I feel like an apple freak. It's bronco release day. Ha ha.

[LostWoods]

the only place where a SFA is better at this point is if you are building a rock buggy. For 90% of users, having a SFA is just a by product of wanting a jeep. Again, IFS, better on road where people do the majority of driving, even overlanders, better on faster off road sections where the majority off road driving is done more so for overlanders and Poses less handling issues. i.e. death wobble etc. The raptor will hand a wrangler or other SFA its A$$ on anything other than a rock garden. I expect the bronco to do the same. Both stock of course.

But that's exactly my point (as per the prior caveat, mass-produced vehicles off road). A Wrangler running a bit behind a Raptor tearing through the desert is still following. A Raptor on a bypass watching a Wrangler crawling through rocks is not. I'm not debating on road characteristics or which is better at speed because it's clearly IFS but any issues in those categories are easily dealt with by slowing down a little. If that bypass doesn't exist, what do you do if you can't get through something?

Just because you don't use it to its full potential doesn't mean that an SFA isn't the superior option for someone self-sustained off-road. You never know when a landslide can turn a simple overland trail into something much worse.

 

[AggieOE]

Lack of competition has led to Jeep gatekeeping desirable features behind higher trims. I can imagine a Wrangler Sport with D44s and two lockers would kill 30% or more of Rubicon sales overnight.

As much as I do agree with the first part. I disagree wit the second - a base Rubicon is merely a Sport S with D44s, lockers, new transfer case, sway bar disconnect, and shocks and tires. The 4-dr Rubicon is only $5k more than a Sport S if you don't option for a hard top, navigation, upgraded stereo, automatic trans, etc. I think people forget you can get a Rubicon with no frills.

To keep on topic, if the Sasquatch package is <$5k and includes lockers, swaybar disconnect, 5x 35" Tires, and a new suspension, then it'll still be a great deal but, to me, it seems pretty comparable.
So far, apples to apples, the price per component seems to match up.

 

[Rath]

IFS, if done right is just as good as solid front axle anyways. I have owned both I don't get the big deal anyways.

Strong disagree here... at least in the context of mass-produced vehicles off road which is clearly a key focus of a Jeep or the Bronco. I guess the best way to put it is that where an IFS excels off road, a SFA can still go along by slowing down but many places the SFA will go, an IFS cannot follow without significant work. The question just becomes is that extra ability off road worth all the downsides because I'm not even going to try to defend an SFA for anything that isn't off roading.

Disagree. Stock for stock IFS bronco will go anywhere a SFA jeep will go. It's not until you start doing crazy suspension work to the SFA with tons of travel and articulation that you will start noticing a difference.

 

[Maverick9110E]

But that's exactly my point (as per the prior caveat, mass-produced vehicles off road). A Wrangler running a bit behind a Raptor tearing through the desert is still following. A Raptor on a bypass watching a Wrangler crawling through rocks is not. I'm not debating on road characteristics or which is better at speed because it's clearly IFS but any issues in those categories are easily dealt with by slowing down a little. If that bypass doesn't exist, what do you do if you can't get through something?

Just because you don't use it to its full potential doesn't mean that an SFA isn't the superior option for someone self-sustained off-road. You never know when a landslide can turn a simple overland trail into something much worse.

I think the point that's being missed is not which is superior in what offroad situation as it's going to obviously vary. What is more superior in sales dollars as that's the entire point of building the vehicle right?

 

[M Rose]

no need for a v8 when the ecoboost 6 takes them out anyways. just add a programmer and buh by. vee8 shmee8.

It’s a legacy thing.... you think Bronco, you think V-8.....

 

[Maverick9110E]

It’s a legacy thing.... you think Bronco, you think V-8.....

You do that with a Ford GT too but the new Ford GT would blow the old one out of the water.

 

[LostWoods]

I think the point that's being missed is not which is superior in what offroad situation as it's going to obviously vary. What is more superior in sales dollars as that's the entire point of building the vehicle right?

I mean IFS wins that hands-down. Most who buy the Wrangler are the lifestyle vehicle type and they'll pick the tighter steering and easier handling every time. Jeep's benefit was that there was no competition for that rugged look market and that's why the Bronco is going to eat Jeep's lunch.

