plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
Man tell me how you really feel..lol. My post was probably poorly written and resulted in my thoughts being misunderstood. You are correct they are totally different vehicles.
New Bronco
- Thread starter jingram
- Start date
redthies
Renaissance Redneck
I only said that because you are, in my experience, one of the smarter posters on ExPo.
A dozen years ago, this place was full of actual backcountry travelers, now it is full of “soft roaders” (whatever THAT is) and people that think driving to their local state park is “Overlanding”. Today, there is a lot of chaff to go through before you find wheat...
utherjorge
Observer
back on topic, you two, or you get this all locked up
plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
All good George, all good.
Paddler Ed
Adventurer
I think that @plainjaneFJC was possibly onto something with the comment re the desirability of retro inspired vehicles. Some have been great, some not so good.
I think there are some things that make a difference however in the desirability of them:
1) Consistent design cues, or at least evolutionary: Porsche are the masters of this with the 911 - similar proportions, same (rough) glasshouse shapes etc. VW on the other hand didn't get it as right with the New Beetle 1.0 or 2.0. Both Ford and GM have got this with the current Mustang and the Camaro, even the Corvette falls into the evolutionary on the whole.
2) Scalable design cues: BMW got this right with the MINI - the original was woefully out of date, but the new MINI was a great nod to the past, and has spawned some variants (some more successful than others) in the same way as point 1 below.
3) Audience: Knowing your audience and getting it right; BMW kept the MINI light and good handling, no matter what engine was in it. They also made it stupidly quick as a John Cooper Works. Chrysler with the PT Cruiser used a FWD, 2.0 4 cylinder engine... now imagine if it had had 4 litre + V8 in it and RWD - would it have been as criticised?
Things that don't work are:
1) Compromises to the base platform: the VW Beetle was spun off the Golf(Bora/Jetta)/A3/Skoda Octavia platform - all of which had 5 doors or a saloon version, and some a wagon
2) Performance mismatch to what is expected. Chrysler using the 2.0 4 cylinder and FWD in the PT Cruiser for example
3) Mismatch between target customer profile and actual customer. Manufacturers are great at this, they do it with all sorts of things; market them to 20 or 30 somethings, but the actual customer ends up being your 60 or 70 yo MiL.... Honda did this in the UK with the Jazz (US market I think they're the Fit) - quickest way to know that you're behind an old person is to find one of those...
Ultimately it's easy to get wrong when they're more style than substance; they need to live up to expectations and be suitably aspirational as well. It's why the 2.3 Mustangs never take off... and why the LR Defender may struggle. As an outsider, the Bronco ticks 1, 2 and 3 from the good list; the good news is that the American market doesn't get the Ford Everest (which is the Australian wagon version of the Ranger) as that might expose them to the risk of 1) from the 2nd list.
I think there are some things that make a difference however in the desirability of them:
1) Consistent design cues, or at least evolutionary: Porsche are the masters of this with the 911 - similar proportions, same (rough) glasshouse shapes etc. VW on the other hand didn't get it as right with the New Beetle 1.0 or 2.0. Both Ford and GM have got this with the current Mustang and the Camaro, even the Corvette falls into the evolutionary on the whole.
2) Scalable design cues: BMW got this right with the MINI - the original was woefully out of date, but the new MINI was a great nod to the past, and has spawned some variants (some more successful than others) in the same way as point 1 below.
3) Audience: Knowing your audience and getting it right; BMW kept the MINI light and good handling, no matter what engine was in it. They also made it stupidly quick as a John Cooper Works. Chrysler with the PT Cruiser used a FWD, 2.0 4 cylinder engine... now imagine if it had had 4 litre + V8 in it and RWD - would it have been as criticised?
Things that don't work are:
1) Compromises to the base platform: the VW Beetle was spun off the Golf(Bora/Jetta)/A3/Skoda Octavia platform - all of which had 5 doors or a saloon version, and some a wagon
2) Performance mismatch to what is expected. Chrysler using the 2.0 4 cylinder and FWD in the PT Cruiser for example
3) Mismatch between target customer profile and actual customer. Manufacturers are great at this, they do it with all sorts of things; market them to 20 or 30 somethings, but the actual customer ends up being your 60 or 70 yo MiL.... Honda did this in the UK with the Jazz (US market I think they're the Fit) - quickest way to know that you're behind an old person is to find one of those...
Ultimately it's easy to get wrong when they're more style than substance; they need to live up to expectations and be suitably aspirational as well. It's why the 2.3 Mustangs never take off... and why the LR Defender may struggle. As an outsider, the Bronco ticks 1, 2 and 3 from the good list; the good news is that the American market doesn't get the Ford Everest (which is the Australian wagon version of the Ranger) as that might expose them to the risk of 1) from the 2nd list.
watrboy
Observer
I have had my Badlands with high pkg for 2 months and drive it daily. I have not owned a Ford since 1990 that was my daily driver. I was looking at a new Jeep and did not see much difference from my last 1998 Jeep. It was more refined and better built, but did not get me farther than just looking. The Bronco was announced and I reserved, in July 2020, ordered in January 2021, changed my order to soft top in June, and finally drove one in August 2021. Was very happy with initial impressions.
