2008 4 door Bronco concept

[Blueblood]

It has everything to do wth a 4 door Bronco, since it'd be going after the same customers as Wrangler.

 

That said, if those customers don't go off-roading, it wouldn't matter how long the 4-door Bronco would be.

 

I think most Wranglers are 2 doors, especially since that's all that was sold forever, and the Bronco was always a 2 door, if they built a 4 door they should just call it Explorer X or something, Bronco's, like Mustangs, are 2 doors only!!!

 

I'm not putting down your ps skills, I like the stuff you do, I just feel a 4 door Bronco would be blasphemy.

[MERKURXR4Ti]

I'm sure some people said the same thing about the Wrangler.

 

The 4dr wrangler IS too long for SERIOUS off roading...

[92merc]

Personally, I loved the original Bronco concept. I think Ford needs to do one of two things. Either take that concept and use it to make a new Escape replacement, or use it as the Explorer replacement. Try to keep it in one of those classes. I mean if it is an Explorer replacement, keep the towing capability. Or keep it small like the Escape for better gas mileage.

 

As far as making either of those a true off road vehicle, I say that's a waste of time. The market isn't big enough. Most off roaders either build their own buggy from the ground up, or like to use CJ/TJ platforms.

 

But I think that concept has the look to replace either of the above. I think it's a much better looking concept than the Toyota FJR is. And I'm sure Ford wouldn't would build it as weak as the FJR and have some cracking front ends...

[suv_guy_19]

The 4dr wrangler IS too long for SERIOUS off roading...

 

But the thing is, nobody cares. Most people never use it that way, but they want it to look like it could.

 

2 other points, 1 magazine took a 4 door Wrangler over the Rubicon trail. It must be ok. Also, when it comes down to it, anything like this is too heavy for serious offroading. Just buy an ATV or better yet (but less fun) an Argo.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

IMHO, I love the look of the vehicle in the picture. These are my only points of note.

 

For it to work for anything remotely close to offroading, it should be somewhat shorter. While visually, the proportions work for a two row SUV, functionally (and it really comes through when you see the comparison to the Wrangler Unlimited) the length of the doors (front to back) is a bit on the high side. Draw an imaginary line from the top of the vehicle to ground level immediately behind the A pillar and another one like it immediately in front of the C-pillar and shrink the section of the vehicle between those lines by 10-15%. It will do just enough to shorten the wheelbase without screwing up the overall proportions of the vehicle. Functionally, you'd probably want to possibly enlarge the second row doors front to back to make ingress and egress work, but, for a concept, they work fine. The second row seat would get pushed back a little bit to maintain useful leg room.

 

Another item would be default axle height. For a more offroad look, you may want to drop the center line of the axles down by about one proportional inch (I don't know the default DPI you use in editing, but, maybe try about 10 to 20 rows of pixels). It may require reporportioning the wheels a little to make it work visually.

 

With those two visual changes, it will look much more functional as an off-roader. But, like I said, I think it looks fantastic as is.

 

Sales wise, it would be a complete flop as a 2 door. Almost anything out there in the utility market needs to be a 4 door, or at least a two door with a pair of half sized suicide doors to make back seat access reasonable. The only two doors that work are anything with Jeep Wrangler attached to it, or are extremely inexpensive and thus represent a very good value option to a buyer. I know that Ford doesn't want to make another vehicle that they will have to sell at or below cost. So, the liklihood of a Bronco successor being a 2 door is extremely low, unless its on a well shared platform in a highly flexible plant using capacity that would be expensively wasted anyway.

[MERKURXR4Ti]

But the thing is, nobody cares. Most people never use it that way, but they want it to look like it could.

 

2 other points, 1 magazine took a 4 door Wrangler over the Rubicon trail. It must be ok. Also, when it comes down to it, anything like this is too heavy for serious offroading. Just buy an ATV or better yet (but less fun) an Argo.

 

Wrangler's have to go over the Rubicon (which isn't all that hard these days) and thus are "trail rated" and most anyone familiar with trails will tell you the same thing about the longer wheelbase..not that its bad just not as good at extreme stuff. As for an ATV.....man I sure want one.....enough said now im envous.

 

These are all pointless arguements anyway because as Fairmont said, no decently priced 2dr can sell anymore, and in fact the wrangler 2 door is hurting comparatively, so ford will remake the "bronco" as a unibody small car with 4 doors, if it has the looks it'll sell no competeing with jeep required (because as you said no one takes the average car/truck off the pavement anyway).

