Ford teases the new Bronco

[wildbill23c]

Cue the crumple zone warriors

But hey, i am upgrading, my new DD is an 87 ranger. Not that the old 77 F250 is bad, but, feeding a 400 93 gets pricey.

My newest truck is a 97, and it will stay that way for the bioncular foreseeable future.

But yes, i totally agree with you about common sense. Ive always been a firm believer that ANY vehicle is only as safe/capable as the guy (or gal) at the wheel.

Some guy whos never driven on a dirt road can go drop 40k for some "terrian command" equipped whatever, and think hes Trail king Tim, untill some ol boy who grew up in the backcountry passes him on the trail driving a rusted out 1100 dollar square body chevy.

My 88 F250 would pull anything you hooked up to but that 460 V8 would drink gas like crazy...14mpg highway on a good day empty don't ask what it got when pulling anything HAHA!!!

You can spend $50k on a new truck, SUV, or whatever you want, but if you can't drive worth shit the $40k in electronic nannies aren't going to save your ass...every time it snows here the first vehicles you find in the ditches are the 4x4's and AWD's...mostly newer vehicles where the driver feels all those electronics are going to keep their $50k+ vehicle on the road when all hell breaks loose....well sure that 4WD or AWD got you going 80mph but it won't help you stop....at least for most people it won't because their first reaction is slam on the brakes locking up all the wheels and sliding out of control across traffic into the ditch on the opposite side of the highway LOL.

Crumple zones? In a vehicle made out of steel you don't need crumple zones, your impact is completely absorbed by the plastic toy car your ran over that decided they should pull out in front of a full size 80's or older truck...to you in the old truck you just thought you hit a speed bump .

 

[rusty ol ranger]

My 88 F250 would pull anything you hooked up to but that 460 V8 would drink gas like crazy...14mpg highway on a good day empty don't ask what it got when pulling anything HAHA!!!

Crumple zones? In a vehicle made out of steel you don't need crumple zones, your impact is completely absorbed by the plastic toy car your ran over that decided they should pull out in front of a full size 80's or older truck...to you in the old truck you just thought you hit a speed bump .

Everyone bitches about the 460s mileage, the 2 ive had (one currently) always got 13 or so. Towing my 32 ft travel trailer i get 8 or so. But really, ive never had a fullsize ford get more then 13 or 14, from a low of 7 empty (78 F350 dually with a slightly massaged 400, a T18 4sp, and a 4.30 rear) to 14 (79 F100 with a 351W/C6/and some stupid high 2.xx gear)

Really, even the modern gas 3/4tons are averaging 15 or so.

As far as the crumple zones, you nailed it. Its like a 2x4 smashing into a roll of toilet paper, the TP is smashed into oblivion, while cushioning both itself and the 2x4, leaving the 2x4 to support another day.

Now, if you plow a tree, then yes crumple zones are nice.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Its more like a roll of toilet paper vs a paper towel tube. They crush quite nicely in a bad wreck.

The occupants of which are usually not around to post online about how tough their truck was though.

With the stock 235/75-16 tires and 3.31 gears my F-150 would crowd 20mpg. With 265/70-16's and 3.73's it is around 16mpg now.

 

[96Indyram]

Not to change the topic but since it was brought up...Youtube old vs new car crash tests.
A big 1959 Belair vs a little 2009 impala .

After watching a few different videos I came to respect crumple zones alot more.

 

[TrackRider54]

Not to change the topic but since it was brought up...Youtube old vs new car crash tests.
A big 1959 Belair vs a little 2009 impala .

After watching a few different videos I came to respect crumple zones alot more.

I was about to post the same thing. I'm in information technology and deal with Luddites all the time that complain about "how complicated" everything is these days.

I grew up in the 70's and 80's and I remember how bad the cars were back then, especially domestic cars. Underpowered, unreliable, terrible fit and finsh...they were AWFUL. The only good thing about them was you could work on them yourself. The bad thing about them was, you had to work on them a lot.

