The Official Crazy Go-Nuts Bronco Speculation Topic

[Anthony]

Let's remember the quote from DeLorenzo (should we believe him) in the first post:

 

But I can assure you that the monopoly that FCA has in the market with its Jeep brand particularly with the Wrangler is coming to an end, and sooner than most in this industry may think, I might add.

...

There are two manufacturers in the deep planning and development stages to build a direct competitor to the Wrangler as you read this. And a third has taken a program off of the shelf, dusted it off and is now planning to accelerate the development of its own Wrangler beater.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Intrepidatious

[bzcat]

Let's remember the quote from DeLorenzo (should we believe him) in the first post:

 

 

I'm not sure what you are inferring? Are you saying he is full of shit? That's truth when it comes to his opinions... but he is generally correct on industry speculations and developments because of his connections in the industry.

 

Earlier in the thread, we seemed to have come to a consensus that the three he is referring to is Ford, GM, and Toyota. Ford because of the persistent Bronco rumors, GM because it said so about a GMC Wrangler fighter, and Toyota because FJ Cruiser was a financial success that caught Toyota off guard (it was planned as a limited run model with no replacement but now it appears replacement is under development).

[jpvbs]

A hot rod CUV. No thanks.

 

This is what happens to AWD CUVs on the Hatteras Island beaches.

 

I believe that is a first Gen Kia Sorento. They aren't really a CUV. They were body on frame SUVs with solid rear axles and a low range transfer case. This one looks like a 2wd one though based on the sand spinning off the rear tire.

[Anthony]

 

I'm not sure what you are inferring? Are you saying he is full of shit? That's truth when it comes to his opinions... but he is generally correct on industry speculations and developments because of his connections in the industry.

 

Earlier in the thread, we seemed to have come to a consensus that the three he is referring to is Ford, GM, and Toyota. Ford because of the persistent Bronco rumors, GM because it said so about a GMC Wrangler fighter, and Toyota because FJ Cruiser was a financial success that caught Toyota off guard (it was planned as a limited run model with no replacement but now it appears replacement is under development).

In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite (read my prior posts in this thread for context). My point was that DeLorenzo said it would be a direct competitor to the Wrangler, hence these references to hopped up CUVs are off base.

[probowler]

 

Yes. The original Bronco had a removable top. It didn't sell well enough for that feature to be retained.

 

The 55-57 T-Birds which were to the Corvette what the first Bronco was to the Jeep did not sell nearly as well as the '58, which had its own unique value proposition.

 

The whole point is the value proposition: If your value proposition is: "It's just like a Wrangler" you're going to lose.

My 1996 (The last year) has a removable top, they all did.

 

What you might be confused on, is that it's technically "not legal" to remove the top.

 

For one, the later years have the 3rd brake light on the top, but also the seatbelts are mounted to the tops as well. Removing the top takes both of those away.

 

Both problems easily remedied with a simple redesign however, and I too think the new Bronco MUST(or at least I just want it too) keep its removable hard top

[probowler]

-Double post

Edited February 18, 2015 by probowler

[akirby]

http://gearheads.org/2016-ford-bronco-svt-raptor/#.VOVdky74JYJ

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

Yeah, that's about what I had in my head. I think that would sell enough to justify its existence

[fordmantpw]

a;sk;lkafha;slkfd238a#*&((@*#*l;kasd9u3

 

Sorry, keyboard shorted out from all the drool.

 

Love how they call it a '16 Ford Bronco as if it is truly showing up like that.

 

But, they got in '2016 Ford Bronco', '2016 Ford Bronco SVT', '2016 Ford Bronco SVT Raptor', and even 'SVT 2015 Ford Bronco' to ensure they had all the search terms covered.

[Moosetang]

I should make a calendar that uses his many times that chop and article have been linked to tell the day. "Oh its the 13th time that's been posted this year, so about mid-April."

[Anthony]

I'll admit that chop is gorgeous, but it wouldn't sell worth beans. Full size vehicle with 2 doors = sales suicide. Why do you think nobody makes them anymore?

[Sevensecondsuv]

Anybody else notice the very SFA-ish differential on the passenger side? Must be a result of the Photoshop. But I'll keep dreaming about the possibility of a production 2-door SUV with a solid front axle. May as well include an available manual transmission too since I'm dreaming...

[akirby]

Yeah - might as well just take a supercab Raptor and put a removable top on the back.

