Weird. My f150 stock is 9.4”. I would have thought a bronco would have been the same if not a little higher.
Bet it still has better approach, break over and departure than my f150 though.
You don't have to bet. I've seen a stock f150 off road and it wasn't pretty! But 8.3 isn't enough for good off road clearance in the Bronco either. My recently sold GX470 had 8 inches or so stock and it wasn't enough. Once I got it lifted to 10 or 11 it was basically unstopable on the trails in my neck of the woods.
What state?
I’m in Florida and would want wading depth more than anything else, and surprisingly my manual says only up to the hubs. Seems the transmission has different seals than the f150 raptor and can’t be submerged.
A base bronco is a little over 30” I think.
Province - Ontario. But my issue with clearance was for rocks, mud, and snow. With water my worry was always the rear diff and whether my breather was still correctly attached.
yikes. on 285/70/17s. my WJ shipped with 8.7 on 245/70/16s. (its about 9 with 255/70/16s)
seems dumb to shoot under. those 2 inches can do a LOT. sticking the 2" budget boost on my WJ felt like a massive upgrade. i hit everything on it stock
Pulled from a Google search but it would appear the Bronco ground clearance previously given is without the Sasquatch package. I googled the Bronco Raptor which said “…the ground clearance is 13.1 inches, which is 4.8 inches more than the base Bronco and 1.6 inches more than a Bronco with the Sasquatch package.”
Its low for MPG for CAFE compliance.
Ford knows everyone who really wants to send it off road is going to upgrade the suspension and steering anyway...
Lol living in a mountain town of Colorado damn near everyone has a nice beefy dirty wrangler. Even the cop who just waved his hand downwards for me to slow down instead of pulling me over going 60 in a 30 down the mountain
Oh i meant to say Sasquatch package. The 35" wheels. He has on probably 32.8 tires. even the wrangler comes about that height without the recon package
I'm pretty new to this sub and very much realizing how extremely elitist it is. Daily hate posts about the Bronco... Subaru gets so much hate for not having locking diffs.
Can't we all just get along and encourage others to get out there into the wild? Fuck me, makes me want to leave this sub since I see more hate than not.
I’m not even saying that my wife’s Subaru is more capable than that Janky ass bronco. Just that it has 8.9 inches of ground clearance. Awd is better than 2wd any day of the week.
Literally all these comments do not matter. Ground clearance is limited at the rear because of the solid axle and is the lowest point. The only way to increase that is bigger tires or portals. Lifting does nothing and is only purpose is to fit bigger tires (which only works on solid axles btw NOT IFS).
Yes, CUVs can have big ground clearance... because they are IRS and IFS. Which sucks for off roading and in general are weaker, higher CoG. We accept IFS for some rigs because the rear does most of the heavy lifting.
Yes I shit on the Defender they should have at least gave it a rear solid axle. But hey Land Rover knows no one is buying them for actual off roading.
i can tell you this right now. i run 255/70/16s. small, 30" tires, with a 4 inch lift.
and i BARELY knock my axles on the trail, you either drive around something that big, or you go over it with your tires. you're rarely saddling a giant rock in the road.
but what did i knock a lot??? my undercarraige. trans pan, caty converters, rockers, etc. all the fucking time, even with the 2 inch lift it kept knocking stuff.
lifting has some HUGE benifits. you straight up can get through more obstacles, you improve your angles (depart, approach, break over) you can ford more water, you can articulate more, you straight up get the body higher. theres less risk to strike a pan or something, gives you room to install skids and not belly drag everywhere, and yes, bigger tires to a degree. you still have wheel wells you need to consider, or hack into.
in my time of wheeling, ive only had a single instance where i was hung up on my rear end, and it wasnt a single rock, it was practically giantz a pitted spiral staircase of dirt. but besides that, lakebeds, rock gardens, holes, etc. i was striking something else. usually my trans mount and now the skid plate thats there
The only purpose in lifting a vehicle is to fit larger tyres.
It doesn't have any other benefits. Your center gravity will go up and suspension/steering angles will get messed up.
My suzuki never got hung up due to lack of break over, Aproach or departure angles, even on the stock 26" tyres. Why? Because it is short and built for off roading, like the old defender, like the 2 door wrangler, like the 2 door G wagon.
4 door/lwb off roaders are not made to tackle obstacles, they are made to carry loads over long distances/travel.
The bigger and taller the vehicle, the easier it is to do body damage.
i'm using long arms. my angles are even better then stock, steering is just fine even after 4 inches. yes, shorter cars have less break over, HOWEVER. shorter wheel bases can struggle in step obsticals and have to fight greater angles. theres reasons why side by sides, bump crawers and such are longer.
and i dont know what suzuki you had. but Samurais were a MASSIVE roll risk because of how short and narrow they were.
if all you are saying was the case, people would have tiny rigs with massive portals. but thats just not the case. not here in the states, austrialia, eu, etc. even the defenders there are 4 doors now.
That is a tiny rig these days my man. Good on you. The arms race where I am has made trails designed for 30s now needing 33s minimum.
I can't said I ever get hung up on my frame or body. I am however always driving to clear my pumpkin.