I ran into a guy once who bragged about having "half a million miles" on his mid-80's Chevy pickup. I asked, "On the same engine?". He informed me it had had the engine rebuilt "a few times". Then I asked, "On the same transmission". Well...turns out that had been rebuilt a few times and eventually replaced. Surely it has the same body. Turns out a few rusted panels had to be replaced and it had been in a few wrecks so those panels were replaced.

Sort of like having a shop broom for 10 years but you've had three heads and two sticks. Is it still the same broom?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

That impala video is grade A bullshit.

In 58-60 GM used a X member frame, which was notoriously weaker then the more traditional style frame. They picked a 59 for that reason. I gurantee the outcome woulda been much different had they picked say, a 69 impala.

Looks sturdy dont it?

IMO, the 70s cars were the safest ever built. Still had big steel frames, but with shoulder belts, collapsable columns, etc. The most unsafe? Early 90s econoboxes.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

They picked a '59 for the 50th anniversary of the NHSA (or whatever that acronym is) and pitted it against a new car (2009) to show the improvement.

Its only hope is the frame because unlike the '09 the '59's heavy steel body entirely imploded. I don't see the frame itself making that much of a difference.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

They picked a '59 for the 50th anniversary of the NHSA (or whatever that acronym is) and pitted it against a new car (2009) to show the improvement.

Its only hope is the frame because unlike the '09 the '59's heavy steel body entirely imploded. I don't see the frame itself making that much of a difference.

Yes. I understand that was the anniversary thing. But in an offset type crash, you have all that force transfering to a piece of steel that is already angled to bend the direction the crash force is going. They literally exploited the weakest part, on the weakest frame this side of an 81 F100.

Now, had that been your typical, perimeter type frame, im sure the frame would of bent on the corners where the frame comes out to go behind the rockers, but not nearly as much. A pickup style ladder frame would have sliced that 09 like butter.

 

[don4331]

So, I talked to my colleagues in Campinas, Brazil about the Troller:

As luck would have it he is off roader with Toyota J4, and knows the competition (he could also translate the Portuguese website to English for me). Very popular in Brazil as it is a domestic design.

While the original T4 had a removable hardtop; the current version just has a moon roof. But of interest; the rear door (hatch) can be ordered either side opening or top opening. And the rear seating changes slightly depending which option you order.

Rear seating is said to be for 3 but you better be really friendly for that.

He gave the manual good marks (1st is 5.44:1) but differentials have 3.31 gears, so gear swaps to run better rubber are common - stock Pirelli ATR aren't much for off road.

Troller T4 has 2,400kg (almost 5,300lbs) towing capacity down there!

Troller also teased a Troller 4 door - think Wrangler Unlimited.

The Troller pickup was a dud...

 

[Jim Oaks]

Newer CIH combines have color injected into the plastic body panels. You can pound on it with a hammer, scratch it with a screwdriver... it all buffs out. I wish that would catch on in the automotive world.

Stuff is made from soybeans too.

Here's a picture of Henry Ford hitting a trunk lid created out of soybean in 1940.

Henry Ford hoped that plastic made from soybeans might be developed into a strong, safe substitute for traditional metals. He established a laboratory where scientists molded ground soybean meal into small plastic car parts. Here, Ford swings an ax at a plastic trunk lid--mounted to his personal car--to demonstrate the material's strength.

The other photo is the Soybean Car.

The "Soybean Car" was actually a plastic-bodied car unveiled by Henry Ford on August 13, 1941 at Dearborn Days, an annual community festival.

Why weren't more 'soybean' cars built?

The outbreak of World War II suspended all auto production, and therefore the plastic car experiment. A second unit was in production at the time the war broke out, but the project was abandoned. By the end of the war the idea of a plastic car had fallen through the cracks due to energy being directed towards war recovery efforts.

