When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The minivans are FWD-oriented, while the pickups are RWD oriented. FWD vehicles, in general, tend to have less-robust and less-durable underpinnings and drivetrains, particularly when they carry heavy loads like minivans often do.
I mean...other companies can make extremely reliable FWD vehicles. The issues aren't mechanical, they're mainly electrical. The bottom line is Chrysler clearly allocates their energy and resources one way and not the other.
OMG I would love too and a few recals might make me nervous but that wouldn't stop me cuz I think new design looks awesome.
I'm a sole income provider these days so I don't have a high income to burn and while I'd love to have a toy it would be a strain and worry in this economy for me to extend myself on car payments.
My last Bronco was many years ago and I still dream of that truck, what a beast.
Traded my Harley Davidson for it and was mechanic owned and tuned with a 1 ton rear end raised up on 33" Super Swampers.
Yeah I was young and this Bronco would burn and smoke the tires it has so much power.
So in keeping in topic of the thread I'd buy it if I was younger and had plenty of cash to burn!
Bronco looked alot like this but jacked up way higher and I think it could comfortably sleep 4 in the back haha
Sorry to stray off topic a little, comparing/contrasting, and commenting on engine failure
OMG I would love too and a few recals might make me nervous but that wouldn't stop me cuz I think new design looks awesome.
My last Bronco was many years ago and I still dream of that truck, what a beast.
The good news is that you can get a two-door version again, like your last one.
I'm a sole income provider these days so I don't have a high income to burn and while I'd love to have a toy it would be a strain and worry in this economy for me to extend myself on car payments.
I agree, though....your life and responsibilities come first. Don't want to bite off more than you can chew.
When the Chevrolet Trailblazer and all the corporate twins debut in 2004
there was a problem with the cylinder sleeve liner detaching and dropping
down onto the spinning crankshaft. Locked up the engine immediately with
a tremendous noise. All got worked out and except for MPG ratings was a
reasonable inline 6 cylinder engine after that. Same series had issues with
an aluminum front suspension arm that would fail and drop the truck... Also
an issue with the windshield wiper motor that would short circuit...but only when
it got wet. Oh, and the new for the day multiplexing wiring for the tail/brake/turn
signals that resulted in no rear lights and needed a circuit board each time.
New vehicle snafu's happen.
Like, Chrysler can't make a minivan that can stay out of the shop, but a Ram truck? Flawless.
had the first year teething issues with mine but dealer took care of me without any hassle. Im sure its been fixed on subsequent years. Powertrain wise im not concerned.
Failed USB media hub (lose android auto and MP3 music through ports when this goes out)
Both folding mirrors replaced because of gear binding when being folded (wouldve cost $700 each for part alone)
Dash removed to replace heater core and blend door (A/C TSB, doesnt blow as cold as it should). Blows much cooler than before.
Entire rear glass replaced because of cracked plastic frame/bezel, new one is metal bezeled.
When the Chevrolet Trailblazer and all the corporate twins debut in 2004
there was a problem with the cylinder sleeve liner detaching and dropping
down onto the spinning crankshaft. Locked up the engine immediately with
a tremendous noise. All got worked out and except for MPG ratings was a
reasonable inline 6 cylinder engine after that. Same series had issues with
an aluminum front suspension arm that would fail and drop the truck... Also
an issue with the windshield wiper motor that would short circuit...but only when
it got wet. Oh, and the new for the day multiplexing wiring for the tail/brake/turn
signals that resulted in no rear lights and needed a circuit board each time.
New vehicle snafu's happen.
The atlas turned out fantastic though, nearly the same output as a 5.3 and easy packaging with very very few issues even in high mile cars. The only real problems they have is the PS lines rust and are hell to replace but the engines themselves do great.
MPG for the time was outstanding, the Jeep 4.0 and Ford equals to it all were 5 mpg less and 50 hp down. It's not great nowadays but it was quite good and would still make a nice engine for a true utility truck.
It's not junk, but a barely one-year-old vehicle that already has 32 reported cases of engine failure is pretty abnormal, not just some teething issue. Reminds me of the disastrous launch of the Aviator/Explorer that MM mentioned.
And the engine isnt even a brand new design. Its used in other Ford vehicles.
And the engine isnt even a brand new design. Its used in other Ford vehicles.
Sort of. The heat and air management bits and calibration are all new, the engine itself may also have some changes to reduce cost to ford. All the surrounding bits and packaging matter a lot for a turbo engine so if say....it has an intercooler icing issue that pools water that can kill the engine attached to it.
Sort of. The heat and air management bits and calibration are all new, the engine itself may also have some changes to reduce cost to ford. All the surrounding bits and packaging matter a lot for a turbo engine so if say....it has an intercooler icing issue that pools water that can kill the engine attached to it.
Yea those are external bits and pieces. THey are saying the valves and cams themselves are faulty, which is all internal. The important bits are all the same if not similar.
Yea those are external bits and pieces. THey are saying the valves and cams themselves are faulty, which is all internal. The important bits are all the same if not similar.
Probably a revision to make the cost to ford less per engine or to accommodate supply issues getting a particular imported metal blend, it's a ecoboost.......they do that.
i was driving the other day and saw a white bronco sport on the highway. it was a little bit ahead of me and as the sun shone on the sides i could see swirly wavy light patterns where the body panels were inconsistent and looked extremely thin. from the back it looked like a 1950's jeep, so primitive, cheap, and uninspiring.
now i just read this on its big brother:
“The Quality Is Below Any Other Vehicle I Have Ever Owned,” Says Ford Bronco Owner
i was driving the other day and saw a white bronco sport on the highway. it was a little bit ahead of me and as the sun shone on the sides i could see swirly wavy light patterns where the body panels were inconsistent and looked extremely thin. from the back it looked like a 1950's jeep, so primitive, cheap, and uninspiring.
not good.
Don't forget one of the basic laws of physics, though......."For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". My next door neighbor has a Chili-Red Bronco Sport, with Outer Banks package...several months old, and no issues yet. I examined it myself, of course, inside and out. Most buyers seem to be well-satisfied, and demand for both the Bronco and Bronco Sport still substantially exceeds supply.
Having said that, however, I will admit that Ford and Lincoln have not had a good track record lately of introducing new SUVs and crossovers without teething-problems.
from the back it looked like a 1950's jeep, so primitive, cheap, and uninspiring.
That basic, Traditional-Bronco, no-nonsense styling is exactly one of the things that attracts so many buyers to this vehicle. It is a lesson that GM sorely forgot with the Blazer.
06-06-22, 07:02 AM