Got mine November 1, went to Moab Off-Rodeo November 7th. Learned how everything works and have been very happy with the way it performs and drives. We will know more come next summer.
85_Ranger4x4
Well-known member
In the US the V6/2.3 Mustang is what keeps the lights on at the Mustang plant.
In all honesty our non SAS 2.3 Bronco will be more like a base mustang than a top of the line GT.
utherjorge
Observer
I think there's a bit of revisionist history here in this post, though.
The 911 isn't a great comparison, as it's simply continued to evolve, so as it's the same model running nonstop, there are obvious similarities since it began.
Both the original New Beetle and the PT Cruiser were smash hits when they first came out. I would throw in the Mini, too, though that's now on the decline. The 500 was much more popular at the start, too...and they're not even in business anymore, not for the 500. Once the novelty wore out, with a lack of compelling gear, there was nowhere for these models to go but down.
Again, the platform of the New Beetle meant nothing to start as it was a big hit. Ditto the PT Cruiser. Had either one not simply withered on the vine, who knows what could have been. I would agree about the target audience...but automakers miss that all the time. Your millennials (i.e. young people, at any time in history) can't often afford a new car payment.
I do completely agree about the Bronco: it's got the retro look (only the true non-conformists don't like the look of the Bronco, really) and compelling hardware that Ford continues to add to it that will likely keep it fresh. The hybrid is coming at some point, which will be fancy, they'll likely try some sort of full-electric, the Raptor is on the way plus the Heritage and Everglades models... The chip shortage will also help keep it in demand because people simply can't get one.
As for my previous comments, I watched as one person derailed the entire "new Tundra" thread which led to posts deleted and a full on ban for that person. Everyone may do as they wish, but try not to make more work for the mods.
utherjorge
Observer
Excellent point about the complexities of vehicles and their makeup that sometimes gets lost.
emulous74
Well-known member
I've owned the New Beetle 2 TDI Convertible, it was the first and willing to bet my 401k money that it will be the last diesel convertible. I liked that it was based on the Golf platform, it rode well and handled well, albeit a bit too heavy. And don't get me wrong, as a gay man having over 40 cars in my life, it was my first "gay" car, but it was fun car; but I sold it back to VW because it was the only car in my life that I could sell it for more than I bought it for. I'm sure it would be worth something in the near future in that it was a manual diesel convertible.
I'm not holding my breath on getting my Bronco on order anytime soon.
I'm not holding my breath on getting my Bronco on order anytime soon.
So I removed the OEM rock sliders from my wife's Badlands and replaced them with a set of Go Rhino Dominator (DSS) slider/steps. The OEM sliders are very stout and although not frame-mounted, seemed like they would do a good job of protecting the rockers. It's a shame that Ford didn't design a horizontal step tube onto the sliders. The Go Rhino steps/sliders are built well although not as stout as the OEM. I think they'd be fine for backcountry travel but probably wouldn't last under repeated rock crawling use. I went with the DSS over the D6 as the D6's seem really wide even with the Sasquatch package and I am glad I did as there is plenty of step to get into the vehicle. Installation would have been easy with two people but I like to suffer in solitude so I installed by myself with a creeper and set of jack stands. It was definitely a six-pack job. I'll post some pics shortly.
Cheers
Cheers
FordGuy1
Adventurer
When Ford started talking about getting into the Jeep segment, I was a very small voice in a question and answer session with Ford. A good friend of mine who owns a Ford dealer, races TT, and was also one of the original Rough Riders/Ford race team , he had given my name to a group that was gathering input on what Ford needed to do to compete with Jeep. It was a very informative conversation. There were so many things that were driven by safety, crash tests, economey, it was really a eye opener. The first Item I sugeested was a solid front axle, and that was a instant no! Ford said that they wanted a vehicle that would drive correclty at speed offroad, and felt that they could accomplish enough rock type of capability to satisfy most buyers and that the way it would handle with a front IFS would outshine what it wont do in the rocks. One item that I feel like they did listen was that we need 300 miles min range, that they did. My guess is that the rock rails were a tricky add, and maybe steps just made them to rigid in a corner or front impact.
85_Ranger4x4
Well-known member
Us DIY guys take for granted how much harder it is to build stuff with rules on an assembly line with bean counters involved.
I got to meet with the Ranger team they launched that truck, it was cool to talk to them about what all they did.
I asked about an integrated brake controller, they said they would look into it... and later released an add on knob thing. So you are welcome NA market...
She didn't complain about crawling into a squatch so I am hoping to fly under the radar and avoid the whole step issue with our non squatch Black Diamond...