I think superior is a metric of what can be reasonably done to and with the vehicle. Stock for stock isn't valid because it reflects engineering choices more than actual capability and the Bronco is a perfect example - it's just a giant middle finger at Jeep built entirely to look better on paper. The extreme isn't valid either because they make significant sacrifices to maximize performance. You aren't going to daily an Ultra4 or rock buggy and either will handle like crap on road. Somewhere in the middle is the bolt-on aftermarket and in that space, you get a lot more performance per dollar out of a solid axle than you will an IFS on a normal truck.

 

[Autism Family Travels]

But that's exactly my point (as per the prior caveat, mass-produced vehicles off road). A Wrangler running a bit behind a Raptor tearing through the desert is still following. A Raptor on a bypass watching a Wrangler crawling through rocks is not. I'm not debating on road characteristics or which is better at speed because it's clearly IFS but any issues in those categories are easily dealt with by slowing down a little. If that bypass doesn't exist, what do you do if you can't get through something?

Just because you don't use it to its full potential doesn't mean that an SFA isn't the superior option for someone self-sustained off-road. You never know when a landslide can turn a simple overland trail into something much worse.

I own a wrangler. There is NO wrangler, purchased of the show room floor that is just a bit behind a raptor in anything other than rocks. and the landslide, the IFS rigs will handle that fine. leave it all stock and the bronco will go anywhere a SFA rig will go. Toss money into the Jeep, or any SFA rig, it will start to hang with the stock bronco in the fast stuff. Toss money into the bronco it will go ANYwhere the SFA will go. The days of SFA dominance off road are over. technology has caught up. The mid 90s z71 ext cab I owned in 1994 was terrible on everything besides street and improved fire roads where as the SFA trucks would just drive on by. The reverse is true. Being a "purist" has nothing to do with how well everything else does. it's a fact that IFS has now caught up with SFA off road.

 

[Autism Family Travels]

It’s a legacy thing.... you think Bronco, you think V-8.....

When you think mustang you used to think v8 too, but the ecoboost cleans the v8s clock with a little bolt on programmer.

 

[LostWoods]

I own a wrangler. There is NO wrangler, purchased of the show room floor that is just a bit behind a raptor in anything other than rocks. and the landslide, the IFS rigs will handle that fine. leave it all stock and the bronco will go anywhere a SFA rig will go. Toss money into the Jeep, or any SFA rig, it will start to hang with the stock bronco in the fast stuff. Toss money into the bronco it will go ANYwhere the SFA will go. The days of SFA dominance off road are over. technology has caught up. The mid 90s z71 ext cab I owned in 1994 was terrible on everything besides street and improved fire roads where as the SFA trucks would just drive on by. The reverse is true. Being a "purist" has nothing to do with how well everything else does. it's a fact that IFS has now caught up with SFA off road.

It has nothing to do with being a purist, it's physics and geometry. But I'm not wasting my breath at this point.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Somewhere in the middle is the bolt-on aftermarket and in that space, you get a lot more performance per dollar out of a solid axle than you will an IFS on a normal truck.

This part is absolutley true - dollar for dollar, its’ a lot cheaper to add capability to SFA than it is to IFS once you go beyond 2” of lift for most rigs. But, I disagree a little with you when you say it’s not valid to compare stock to stock, because I think it depends a great deal on the use case being discussed and what a person is using the rig for. Some folks need a turnkey option and prefer the travel to the wrenching/upgrading, others are the opposite, and the choice of vehicle will be dramatically impacted by that use case.

The SFA/IFS debate has been had many times but it ends up being the “how many angels on the head of a pin” (or to quote another user over at Expo that has evolved to “how many dead sheep can fit in the back of a Defender”!) [Edit: If this discussion is had in the absence of “use case” context, I mean]

My take on it is this — When talking about off-road performance I have a pretty simple metric — “Can I go where I want to go?”. The answer to that question needs to be “yes”, regardless of how the front end is designed. The market has SFA vehicles that allow me to say “yes” to that question — like the JL/Gladiator. But it also has a lot of IFS vehicles that let me say ‘yes’ to that question too, also right off the lot - Defender, Bronco, Colorado to name a few. What a great time to be alive!

The challenge is if there are NO stock vehicles available that allow me to say “yes” to that “can I go where I want to go” question — in that case, an SFA may well be a better choice because as you rightly pointed out, they can be upgraded much more easily and economically than IFS. Otherwise, as long as I’m enjoying my cold one at the fire, I don’t much care what axle I have.

