M/T: New Ford Bronco and Ranger may get solid front axles

[kevm14]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/report-f ... C69D3DBC88

Sigh.

[bill25]

Why sigh? Chevy will make a Blazer now, and Jeep fans love the solid axle. Plus it says it might be an option, meaning you don't have to get it. Options are good. I am just glad they are making it. The Tahoe is cool, but I could see an LS/LT powered Blazer being pretty fun in the future.

[kevm14]

Do they really think they can compete with the Wrangler? And even if so, how many Wrangler buyers are die-hard solid front axle people vs how many just want a "Wrangler?" I read it as mostly people on the internet with no money saying it's awesome. Everyone isn't suddenly rock crawling on the weekend.

There are some very specific circumstances where solid front axle is better (very low speed/high articulation) and the rest of the time, it's worse. The Raptor has IFS. The Colorado ZR2 is IFS. The last Toyota pickup with solid axle was like 1986 or something. GM gave them up on 1/2 tons in 1988 and on all pickups by 1992. I think Ford dropped the solid axle front on 1/2 tons in like 1980. Range Rover has been all independent for quite some time. The Chevy S-10 never had a solid front axle. Neither did the Ranger.

I'd argue ground clearance, front and rear approach, tire diameter/type, 4WD system architecture and the overall suspension design (not what type of axle it has but springs, shocks) is more important.

[kevm14]

A recent report from Automotive News cites a Dana axle company meeting, which announced a contract made with Ford for the upcoming Bronco and Ranger axles.

Report says:

Dana confirmed that both vehicles will have “front and rear axles featuring our latest AdvanTEK gear technology.”

Can this be true? A solid front axle will require more development. It is a heavier solution that is less fuel efficient. Can this be justified? Are there enough off-road enthusiasts to make a business case for this?

Dana AdvanTEK is a solution that supports independent suspension design. Big military off-road trucks use independent suspensions. As long as the suspension has plenty of wheel travel (long travel), it will be a good off-road setup.

Uhh...am I the only one with reading comprehension? When I go to the AdvanTEK website, I get this:
http://www.dana.com/light-vehicle/produ ... y-advantek

Which is clearly an IRS-type differential. Notice the bushings for mounting. That means it doesn't move. Are people just seeing "Dana" and "axle" and assuming that means solid? Yikes.

[kevm14]

Alright further research suggests that AdvanTEK may support both types of suspension. But I still maintain that the rumor is based on what I said.

[kevm14]

Do they really think they can compete with the Wrangler? And even if so, how many Wrangler buyers are die-hard solid front axle people vs how many just want a "Wrangler?" I read it as mostly people on the internet with no money saying it's awesome. Everyone isn't suddenly rock crawling on the weekend.

I think these are also the same people who are saying they want a manual transmission. I really can't think of a good technical reason why a manual is better. Maybe this is more of that grown up Millennial thing where we just want the thing from the 80s (solid front axle and manual trans). Which is dumb.

[kevm14]

I will admit that I am also biased - I never really thought rock crawling was that exciting. I always preferred the Baja-style of moving quickly over uneven surfaces, which independent suspension has long proven to be the optimal choice for. You need a lot more suspension sophistication to pull that off than just some solid axles and a lift kit. Which by the way is another reason people like solid axles: you just lift and suspension geometry is the same. The only thing you deal with is steering linkage geometry.

So I don't know if the direction people are going is, give me solid axles so I can tinker and play...but are those people who tinker and play in the market for a $35k new Bronco? Or are they in the market for any number of vehicles that you can buy right now that already do what they need?

[bill25]

I'd argue ground clearance, front and rear approach, tire diameter/type, 4WD system architecture and the overall suspension design (not what type of axle it has but springs, shocks) is more important.

I agree, from a performance perspective. But:

Which by the way is another reason people like solid axles: you just lift and suspension geometry is the same. The only thing you deal with is steering linkage geometry.

People like the jacked up big tire look. An 80's jacked up Blazer looks awesome. It is at the expense of performance though (higher center of gravity, etc.), but people accept that.

I really can't think of a good technical reason why a manual is better.

Because it used to be and I guess people don't evolve their opinion with times. And stupid quotes like: "Real men drive manual" that just continue to be repeated. I can see that maybe on a track it might be better to be able to hold a gear like in a turn, but at the expense of slower acceleration now...

[kevm14]

I was specifically referring to manuals in off road applications. Some folks swear by them but I think a torque converter automatic is great. Smooth modulation of power, torque multiplication from the converter, and obviously it shifts however it needs to for the conditions.

The one reason I think some folks like manuals is crawling down hill in 4 low. An automatic provides less control in that area. I don't know why it is a problem to gently use the brake pedal if speed is too high...

But I'm also talking about a group of people who think getting out while the truck idles up a hill at 0.5 mph is the coolest thing ever. It's a novelty I admit.

[kevm14]

I can see that maybe on a track it might be better to be able to hold a gear like in a turn, but at the expense of slower acceleration now...

Just to give you an idea where automatics are: a family vehicle such as our SRX has a 6-speed torque converter automatic (GM 6L50). If you put it in sport and drive aggressively, it will do exactly what you are talking about - hold gears, downshift while braking and all kinds of stuff that you maybe didn't expect a 2008 crossover to do. Maybe that wasn't typical for the time period but we've had smart automatics for at least 10 years now.

I will say the smaller and more nimble the vehicle is, the more a manual adds to the experience (Elise). The bigger and more numb a vehicle is, the more an automatic makes sense, even in a performance application. Maybe my CTS-V is right on the line - GM didn't offer it with an auto anyway, but The Dragon was a hell of a lot of fun with the manual trans.