Recent content by crenca

The signal to noise ratio here has never been that good - it is better then other forums of course. Without a thumbs down or "misinformation" rating, other posters can not indicate when someone is full of bullshite. The admins/owners here are not incentivized either, so threads just end up...

It's the wire harness recall, forget the official name but you should be able to search this site with "wire harness recall" I would think

I think that is it. Would 75-85 be good enough if after it breaks down after high temperature excursions (from towing, heavy off-road use, etc.) you change it out? Probably... Does 75w-140 give you an extra bit of headroom and less concern with hard use in exchange for perhaps a 1/10 less...

This sounds right to me - the clanging of the springs running out of travel. I wonder what it would be like without that play in the drive-line with a traditional single mass flywheel from the aftermarket? What would be chances of breaking something in 4L...sorry off topic

This is right however I would add the caveat that if a Sasquatch is a 10 on the NVH meter an Outer Banks is still an 8. The vast majority of the buying in public wants nothing more than a 3 or 4. This includes most bronco buyers, 85% of whom are looking at the bronco for aesthetics or the idea...

I wondered about this as well. The stock Sasquatch wheel offset is +30 if memory serves. Although the OP could consider mild spacers (rather then 10.5/11.5 tires) with his stock BB wheels… Edit. “…The Big Bend wheels are too narrow at 7.5" for a 315 or 12.5" tire….” ahhh, yea an 11.5 is...

^This^, or accept the limitations of the one-size-fits-all aftermarket - one that rarely discloses actual spring rates (though some sell regular and "heavy duty" options, sometimes recommending an over/under weight.). For all the talk about shocks, springs are what gives your subjective "ride"...

The car mags have never been all that good at evaluating off road vehicles/tech IMO, but they used to be more thorough: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a73464614/1976-jeep-cj-5-and-cj-7-renegade-archive-test/

I suspect it does not require much more money/parts then the vehicle would already have for stability control, etc., and given the marketing angle they're well worth any extra expense for Ford. Like Brian I never use them, and almost everybody else I wheel with is in a Jeep or Toyota so I...

I wonder about this as well. Is the friction-clutch pack in the 4A case under any more stress or subject to more 'wear' then the friction-clutch packs in Ford's 10R60 transmission? Don't know the answer, but I suspect not. If so, then would that mean a similar change interval (depending on...

I had forgotten about that video, thanks for posting it. Among the take aways is how the Ford's AWD (aka "4A") system is "preemptive" - not reactive based on wheel speed sensors inferring "slippage" - and how there is no fuel mileage penalty engaging it...

You want a Toyota. You are not in any way prepared for the compromise of an old school 4x4 like the Bronco. Be glad you figured it out before purchasing one!

I have asked this question as well (is it real time data, or simply a "simulation" that does not actually report any rea time data), but techs like @Ducati1098 can not see the code behind it to confirm/deny. I suspect it is simply an indication of the actual programming of the system. That...

I'm going from memory here, but I recall Audi/VW had a system about 15 years ago with friction clutch packs at the output of (what essentially is a front drive layout) the transmission (i.e. before the prop shaft), as well as both outputs of the rear diff. The computer would disconnect the...

So was Ford's "4A" system which predates the Bronco. 4A is a system, not just a transfer case. This includes computers (the heart of all modern AWD systems) which use a holistic algorithmic approach to control how/when/where torque gets distributed, etc. that puts power down in various...