[akirby]

Anybody else notice the very SFA-ish differential on the passenger side? Must be a result of the Photoshop. But I'll keep dreaming about the possibility of a production 2-door SUV with a solid front axle. May as well include an available manual transmission too since I'm dreaming...

 

Don't stop there - might as well make it a small diesel with a bench seat, a column shifter and green paint.

[lfeg]

Make the paint an old Ford color from the 70s - competition green metallic.

[Deanh]

Im still convinced we will see an interpretation of the global Ranger platform being the under pinnings. As much as I LOVE the full size Bronco chop, I think the target audience is the $100,000 per annum wage earners....

[jpd80]

I wonder if Peter D is stating an opinion dressed up as a fact. It's clear that he has evidence to support his beliefs

but is his assertion of "direct competitor" to Wangler a step too far?

 

Ford, GM and Toyota would only be interested if there was a chance of easy development off an existing platform

and capturing enough sales to justify using funds and resources in that way. I suspect that all three looked at Wrangler

but concluded that Jeep is strong in a few niches and decided to do something different that suits their own needs

. Time will tell.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

The first generation four-door Pathfinder had an incredible mix of attributes. My best college buddy had one when we were both in grad school at the University of Montana. We took that on hunting, flyfishing, camping, backpacking, climbing, and floating trips over a five state area. Sometimes girlfriends or fiancee's went and they weren't treated to a miserable ride. It was a vehicle that could win the Dakar and comfortably drive four people across several hundred miles to a backcountry adventure.

 

If the original Bronco would have had four doors, it would have been this kind of vehicle for it's day. This is the sweet spot for Ford (obviously updated), and not a Wrangler clone or the mini-Hummer/Wrangler like thingy GM is setting to send out for a butt-kicking. You can't beat a legendary icon by copying it, even if you can boast Toyota's reputation for quality and customer satisfaction.

[Donaldo]

 

That's how I read it.

 

I don't think any other manufacturers in the US market have the wherewithal and the institutional know-how to do a serious off-roader.

I throw 2 out that I don't think have been mentioned here: Nissan and Mercedes-Benz. Both of these companies build 'serious', low range/transfer case, locking diff SUVs. The current XTerra is ancient, but since they've held on to it for so long they could be doing a refresh. MBZ has already shown some interest in producing a smaller/cheaper G class off roader.

I'd add Mitsubishi to this list, as they need new product in the US and have a legit off-roader (Pajero/Montero), but it looks like we'll get a big one.

Worldwide Toyota probably dominates the market for off-road capable vehicles and will not likely not leave the 'hole' left by the FJC unfilled for long.

[RichardJensen]

By 'wherewithal', I mean the cash to invest in the program. I do not believe that Nissan/Renault are in position to invest in a 'white-space' product for them.

 

And MB is just like LR: I do not believe they have the ability, and they certainly do not have the desire to build to an entry-level price point.

 

Mitsu certainly doesn't have the wherewithal to launch a brand new platform/vehicle in the US.

[F250]

The first generation four-door Pathfinder had an incredible mix of attributes. My best college buddy had one when we were both in grad school at the University of Montana. We took that on hunting, flyfishing, camping, backpacking, climbing, and floating trips over a five state area. Sometimes girlfriends or fiancee's went and they weren't treated to a miserable ride. It was a vehicle that could win the Dakar and comfortably drive four people across several hundred miles to a backcountry adventure.

 

If the original Bronco would have had four doors, it would have been this kind of vehicle for it's day. This is the sweet spot for Ford (obviously updated), and not a Wrangler clone or the mini-Hummer/Wrangler like thingy GM is setting to send out for a butt-kicking. You can't beat a legendary icon by copying it, even if you can boast Toyota's reputation for quality and customer satisfaction.

 

Ford already has Explorers and Expeditions and Ford has long ago decided they knew the buyers of 4-doors don't want or need serious off-road capability leaving that market to the Wrangler Unlimited and Grand Cherokee. So we are considering a remake of the original Bronco not the full size which was about 9 inches wider than the original.

 

Someone mentioned Jeep has unmatched popularity and aftermarket support in the segment which is true. But when arguing that Ford could not compete consider Bronco has been out of production for 19 years and the original 66-77 has been out 38 years yet the aftermarket offers complete body tubs, wire harnesses, chassis parts everything to build a new 40 year old Bronco. Considering the harsh abuse an off-road vehicle takes (compared to say a road car like a classic Mustang) and how many were built in that era there are a remarkable number of survivors most in outstanding condition. What does this prove? Well a considerable number of real buyers in this market want a Ford Bronco enough to spend big bucks restoring or building one from the ground up. If Ford had an outstanding modern version on the showroom they would sell quite a few kind of like new Mustangs vs classics.