Edited January 3, 2008 by MERKURXR4Ti

[bravestar]

I just hope that a concept will not again be released and a production version following three years later. Way too long of lead times from concepts to actual production vehicles.

[rmc523]

I think most Wranglers are 2 doors, especially since that's all that was sold forever, and the Bronco was always a 2 door, if they built a 4 door they should just call it Explorer X or something, Bronco's, like Mustangs, are 2 doors only!!!

 

I'm not putting down your ps skills, I like the stuff you do, I just feel a 4 door Bronco would be blasphemy.

 

In my area, the only Wranglers I see are the 4 door models (I rarely saw any before, and now see the occasional 2 door).

 

However, these 4 door customers would likely never take the vehicle off road, so off-roading capabilities are likely not needed for most 4-door customers.

[rmc523]

IMHO, I love the look of the vehicle in the picture. These are my only points of note.

 

For it to work for anything remotely close to offroading, it should be somewhat shorter. While visually, the proportions work for a two row SUV, functionally (and it really comes through when you see the comparison to the Wrangler Unlimited) the length of the doors (front to back) is a bit on the high side. Draw an imaginary line from the top of the vehicle to ground level immediately behind the A pillar and another one like it immediately in front of the C-pillar and shrink the section of the vehicle between those lines by 10-15%. It will do just enough to shorten the wheelbase without screwing up the overall proportions of the vehicle. Functionally, you'd probably want to possibly enlarge the second row doors front to back to make ingress and egress work, but, for a concept, they work fine. The second row seat would get pushed back a little bit to maintain useful leg room.

 

Another item would be default axle height. For a more offroad look, you may want to drop the center line of the axles down by about one proportional inch (I don't know the default DPI you use in editing, but, maybe try about 10 to 20 rows of pixels). It may require reporportioning the wheels a little to make it work visually.

 

With those two visual changes, it will look much more functional as an off-roader. But, like I said, I think it looks fantastic as is.

 

Sales wise, it would be a complete flop as a 2 door. Almost anything out there in the utility market needs to be a 4 door, or at least a two door with a pair of half sized suicide doors to make back seat access reasonable. The only two doors that work are anything with Jeep Wrangler attached to it, or are extremely inexpensive and thus represent a very good value option to a buyer. I know that Ford doesn't want to make another vehicle that they will have to sell at or below cost. So, the liklihood of a Bronco successor being a 2 door is extremely low, unless its on a well shared platform in a highly flexible plant using capacity that would be expensively wasted anyway.

 

Thanks for the suggestions. When I get a chance, I may alter/fix the picture.

 

On your comment about the axles, I just used whatever the Bronco concept had, the only alteration I made to the picture was stretching it and adding an extra set of doors.

 

As you said, the 2-door model wouldn't sell because it's not practical for most customers.

[NJSteve3]

I'm not sure the 2 dr is necessarily a bad idea - it may just depend on who it is sold to, and how tough it is engineered. My recollection, from way back, is that quite a few of the first generation Bronco's were fleet/municipal vehicles - the board of ed had a bunch to plow the schools and run errands year round, likewise the parks dept. If built to the right spec, especially given the trend toward smaller fuel sippers, it could have commercial applications.

[the_spaniard]

But the thing is, nobody cares. Most people never use it that way, but they want it to look like it could.

 

2 other points, 1 magazine took a 4 door Wrangler over the Rubicon trail. It must be ok. Also, when it comes down to it, anything like this is too heavy for serious offroading. Just buy an ATV or better yet (but less fun) an Argo.

 

Agreed. You also have to remember that "Serious" off-roaders will not be trailing in a stock jeep, Rubicon or Not. The crappy powertrain is usually the first thing to go, particularly for the rock-crawlers. Then the suspension. Someone on here (BlackHorse, maybe?) bought a base jeep and is building it up for off-road use. This what most "serious" off-roaders will do, and IMO it's how to do it the right way. How many Rubicons actually see off-road use anyway? A higher percentage than other Jeeps, but I'd wager it's still a pretty low percentage.

 

Hell you'd be amazed how many tricked out jeeps, even those with 35" BFG's a six inch lift, ranchos, gas cans, a firestick, shovels, jacks, warn winch and safari racks never see dirt. It's the image.

 

I'd wager more CJs and Land Cruisers still on the road today see more off-road action than most new Rubicons.