And as an aside, I kinda like IFS off road from a mechanical sympathy perspective — the CVs are sort of a natural “weak point” and while they do break (and used to break FAR too often and easily), I like that the modern metallurgy allows for much stronger pieces, but they still break before something way more expensive or complex does. It’s kind of a fail-safe in a way, and why I think it’s good advice to leave CVs as stock on most decent IFS off-roaders and avoid the temptation of the aftermarket in this regard.

 

[MOAK]

Strong disagree here... at least in the context of mass-produced vehicles off road which is clearly a key focus of a Jeep or the Bronco. I guess the best way to put it is that where an IFS excels off road, a SFA can still go along by slowing down but many places the SFA will go, an IFS cannot follow without significant work. The question just becomes is that extra ability off road worth all the downsides because I'm not even going to try to defend an SFA for anything that isn't off roading.

Yes. It is well worth any perceived downside. I say perceived because it is in the eyes of the beholder. I personally don’t find any downside with my vehicle handling and riding a bit like a truck on the highway. It is what it is. Is SFA more dependable than IFS, yes, not even close. SFA are more dependable by a landslide. Is SFA easier to maintain than IFS, once again, yes, by a landslide. (small example - I’ve never paid a shop for an alignment, I do it myself). Is SFA superior to IFS off highway in technical terrain? Once again, yes, by a landslide. Will hardcore overlanders consider the new Bronco? Not a new one, but maybe after 5 or 6 years, if the Bronco proves to be dependable, it would be considered. I well remember hard core overlanders scoffing at the new 80 series Landcruisers back in the 90s . If Ford got/gets it right, maybe in 6-10 years it will not be scoffed at, but sought out. Only time will tell.

 

[LostWoods]

This part is absolutley true - dollar for dollar, its’ a lot cheaper to add capability to SFA than it is to IFS once you go beyond 2” of lift for most rigs. But, I disagree a little with you when you say it’s not valid to compare stock to stock, because I think it depends a great deal on the use case being discussed and what a person is using the rig for. Some folks need a turnkey option and prefer the travel to the wrenching/upgrading, others are the opposite, and the choice of vehicle will be dramatically impacted by that use case.

The SFA/IFS debate has been had many times but it ends up being the “how many angels on the head of a pin” (or to quote another user over at Expo that has evolved to “how many dead sheep can fit in the back of a Defender”!) [Edit: If this discussion is had in the absence of “use case” context, I mean]

My take on it is this — When talking about off-road performance I have a pretty simple metric — “Can I go where I want to go?”. The answer to that question needs to be “yes”, regardless of how the front end is designed. The market has SFA vehicles that allow me to say “yes” to that question — like the JL/Gladiator. But it also has a lot of IFS vehicles that let me say ‘yes’ to that question too, also right off the lot - Defender, Bronco, Colorado to name a few. What a great time to be alive!

The challenge is if there are NO stock vehicles available that allow me to say “yes” to that “can I go where I want to go” question — in that case, an SFA may well be a better choice because as you rightly pointed out, they can be upgraded much more easily and economically than IFS. Otherwise, as long as I’m enjoying my cold one at the fire, I don’t much care what axle I have.

And as an aside, I kinda like IFS off road from a mechanical sympathy perspective — the CVs are sort of a natural “weak point” and while they do break (and used to break FAR too often and easily), I like that the modern metallurgy allows for much stronger pieces, but they still break before something way more expensive or complex does. It’s kind of a fail-safe in a way, and why I think it’s good advice to leave CVs as stock on most decent IFS off-roaders and avoid the temptation of the aftermarket in this regard.

Stock comparisons work for someone who plans on leaving the vehicle stock an is determining what vehicle is right for their needs but as I said, there are always engineering decisions that lead to compromise. As you acknowledged, the value of upgrading an SFA is significantly better than an IFS and it's a huge reason I have a JT instead of my last Tacoma. While "can I go" is a good question to ask, my further question was "what do I do if things go south". We frequently travel solo which means I need the most capability I can have and even the limited wheeling in my JT has left a smile on my face. Went out a few times now and where I used to need ATRAC to get through rutted out or technical sections because of wheel lift, I can just roll through without a care in the Gladiator. Seriously looking forward to what this truck can do with a 2.5" lift and lockers down the road.