 

[TrackRider54]

I'll take technology every time. For example, carbon fiber is stronger than steel in the same thickness. Kevlar fabric can stop a bullet where it takes a much thicker heavier piece of steel.

Hey, I love old cars. I have fond memories of my Dad's big Cadillacs, Lincolns, Oldsmobiles, and Mercuries. I'll also never forget when he got fed up with them and bought his first Audi. We got rear ended in that first Audi by a car doing 70mph as we were stopped at a traffic light. All four doors of the Audi opened and there wasn't a broken or cracked piece of glass in the car. The trunk, however, was under the car. That was in 1987.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

My buddies ol lady had a 2014 fusion, hit the hind end of a deer at 60mph, car was totalled.

I hit a deer with Rusty #1 (87 Ranger), at 60 mph, full frontal blow, I drove it home, replaced the headlight, and drove it another 10 years.

Personally, id rather have a vehicle that can get backed into in a parking lot and not need 3000 dollars in repairs. If i get in a catastrophic wreck and whind up dead because my 77 F250 is "unsafe", then, it was my time.

Ive been in a few "serious" wrecks, one in a 77 F150, another in a 79 F100, and one in a 96 F150. Everytime i walked away with no more injury then if ida went a round or 2 with bubba down at the local beer joint.

For the record, only the 96 was my fault.

 

[bobbywalter]

I was about to post the same thing. I'm in information technology and deal with Luddites all the time that complain about "how complicated" everything is these days.

I grew up in the 70's and 80's and I remember how bad the cars were back then, especially domestic cars. Underpowered, unreliable, terrible fit and finsh...they were AWFUL. The only good thing about them was you could work on them yourself. The bad thing about them was, you had to work on them a lot.

I ran into a guy once who bragged about having "half a million miles" on his mid-80's Chevy pickup. I asked, "On the same engine?". He informed me it had had the engine rebuilt "a few times". Then I asked, "On the same transmission". Well...turns out that had been rebuilt a few times and eventually replaced. Surely it has the same body. Turns out a few rusted panels had to be replaced and it had been in a few wrecks so those panels were replaced.

Sort of like having a shop broom for 10 years but you've had three heads and two sticks. Is it still the same broom?

quoted for epic truth.

Yes. I understand that was the anniversary thing. But in an offset type crash, you have all that force transfering to a piece of steel that is already angled to bend the direction the crash force is going. They literally exploited the weakest part, on the weakest frame this side of an 81 F100.

Now, had that been your typical, perimeter type frame, im sure the frame would of bent on the corners where the frame comes out to go behind the rockers, but not nearly as much. A pickup style ladder frame would have sliced that 09 like butter.

i could not tell you how many deer i have hit with my ranger....still have the oem fenders...well whats left of them



you realize we have all the crash test data.....like a 100 years worth right?


a 70's ford pickup.....well the driver of a 70 whatever ford pickup dont stand a chance in a head on wreck with a 2018 pickup..depending on the hit....the 09 impala would likely kill the driver in the pickup as well...


a 1 ton pickup from 79 dont stand a chance in outdoing anything from a 1/2 ton today.
except it weighs less then one of these new units.

my 460's tended to get 10 or less. and they could tow better then anything for that time....13 mpg with a 460 that makes ok power is awesome and i would keep that around myself vs spending coin on something that is harder to repair. hell town cruisin a 302 ranger could result in 10 or less driving hard.


but if it is truck replacement time.... i would take a ecoboost 150 over a big block anything for a daily driver and tow rig.


all that said....my ideal pickup would be a 79 ford crew cab 4x4 with a cummins p pump 24 valve and a hand shaker with killer ac for summer cruising... when/if i end up with a old ford like that...it will have a modern powerplant gas or diesel...




all of these personal perceptions we seem to have, we will apply to the new bronco i guess...


i suspect this bronco probably isnt anything for towing.. or crashing into 1967 coronets and coming away with 200 dollars worth of damage.. but i wont be surprised if it isnt a monster and on par with everything that came before it.

and have the ability to make lesser drivers get themselves to areas they would never have made it too before....which could also be REALLY BAD.


if one of them is simply a repackaged troller i would be over the moon....