[rmc523]

Agreed. You also have to remember that "Serious" off-roaders will not be trailing in a stock jeep, Rubicon or Not. The crappy powertrain is usually the first thing to go, particularly for the rock-crawlers. Then the suspension. Someone on here (BlackHorse, maybe?) bought a base jeep and is building it up for off-road use. This what most "serious" off-roaders will do, and IMO it's how to do it the right way. How many Rubicons actually see off-road use anyway? A higher percentage than other Jeeps, but I'd wager it's still a pretty low percentage.

 

Hell you'd be amazed how many tricked out jeeps, even those with 35" BFG's a six inch lift, ranchos, gas cans, a firestick, shovels, jacks, warn winch and safari racks never see dirt. It's the image.

 

I'd wager more CJs and Land Cruisers still on the road today see more off-road action than most new Rubicons.

 

I believe you're correct in saying BlackHorse is the one getting the new Wrangler. And I'd think you're right about the new Jeeps not seeing much off road duty.

[Furious1Auto]

rmc523 I have to say that this 4 door variation of the Bronco that you rendered is one of your finest to date!

[rmc523]

rmc523 I have to say that this 4 door variation of the Bronco that you rendered is one of your finest to date!

 

thanks it was also one of the easiest to date.

[Edstock]

If Ford sells Land-Rover . . . . that sure would look nice against an African sky.

[rmc523]

If Ford sells Land-Rover . . . . that sure would look nice against an African sky.

 

 

Well thanks...and yes, it would.

[Dohctor Smith]

I agree with JimmyL. If they are going to build something like the Bronco concept and have it resemble the early Bronco(of which I have a '71 and '72), and call it Bronco, it damn sure better perform like a "Bronco". That means incredible off-road capabilities and most of all.....A V-8! Sorry for the rant.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Dohctor Smith

[rmc523]

I agree with JimmyL. If they are going to build something like the Bronco concept and have it resemble the early Bronco(of which I have a '71 and '72), and call it Bronco, it damn sure better perform like a "Bronco". That means incredible off-road capabilities and most of all.....A V-8! Sorry for the rant.

 

That's quite alright, and I understand that you want it to perform like a "Bronco" should, but I don't think most would use it as an offroad vehicle, much like the Wrangler. Maybe a heavy duty offroading package could be offered alongside a more road-friendly version?

 

Also, I was going to say welcome to BOF, but then realized you've been here since 03, I guess you mainly read and don't post?

[LaredoRV]

Other thing: Removable Roof ! That was such a nice feature !

[rmc523]

Other thing: Removable Roof ! That was such a nice feature !

 

I was thinking it could have that as well.

[Dohctor Smith]

rmc523, thanks for the welcome. I been have lurking on this board at least every 2-3 days for many years and am well informed from it. You no what they say after the "first time", I may become a nuisance from here on out now that I have had the Glorious experience on getting that first post out the way! But back to the Bronco concept. I'm just saying if they build that sissy thing it SHOULD NOT be called Bronco.

[rmc523]

rmc523, thanks for the welcome. I been have lurking on this board at least every 2-3 days for many years and am well informed from it. You no what they say after the "first time", I may become a nuisance from here on out now that I have had the Glorious experience on getting that first post out the way! But back to the Bronco concept. I'm just saying if they build that sissy thing it SHOULD NOT be called Bronco.

 

You're quite welcome....I too have learned a lot from the boards here, I started posting the instant I became a member (but I had read for several months before that). I did do my first posts in the photochops section to kinda ease my way in though. I'm sure people are annoyed by me, I don't know if you've noticed the way I post or not....

 

Well that thing (concept) would be better than the rumored b-car Bronco, wouldn't it?

[Dohctor Smith]

Yes it would. But call it Broncette;) Please do not take this as criticism of your rendering of the Bronco concept. I actually love the look of the vehicle, I just dont like its underpinnings, chassis and engine wise.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Dohctor Smith

[MERKURXR4Ti]

I'd wager more CJs and Land Cruisers still on the road today see more off-road action than most new Rubicons.

 

In the area I live things are quite different, I have never met a wrangler owner that hasn't been off-road, there are countless clubs and groups that go out every month, and even mopar sponsored camps. The new 4dr is different as I usally see soccermoms driving those, but as for percentage wise, I'll wager the TJ (esp. rubicon) has a higher percentage than any land cruiser; any CJ still left HAS to be an off-roader so that's an unfair comp.

[rmc523]

Yes it would. But call it Broncette;) Please do not take this as criticism of your rendering of the Bronco concept. I actually love the look of the vehicle, I just dont like its underpinnings, chassis and engine wise.

 

No offense or criticism taken, I understand what you're saying.....a Bronco should be bigger.