My key issue with improving an IFS (aside from cost) is that the only way to gain articulation is to go wider - it's just the downside to laterally mounted control arms that are dependent on CV angle. That typically means a 4-6" wider track and sacrificing the sway bar which completely kills its on-road manners. Then there's the issues you mention - in particular the 2-joint axle. 2 CVs are more prone to to binding vs a single joint in a Jeep axle and since they constantly cycle with the suspension, they're more likely to do so; with the SFA they're only really stressed under hard turning. You also have to deal with more wheel lift because while droop will put a tire on the ground, an SFA will put more weight on the drooped tire providing better traction.

But I think we're mostly coming from the same place. There are real benefits to both systems with about 95% overlap - the IFS system being better on road and at speed in almost every metric with the SFA system being able to do the extreme top end crawly off road that will frequently leave the IFS in trouble. Most people - including most on this site - will never see that 5% and therefore doesn't need the SFA, but the if I don't need it then you don't either attitude some seem to have doesn't change the fact that 5% exists and one does significantly better than the other in that space.

 

[Autism Family Travels]

Stock comparisons work for someone who plans on leaving the vehicle stock an is determining what vehicle is right for their needs but as I said, there are always engineering decisions that lead to compromise. As you acknowledged, the value of upgrading an SFA is significantly better than an IFS and it's a huge reason I have a JT instead of my last Tacoma. While "can I go" is a good question to ask, my further question was "what do I do if things go south". We frequently travel solo which means I need the most capability I can have and even the limited wheeling in my JT has left a smile on my face. Went out a few times now and where I used to need ATRAC to get through rutted out or technical sections because of wheel lift, I can just roll through without a care in the Gladiator. Seriously looking forward to what this truck can do with a 2.5" lift and lockers down the road.

My key issue with improving an IFS (aside from cost) is that the only way to gain articulation is to go wider - it's just the downside to laterally mounted control arms that are dependent on CV angle. That typically means a 4-6" wider track and sacrificing the sway bar which completely kills its on-road manners. Then there's the issues you mention - in particular the 2-joint axle. 2 CVs are more prone to to binding vs a single joint in a Jeep axle and since they constantly cycle with the suspension, they're more likely to do so; with the SFA they're only really stressed under hard turning. You also have to deal with more wheel lift because while droop will put a tire on the ground, an SFA will put more weight on the drooped tire providing better traction.

But I think we're mostly coming from the same place. There are real benefits to both systems with about 95% overlap - the IFS system being better on road and at speed in almost every metric with the SFA system being able to do the extreme top end crawly off road that will frequently leave the IFS in trouble. Most people - including most on this site - will never see that 5% and therefore doesn't need the SFA, but the if I don't need it then you don't either attitude some seem to have doesn't change the fact that 5% exists and one does significantly better than the other in that space.

I hope the "i don't need it then you don't" was not shot at me. I agree. I am driving a jeep. SOLID FRONT AXLE. I am just making the point that in the past 5 years or so, IFS has gotten WAYYYYYY better.

 

[MazeVX]

I'm impressed by Ford checking all the boxes that jeep left open and I'm excited by their choice of engines because they make it most likely that they will sell it in Europe.

The ifs front is no concern in my opinion, especially with a rear locker and the swaybar disconnect they showed, terrain needs to be very tough to give the solid front axle any advantages and on all other terrain the ifs does better.
All that includes that Ford did the ifs right but I guess we can assume that they did that..

PS: currently driving a jku and modded the suspension to actually do anything else than flex so I'm not loosing my teeth on gravel roads...

 

[Autism Family Travels]

Stock comparisons work for someone who plans on leaving the vehicle stock an is determining what vehicle is right for their needs but as I said, there are always engineering decisions that lead to compromise. As you acknowledged, the value of upgrading an SFA is significantly better than an IFS and it's a huge reason I have a JT instead of my last Tacoma. While "can I go" is a good question to ask, my further question was "what do I do if things go south". We frequently travel solo which means I need the most capability I can have and even the limited wheeling in my JT has left a smile on my face. Went out a few times now and where I used to need ATRAC to get through rutted out or technical sections because of wheel lift, I can just roll through without a care in the Gladiator. Seriously looking forward to what this truck can do with a 2.5" lift and lockers down the road.

