Underwhelming Offroad experience

[Sitruc_btb]

The 6g's are fat pigs. Gotta pick that belly up a bit. I lifted my BL 1.5" with some 315 MT's on stock wheels and it performs just fine for me. Went everywhere the JLUR and Sami went on a Moab trip a while back.

There's a few tweaks the broncos can benefit from for sure, without sacrificing road manners.

Sponsored

 

[voxel]

Isn’t the non Sasquatch about 2” less ground clearance than the Sasquatch version? The stock non Sasquatch tires are meh. At least the ones on the 2Dr Big Bend I owned before the Heritage.

Articulation is pretty good for IFS with the sway bar disconnected.

 

[cynicalrider]

I think the first thing I noticed between my IFS first gen Tacoma that I put on 35's and the Bronco is the decreased ground clearance. Especially the link mounts and the crossmember in the center of the bronco. The IFS skid in the center hangs down quite a bit lower too.

I started typing this post with memory of what hangs lower but I figured it would be easier to have a quantifiable comparison since I can easily go outside and measure both for comparison.

My Tacoma is what I call my "IFS Crawler" and is sitting on roughly 1-2" of lift via ADS shocks, Dakars with AAL, and 315/75r16 Cooper ST Maxx tires. Clearance wise nothing additional has been done besides raising the gas tank above the frame which clearly helps from a side profile but it's definitely not the only reason the Tacoma clears things much better.

The Bronco is a mostly stock Wildtrak (So SAS package with more lift with the Fox shocks) with the only addition of shock skids and the hidden winch up front. Regardless of the hidden winch, the stock IFS skid that covers the front diff is lower.

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Rear diff measurement

Tacoma:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Bronco:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

IFS skid measurement

Tacoma:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Bronco:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Other misc low points that the Bronco as that the Tacoma either doesn't have or clearly is better at

Gas tank:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Center X brace:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

And finally frame height comparisons

Tacoma:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

Bronco:

Untitled by MJH Creations, on Flickr

So the overall takeaway I observed is the Bronco has MUCH more things hanging down at roughly 9-11" off the ground while the Tacoma only really has the front IFS skid and the rear diff (with better numbers) Of course there are other things to take into account like breakover, wheelbase, etc. The nearly 6" frame height difference is wild to see too.

BUT the Bronco is basically stock from the factory and my Tacoma has been heavily modified over the years to even fit 35's (tubbing the firewall is so much fun ), add lockers, regear etc.

So while clearance wise it can definitely be underwhelming it also lets me get almost double the range due to fuel efficiency and larger tank, is much more comfortable on long drives (creature comforts, drivability wise the Tacoma is absolutely great on the highway), and can actually fit the whole family.

 

[jensht]

Isn’t the non Sasquatch about 2” less ground clearance than the Sasquatch version? The stock non Sasquatch tires are meh. At least the ones on the 2Dr Big Bend I owned before the Heritage.

Articulation is pretty good for IFS with the sway bar disconnected.

The Badlands Non-Sasquatch is minimally lower than a Sasquatch, but higher than other trim levels. Also the tires I have mounted are the same size as the Sasquatch models got.

But I do agree, the suspension travel up front is pretty good for an IFS vehicle. If I recall the numbers correctly the Ranger Raptor has a bit more travel, probably due to the wider track it has.

 

[Mammal]

Looking forward to your Corsica write up. Safe travels and thanks for sharing!

 

[broncobase1]

Sweet. I would love to have a diesel minus the emissions issues.
The only thing I can think of is that it’s the tires.

The problem is you can't get away from the emissions issues. DEF and EGR, and the fact diesel costs more makes it a hard case to make in the USA. They are also considered more costly to maintain.

 

[Owl]

Looking at your pictures... didn't you move your axles on the Tacoma to go on-top the leaf-springs as opposed to under? Wouldn't under be the default for a Tacoma?

And... what is the wheelbase difference between the two?

Seems odd even thinking of comparing a modified Toyota to a stock Bronco.

Kind of an unfair comparison... to say the least, but it brings up the question as to what you bought the Bronco for?

I bought mine for running on the road, with the occasional off-road gig. If I didn't care about the on-road experience, or how it handles, the gas MPG or the greatly increased power, or the general looks... I would have held onto my 2016 2-Door Wrangler.

Sounds like maybe you should have bought a 2-Door Wrangler Rubicon (if available), or one of those cool old-style Landcruisers that aren't available in the USA.

 

[cynicalrider]

Looking at your pictures... didn't you move your axles on the Tacoma to go on-top the leaf-springs as opposed to under? Wouldn't under be the default for a Tacoma?

And... what is the wheelbase difference between the two?

Seems odd even thinking of comparing a modified Toyota to a stock Bronco.

Kind of an unfair comparison... to say the least, but it brings up the question as to what you bought the Bronco for?

I bought mine for running on the road, with the occasional off-road gig. If I didn't care about the on-road experience, or how it handles, the gas MPG or the greatly increased power, or the general looks... I would have held onto my 2016 2-Door Wrangler.

Sounds like maybe you should have bought a 2-Door Wrangler Rubicon (if available), or one of those cool old-style Landcruisers that aren't available in the USA.

I did the comparison mostly because I got the Bronco in a configuration that was as close to my modified Tacoma as possible. (35's, lockers, mild lift) which is why I figured they would be a good comparison. The wildtrak is lifted (mildly) and on 35's from the factory. Even still you can see because of component placement there are far more things that hang lower on the Bronco vs the Tacoma even in stock form.

As far as leaf springs go, only the 5 Lugs are SUA stock, 6 lugs like mine are SOA. In those photos the axle is under the leaf spring like stock, only difference is stock came with mounting plates while mine has a u bolt flip for more clearance. Regardless I wasn't even taking the Bronco's low hanging shock mounts into comparison since they are so tight to the tires.

Wheelbase wise the Bronco is 116.1" vs 121.9" on the tacoma, not as far off as I thought.

And for my purpose the Bronco was bought to be the family road trip vehicle and also to make offroading more accessible for the whole family. It's rare my wife comes on trips but even when I took my son and dog offroading and camping in the VA mountains for 4 days the Bronco was packed to the gills. The Tacoma is just too uncomfortable and loud for a 4 year old to do drives like that. I weighed heavily between a 4runner and the Bronco but I would need to heavily upgrade the 4runner to get close to what the Wildtrak offered.

Sponsored