Toys4RJill

Ugh. Just read the Bronco Sport is a crossover. That sucks!

mmarshall

Huh? We've been discussing that for quite some time. You yourself brought that issue up months ago.

The mid-sized Bronco, however, will be BOF.

mmarshall

Brick-styling often means space efficiency.

Fizzboy7

^ Has that cute, sporty look. Will sell well as an affordable Land Rover Defender knock-off. Now the new Explorer really looks weak when you see what Ford is capable of.

Seeing the smaller "Sport" before the regular model is another kick in the butt. We've only been waiting for a decade on the regular Bronco...

tex2670

How can it be based on the Escape and not be a crossover? This fact is repeatedly stated in this thread.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

Did people actually think a bronco that small is going to be body on frame?

this is like complaining the Challenger looks unaerodynamic. See what the original challenger looked like? That is what people want. How else can a 10+ year old platform outsell the camaro

tex2670

If they did, they shouldn't. It's always been clear it was going to be built on the Escape platform.

mmarshall

Compact and subcompact SUVs and CUVs that are body-on-frame, while unusual, are not unheard of. In the 80s and 90s, Suzuki, for example, built several versions of them.....Samurai, Sidekick, Vitara, and Grand Vitara, although the Samurai was crude, had a very bad reputation, and was considered a serious rollover risk. Rebadged versions of the Suzuki Sidekick were also sold as the Chevy/Geo Tracker. Isuzu's Amigo (for those of you who remember it) was also BOF. Daihatsu, in the American Market, briefly sold the Rocky in the early 90s...it was considered a safer alternative to the Samurai, with a wider, less-tipsy track.



Yep...excellent point. The Challenger is one of the great successes I point out to those who complain about "retro" styling. And look at what a success the PT Cruiser was...its retro-styling went back to the late 1930s LOL.

ABC

Looks pretty good and a nice alternative to wranglers. Jeep shouldn't be sweating this vehicle, imo. Ford has a long way to go to get into that territory.

FrankReynoldsCPA

I really like it. If it comes with a V6 ecoboost this thing will be a surefire hit. The 2.7 EB has been a real winner.

It won't destroy the Wrangler, as that vehicle has a very devoted following. It also has a solid-front axle which will keep it superior in rock-crawling. But the Bronco will pull some people who don't need the rock-crawling capabilities and who aren't dyed in the wool Jeep fanatics. It'll also be a great overlander IMO. This is going to give the 4Runner some trouble though.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

I agree, Toyota needs to update/redesign the 4Runner/GX very soon. Bronco with a 2.7 EcoBoost is very compelling over a 4Runner equipped with the 4.0

Toys4RJill

9 out or 10 overland owners are going to want and/or appreciate a V8 or a large V6. A GX and a 4Runner offer both. Add 1000 lbs of gear or mods to a 2.7 Ecoboost and you will have satisfaction issues.

geko29

The 2.7L Ecoboost (which comes from the F150) has dramatically higher payload and tow ratings than the 4.0 V6 in the 4Runner, and higher even than the 4.6L V8 in the GX. With 400lbft of torque available just off idle, this shouldn't be surprising.

Toys4RJill

That is fine. It is an impressive engine, no doubt. But overlanders will still want the V6 or V8...given the choice, especially the V8 from the GX...load up those vehicles permanently with a 1000lbs of mods, then add your gear, then add a trailer...and people will trust the Toyota's with a V6 or a V8...there should be some 2.7 Ecoboost motors in the F150 out there today in the overland crowd, but there are still more desirable overland vehicles.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

What's "overlanders" people who go off-road? Or opposite of "underlanders"?