My key issue with improving an IFS (aside from cost) is that the only way to gain articulation is to go wider - it's just the downside to laterally mounted control arms that are dependent on CV angle. That typically means a 4-6" wider track and sacrificing the sway bar which completely kills its on-road manners. Then there's the issues you mention - in particular the 2-joint axle. 2 CVs are more prone to to binding vs a single joint in a Jeep axle and since they constantly cycle with the suspension, they're more likely to do so; with the SFA they're only really stressed under hard turning. You also have to deal with more wheel lift because while droop will put a tire on the ground, an SFA will put more weight on the drooped tire providing better traction.

But I think we're mostly coming from the same place. There are real benefits to both systems with about 95% overlap - the IFS system being better on road and at speed in almost every metric with the SFA system being able to do the extreme top end crawly off road that will frequently leave the IFS in trouble. Most people - including most on this site - will never see that 5% and therefore doesn't need the SFA, but the if I don't need it then you don't either attitude some seem to have doesn't change the fact that 5% exists and one does significantly better than the other in that space.

Just re-read this, the IFS system in the bronco is way ahead of the taco's. The bronco stock vs your gladiator, the bronco will go further up the trail. Add your 2 inch of lift and bigger tires, and do the same to the bronco, the bronco will still go further. 2" of lift will net 37's on it. just as it would on your gladiator. The bronco has an amazing off road suspension system. The jeep has and old technology system that works. Both go wherever you point them. Adding anymore than 2' on our jeeps are pointless IMO. All you do is decrease reliability, increase roll center and detract from 95% of driving situations. The bronco can articulate just as well as our jeeps. It was designed for this purpose. Its not the taco where it was designed to tackle dirt roads, then if you wanted to go further you had to pump crap loads of money and still stick tires in the air. I still owe 3 years on my Jeep. I have to live with it until then. Which I know I will without issue. We love it. but I am not blind to what ford has done with the bronco. It has more gc because it has IFS with no axle running right across it, it has crazy good articulation once disco'ed (which you can do IN the terrain unlike the Jeep where you have to disco before it gets rough). Comparing the bronco suspension to a taco or 4 runner is selling yourself short. Not the bronco. All your concerns about IFS do not count with the bronco. Swaybar is selectable IN TERRAIN. Meaning if you stick your front wheel in the air, you can disco in the situation and bam, you motor on through. The bronco has just as good articulation as your gladiator. it's minimally wider than the Jeep. Go watch the video, and read the specs. No one is bashing your jeep. which is what is sounds like you are upset at.

 

[Autism Family Travels]

Here, watch this because by your comments, you have not yet. Or, you just dont want to accept that an IFS vechile can hang with our jeeps.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Stock comparisons work for someone who plans on leaving the vehicle stock an is determining what vehicle is right for their needs but as I said, there are always engineering decisions that lead to compromise. [Cut the quote short for ease of reading but I did quote the whole thing]

Totally agree with you, and I think we are coming from the same place. That 5% space is where the difference really seems to be. I think our perspectives are a little different only because of the distinction between “getting through” and “driving through”. What a rig lacks in built-in capability can often be addressed in other ways - it might not mean driving through every obstacle in air conditioned comfort with the tunes going, but with the right setup that addresses a rig’s shortcomings - not just a suspension modification, but lockers, traction control, proper tires & pressures, a winch, etc. — and a willingness to use those tools properly, getting through is always (in my experience so far) possible.

We solo travel too - Sometimes we have myself on my motorbike and my wife in the 4x4 (the bike ain’t much of a recovery rig...the best I can do is go “recover” a tow from a kind stranger!!) but lots of times we are both in the 4x4, and so that capability that you talk about is important. It’s what got us into our Rubicon, and we really loved it. We needed more payload (2 adults, 2 Big dogs, kids were on the horizon) so we went with an IFS truck, and we love that too. But both have limitations from a holistic perspective and it’s important to be aware of that.