 

Once the Bronco is in production models could be added like a 4-door or half-cab pickup. But it has to be done right the original was perfect sized and capable the full size Broncos were too big and the Bronco II was too small, not as capable and hard top.

 

Did someone say Green??

 

 

Edited February 20, 2015 by F250

[Sevensecondsuv]

Don't stop there - might as well make it a small diesel with a bench seat, a column shifter and green paint.

I could definitely go for bench seats. That would allow it to seat six. Would make for an excellent family hauler at that point.

 

Not so sure about diesel though. It was negative 14 here this morning and I remembered why I only own one diesel engine.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[Sevensecondsuv]

The first generation four-door Pathfinder had an incredible mix of attributes. My best college buddy had one when we were both in grad school at the University of Montana. We took that on hunting, flyfishing, camping, backpacking, climbing, and floating trips over a five state area. Sometimes girlfriends or fiancee's went and they weren't treated to a miserable ride. It was a vehicle that could win the Dakar and comfortably drive four people across several hundred miles to a backcountry adventure.

 

Just like most all the midsize SUVs of the 90s, most popular being the Explorer. Funny how a real t-case and a set of stout axles will do that.

.

Then of course they started larding them up with ever increasing amounts of heavy creature comforts. Then came the 300 horse V8s to move all the extra weight, along with 14 mpg. Then the market couldn't really tell an Explorer from an Expedition and sales tanked. At that point Ford needed a lighter, more nimble design but lacked the resources to keep it bof/rwd. So now we have the Taurusplorer. Not a bad vehicle in its own wright and fills its place in the market but it's an insult to the people who depended on the capabilities of the original Explorer (and Bronco for that matter).

 

And people wonder why I still have my 92. There just simply isn't a replacement available.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[silvrsvt]

I could definitely go for bench seats. That would allow it to seat six. Would make for an excellent family hauler at that point.

 

Bench seats wouldn't cut it with safety regulations/airbags

 

Just like most all the midsize SUVs of the 90s, most popular being the Explorer. Funny how a real t-case and a set of stout axles will do that.

.

Then of course they started larding them up with ever increasing amounts of heavy creature comforts. Then came the 300 horse V8s to move all the extra weight, along with 14 mpg. Then the market couldn't really tell an Explorer from an Expedition and sales tanked. At that point Ford needed a lighter, more nimble design but lacked the resources to keep it bof/rwd. So now we have the Taurusplorer. Not a bad vehicle in its own wright and fills its place in the market but it's an insult to the people who depended on the capabilities of the original Explorer (and Bronco for that matter).

 

And people wonder why I still have my 92. There just simply isn't a replacement available.

 

The first gen Explorer wasn't anything to write home about in the MPG dept (which was the real reason "real" SUV's went away) and the people who depended on the "capabilities" of the orginal Explorer and even the Bronco is so small that it wasn't worth it for nearly every one in the auto making business to go that route.

 

The new Bronco is going to be niche vehicle that Ford has a plan to make a profit on...since the rest of the lineup is more or less set for the next few years, it doesn't have to sweat it too much.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Bench seats wouldn't cut it with safety regulations/airbags

 

You've probably got a point.

 

The first gen Explorer wasn't anything to write home about in the MPG dept (which was the real reason "real" SUV's went away) and the people who depended on the "capabilities" of the orginal Explorer and even the Bronco is so small that it wasn't worth it for nearly every one in the auto making business to go that route.

 

The new Bronco is going to be niche vehicle that Ford has a plan to make a profit on...since the rest of the lineup is more or less set for the next few years, it doesn't have to sweat it too much.

Last tank in my 92 was 18.7 mpg. Not too shabby for a 23 year old with 330,000 miles operating in the frigid cold we've had lately. Usually better than 20 in the summer. Compare that with the 14 mpg my brother's 07 Mountaineer 4.6L gets. I'd be surprised if a 2015 Explorer did significantly better than mine in the real world.

 

I just hope they don't neuter the Bronco. I've felt pretty abandoned by Ford the last few years but these Bronco rumors make me think they might actually want me as a customer after all.