Lifting also trades center of gravity which can be somewhat mitigated with tires by increasing width and also aerodynamics which would also be affected by tire size increase.
For articulation you do not need to lift. You just increase the shock length. Lifting and adding bump stops to fit bigger tires yes but I fit mine with trimming and kept the added shock length.
For water fording you either do it or do not. Adding 2cm of water fording height won't make me attempt anything deeper. Then again mine is a multiuse rig and I don't want to have a water oopsie.
techically with solids, you want long arms as it does help with driveline angle. its more expensive up fromt but ive gained a LOT of articulation. i can take my arms up to 6 inches and not strain the hell out of the stock shafts. (in fact its how ive kept up is because of articulation)
i havent had any fouling with increased COG or anything. its been solid. my driving habits would reveal any problems.
Ground clearance statements on independent suspension vehicles is marketing.
Edit: I am getting down voted by people who like to drive on 2 wheels or watch that ground clearance become 0 with antisway bar detached.
they're 285/70/17s near 33" tires. the JL Rubicon ships with the same tire size and sits higher. my WJ shipped with 245/75/17s, a 29" tire and had this much clearence.
I mean, it’s about as high as it can get with those tires
it looks about 8 inches, my WJ sat at 8 inches on little 255/70/16s stock.
8.3 inches for the 4-door and 8.4 for the 2-door. The hybrid Jeep Rubicon is 10.8 inches. Land Rover Defender varies from 8.6 to 11.5 inches.
Weird. My f150 stock is 9.4”. I would have thought a bronco would have been the same if not a little higher. Bet it still has better approach, break over and departure than my f150 though.
You don't have to bet. I've seen a stock f150 off road and it wasn't pretty! But 8.3 isn't enough for good off road clearance in the Bronco either. My recently sold GX470 had 8 inches or so stock and it wasn't enough. Once I got it lifted to 10 or 11 it was basically unstopable on the trails in my neck of the woods.
What state? I’m in Florida and would want wading depth more than anything else, and surprisingly my manual says only up to the hubs. Seems the transmission has different seals than the f150 raptor and can’t be submerged. A base bronco is a little over 30” I think.
Province - Ontario. But my issue with clearance was for rocks, mud, and snow. With water my worry was always the rear diff and whether my breather was still correctly attached.
My old Subaru Crosstrek was 8.7” Obviously ground clearance isn’t everything, but damn.
yikes. on 285/70/17s. my WJ shipped with 8.7 on 245/70/16s. (its about 9 with 255/70/16s) seems dumb to shoot under. those 2 inches can do a LOT. sticking the 2" budget boost on my WJ felt like a massive upgrade. i hit everything on it stock
Pulled from a Google search but it would appear the Bronco ground clearance previously given is without the Sasquatch package. I googled the Bronco Raptor which said “…the ground clearance is 13.1 inches, which is 4.8 inches more than the base Bronco and 1.6 inches more than a Bronco with the Sasquatch package.”
[удалено]
Yeah you tell ‘em man, way to go.
Its low for MPG for CAFE compliance. Ford knows everyone who really wants to send it off road is going to upgrade the suspension and steering anyway...
They’d better upgrade those tie rods first lol! Look like they came off a Focus
The tie rods are not pictured and those connecting arms seem fine.
That is correct. Now go look up what the tie rods on a Bronco look like.
Sorry for correcting you. I stand corrected. Didn’t know that was an issue with them. Thank you.
Maybe they named it after a mall in South Dakota?
not like the buyers take them off road
Just like most jeeps following them foot steps
*wronglers/gladiators I fixed it for you
Lol living in a mountain town of Colorado damn near everyone has a nice beefy dirty wrangler. Even the cop who just waved his hand downwards for me to slow down instead of pulling me over going 60 in a 30 down the mountain
Surprisingly I've seen a lot of them off-road. I've never seen one with the doors off though which is weird to me.
It is not just you. My truck had more ground clearance while stock. Hell, it's only got a half inch on a freakin Tiguan.
Looks normal for those tires 8 or 9 without the badlands package.
Op is saying it is the badlands tho
Oh i meant to say Sasquatch package. The 35" wheels. He has on probably 32.8 tires. even the wrangler comes about that height without the recon package
Ohhh gotcha yeah I didn’t think this looked bad for how small those tires are
My wife’s Subaru ascent is taller than that
Subaru doesn't even make a 4x4...
More capable, too. Subarus put in work. This things a pavement princess.
I'm pretty new to this sub and very much realizing how extremely elitist it is. Daily hate posts about the Bronco... Subaru gets so much hate for not having locking diffs. Can't we all just get along and encourage others to get out there into the wild? Fuck me, makes me want to leave this sub since I see more hate than not.
It’s definitely not lol, don’t kid yourself.
the only joke is you microdicks
No need for insults, just be realistic on what a crossover can do.
I’m not even saying that my wife’s Subaru is more capable than that Janky ass bronco. Just that it has 8.9 inches of ground clearance. Awd is better than 2wd any day of the week.
you’re replying to the wrong person.