IFS has improved a lot, but I think the inherent limitations (articulation, wheel lift, etc.) means that it requires a bit more care, caution, and I think a willingness to admit defeat and winch through a section instead of just driving it; we’ve not had to do this yet, but we are aware of the limitations that may come up, even super rarely with the modern tech — I don’t mind that as it’s part of the adventure, in the same way @MOAK mentioned he does not mind the on-road manners of his SFA rig (in the same vein I didn’t mind my Jeep at all on highway, though I acknowledge fully my IFS is more comfy there).

We also prepare accordingly. I rarely brought many spares in my JK (partly ignorance on my part, but the only parts I ever needed in that thing were major (clutch, trans bearings) and not trail side repairs anyway. In our truck we bring two spare CVS, spare boots, etc. Haven’t had to use them yet, but if we do, we are prepared, and we will get to the campsite eventually (and @LostWoods you will likely get there first in your Jeep but with all my extra payload I’ll bring the beer - you get the fire going and we will meet you there!)

 

[grubworm]

i heard the 2022 model will be designed by Ford going strictly off of OB forum posts....

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Just re-read this, the IFS system in the bronco is way ahead of the taco's. The bronco stock vs your gladiator, the bronco will go further up the trail. Add your 2 inch of lift and bigger tires, and do the same to the bronco, the bronco will still go further. 2" of lift will net 37's on it. just as it would on your gladiator. The bronco has an amazing off road suspension system. The jeep has and old technology system that works. Both go wherever you point them. Adding anymore than 2' on our jeeps are pointless IMO. All you do is decrease reliability, increase roll center and detract from 95% of driving situations. The bronco can articulate just as well as our jeeps. It was designed for this purpose. Its not the taco where it was designed to tackle dirt roads, then if you wanted to go further you had to pump crap loads of money and still stick tires in the air. I still owe 3 years on my Jeep. I have to live with it until then. Which I know I will without issue. We love it. but I am not blind to what ford has done with the bronco. It has more gc because it has IFS with no axle running right across it, it has crazy good articulation once disco'ed (which you can do IN the terrain unlike the Jeep where you have to disco before it gets rough). Comparing the bronco suspension to a taco or 4 runner is selling yourself short. Not the bronco. All your concerns about IFS do not count with the bronco. Swaybar is selectable IN TERRAIN. Meaning if you stick your front wheel in the air, you can disco in the situation and bam, you motor on through. The bronco has just as good articulation as your gladiator. it's minimally wider than the Jeep. Go watch the video, and read the specs. No one is bashing your jeep. which is what is sounds like you are upset at.

I hear you, and I suspect and hope that you will be correct, but that is quite a few “absolute truths” about a vehicle that won’t start delivery until next year. The truth is we don’t really know for sure yet how good this thing will be - I suspect very good — but every modern 4x4 is “very good” so it’s tough to say this unreleased new rig is better or worse than the others. Right now the majority of the info on the Bronco is from Ford — that’s a case of the Barber telling us how badly we all need a haircut. It’s almost like they want to sell these things to folks like us ;)

We have some very promising specifications, a cool retro design with apparently lots of accessories, and a video from Ford showing off road driving with a disclaimer about digital enhancement of vehicle images - a video that Ford knows full well could make or break this announcement and have a huge impact on the success of the vehicle. To be clear, I’m not saying that Ford definitely played some Hollywood games to make the Bronco look better off road (for all we know, digital enhancement may refer to colour correction of the paint in bad light), but what I am saying we won’t know for sure until people get keys in hands and test them out. For the same reasons, I’m optimistic but cautious on the Ineos Grenadier which had a similar little digital video intro, and even the new Defender (to a much lesser degree since it’s out with a lot of independent evaluation available already)

In terms of what other people “need” - The needs of Overlanders are as diverse as this wondeful world we like to explore. Take a look at some of the arctic exploration rigs popular in Europe (Iceland, Norway). Those guys need to install massive 40“ high flotation tires, and in many cases a bigger lift is absolutely necessary to accommodate that. There are similar needs for vehicles that are used in swampy conditions. And in Canada, you may even have seen Track conversions for 4x4s that sometimes need more than a 2” lift.

And for another example of the needs of others, how do you think this thing handles off-road? I bet it can go more places off road than the Bronco, but I don’t think the pontoons are in this year’s MOPAR catalogue so maybe that will even the playing field ;) (For context, this person’s application was an attempted RTW trip including the Bering Sea, if I remember correctly - he was not successful if I recall, but it still illustrates the “application specific” nature of this hobby).