Here's a picture of Henry Ford hitting a trunk lid created out of soybean in 1940.



The other photo is the Soybean Car.



Why weren't more 'soybean' cars built?

i used to play in those soybean fields when i was a kid. there is quite a bit of soybean parts throughout the vehicle lines. not sure about exterior panels...



wild bill

as to the modern vehicles all being in the ditch first...sure. they are the majority. but they also are victims of their own success. there was a time when people stayed back more from common sense and drove accordingly because you had too. not too mention there were less people and vehicles.


today you can drive with bald tires where previously... on a vehicle like my main ride...you could never drive it with tires in such bad shape. that gets people in more trouble then anything from what i have seen..

all of this will be moot soon enough


it wont be long....none of us will be allowed to drive in the name of safety. even with the poor lady that was recently run over...the self driving bullshit is bearing down hard.

 

[don4331]

I only crumpled left front fender on my Omni when I clipped a doe; an hour at Pick n pull and another in paint booth had it replaced.

On other hand, neighbor totaled his brand new '98 Expedition hitting one. Every accident is different.

I don't know how far back you have to go to be before idiots in their 4x4s putting them in the ditch. I had beer/gas money all winter for my senior year in high school pulling 4wds out for $5 a pop, and that was 35 years ago!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

i could not tell you how many deer i have hit with my ranger....still have the oem fenders...well whats left of them

1st gens are tough as nails



you realize we have all the crash test data.....like a 100 years worth right?

Find me crash test data on a 1918 Stanley Steemer, ill be waiting

a 70's ford pickup.....well the driver of a 70 whatever ford pickup dont stand a chance in a head on wreck with a 2018 pickup..depending on the hit....the 09 impala would likely kill the driver in the pickup as well...

Likely at any speed of over 45 between two pickups, neither guy is walking away. Against an impala, the trucks higher ride height will hit above its "crumple zones" into the butter soft body, the impala driver more then likely takes a I beam to the head and the driver of the dentside is at the bar that night


a 1 ton pickup from 79 dont stand a chance in outdoing anything from a 1/2 ton today.
except it weighs less then one of these new units.

A 79 F350 came in GVWR ratings of up to 10,000 lbs, with new 1/2 tons being considerably lower on rating, and a good 1000 lbs or so heavier, its not happening. Not to mention its a royal bitch trying to get enough to even overload a courier in a 5.5 ft bed. Towing wise, a properly equipped 79 F350 was capable of 13k IIRC, on a 5th wheel, so close 150s, but no cigar.

my 460's tended to get 10 or less. and they could tow better then anything for that time....13 mpg with a 460 that makes ok power is awesome and i would keep that around myself vs spending coin on something that is harder to repair. hell town cruisin a 302 ranger could result in 10 or less driving hard.

The mileage/power are the 460s only good points, both od mine have been nightmares for reliabilty

but if it is truck replacement time.... i would take a ecoboost 150 over a big block anything for a daily driver and tow rig.

Id prefer a coyote over an ecoboost, but eh. Neither engine is better enough over a 460 for me to put up with all the other shit about modern trucks that drives me nuts.

all that said....my ideal pickup would be a 79 ford crew cab 4x4 with a cummins p pump 24 valve and a hand shaker with killer ac for summer cruising... when/if i end up with a old ford like that...it will have a modern powerplant gas or diesel...

To each their own. Modern engines are way to over engineered for what little benifit they come up with. I gurantee there isnt a load out there an ecoboost would handle that a old 400/460 wouldnt. It might not do it as fast, or get as good of MPGs, but time is the one thing youll never miss when its gone, and gas is cheap. Besides, if youre moving that kind of weight, theres no need to get in a hurry
.

Over and out.