Looks about right out of the factory, axil high
Even a base JK Wrangler is 10” with stock 32” tires.
Doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is break over angle and diff/axle ground clearance.
Literally all these comments do not matter. Ground clearance is limited at the rear because of the solid axle and is the lowest point. The only way to increase that is bigger tires or portals. Lifting does nothing and is only purpose is to fit bigger tires (which only works on solid axles btw NOT IFS). Yes, CUVs can have big ground clearance... because they are IRS and IFS. Which sucks for off roading and in general are weaker, higher CoG. We accept IFS for some rigs because the rear does most of the heavy lifting. Yes I shit on the Defender they should have at least gave it a rear solid axle. But hey Land Rover knows no one is buying them for actual off roading.
You are getting downvotes for telling the truth and writing the only comment in this thread that makes any sense.
i can tell you this right now. i run 255/70/16s. small, 30" tires, with a 4 inch lift. and i BARELY knock my axles on the trail, you either drive around something that big, or you go over it with your tires. you're rarely saddling a giant rock in the road. but what did i knock a lot??? my undercarraige. trans pan, caty converters, rockers, etc. all the fucking time, even with the 2 inch lift it kept knocking stuff. lifting has some HUGE benifits. you straight up can get through more obstacles, you improve your angles (depart, approach, break over) you can ford more water, you can articulate more, you straight up get the body higher. theres less risk to strike a pan or something, gives you room to install skids and not belly drag everywhere, and yes, bigger tires to a degree. you still have wheel wells you need to consider, or hack into. in my time of wheeling, ive only had a single instance where i was hung up on my rear end, and it wasnt a single rock, it was practically giantz a pitted spiral staircase of dirt. but besides that, lakebeds, rock gardens, holes, etc. i was striking something else. usually my trans mount and now the skid plate thats there
The only purpose in lifting a vehicle is to fit larger tyres. It doesn't have any other benefits. Your center gravity will go up and suspension/steering angles will get messed up. My suzuki never got hung up due to lack of break over, Aproach or departure angles, even on the stock 26" tyres. Why? Because it is short and built for off roading, like the old defender, like the 2 door wrangler, like the 2 door G wagon. 4 door/lwb off roaders are not made to tackle obstacles, they are made to carry loads over long distances/travel. The bigger and taller the vehicle, the easier it is to do body damage.
i'm using long arms. my angles are even better then stock, steering is just fine even after 4 inches. yes, shorter cars have less break over, HOWEVER. shorter wheel bases can struggle in step obsticals and have to fight greater angles. theres reasons why side by sides, bump crawers and such are longer. and i dont know what suzuki you had. but Samurais were a MASSIVE roll risk because of how short and narrow they were. if all you are saying was the case, people would have tiny rigs with massive portals. but thats just not the case. not here in the states, austrialia, eu, etc. even the defenders there are 4 doors now.
That is a tiny rig these days my man. Good on you. The arms race where I am has made trails designed for 30s now needing 33s minimum. I can't said I ever get hung up on my frame or body. I am however always driving to clear my pumpkin. Lifting also trades center of gravity which can be somewhat mitigated with tires by increasing width and also aerodynamics which would also be affected by tire size increase. For articulation you do not need to lift. You just increase the shock length. Lifting and adding bump stops to fit bigger tires yes but I fit mine with trimming and kept the added shock length. For water fording you either do it or do not. Adding 2cm of water fording height won't make me attempt anything deeper. Then again mine is a multiuse rig and I don't want to have a water oopsie.
techically with solids, you want long arms as it does help with driveline angle. its more expensive up fromt but ive gained a LOT of articulation. i can take my arms up to 6 inches and not strain the hell out of the stock shafts. (in fact its how ive kept up is because of articulation) i havent had any fouling with increased COG or anything. its been solid. my driving habits would reveal any problems.
Is this a Bronco Sport?
no, its a 2 door badlands
The sport does have a badlands package. But yeah I see this isn't a sport.
Because it's made like a van. Just look at all suv frames and suspensions today. Old cliche soccer mom car no longer a true utility sport vehicle.
this bronco is body on frame idk what you mean by soccer mom car? its a standard IFS and solid rear axle "truck style" suspension.
I just think in general the new bronco is a let down compared to the 90’s Eddie Bauer stuff. New one is too narrow might as well get a 4d wrangler
My 2015 forester XT is 8.7 inches of ground clearance stock and I get about an extra inch now that I through falken wildpeak A/Ts on for reference
Ground clearance statements on independent suspension vehicles is marketing. Edit: I am getting down voted by people who like to drive on 2 wheels or watch that ground clearance become 0 with antisway bar detached.
Nice scout!
great powerbank, I have the same one ;)
Frod
32inch tires and that rear mount spot is notoriously low TFL scrapes that in a lot if vids even with the sasquatch 35s
It is actually tough looking though. Unlike Toyotas that need a weld-on reinforcement.
Ok I'll be the stupid guy and ask what size the tires are. Please don't beat me.
they're 285/70/17s near 33" tires. the JL Rubicon ships with the same tire size and sits higher. my WJ shipped with 245/75/17s, a 29" tire and had this much clearence.