokk]

My question to everyone here is "What is considered full size these days?"

I ask because of this....A 'full size' Bronco from the 90s was 184″ L x 79″ W x 74″ H based on a Google search....

Dimensions of a 2019 Ranger.....211″ L x 86″ W x 71-72″ H.......
For 1995 comparison a f150 (Regular cab 8 foot bed) ....213″ L x 79″ W

Sponsored