It’s a Bronco, but sporty? What does that mean? Isn’t a Sports Utility Vehicle sporty by nature? And if so isn’t the Regular Bronco the Sport? Or does it mean that because the Bronco Sport is a crossover its no longer a Sports Utility Vehicle so it needed to be re-sportified?
So many questions.
One thing I’m certain of, in the world of crossovers...this one swings more towards the SUV side of the scale than others like, say, a Mazda CX3 wearing the same crossover title (and NO...neither of them are SUV’s...that’s why the crossover name exists. CUV’s are not SUV’s)
Speaking of moving the slider, the Bronco Sport is clearly a reaction to its platform-mate, the Focus, going so clearly towards the hatch side and that’s good. The last Escape was neither here nor there and it was obvious. If you are going to pack the market full of small crossovers they might as well be clearly differentiated.
So...is it sporty? No. I mean its got great engines, a benefit of Ford going all-in on Turbo’s.
base is a 1.5 liter with 181 hp and 190 lbs-ft. Optional is a 2.0 with 250 hp and 275 lbs-ft. for 3500-3700 lbs of weight, those numbers sound about right. More important that power is the torque, which I think is what’s going to give credibility to the Bronco title.
The Ford/GM 8F35 8 speed transaxle has a pretty great first gear ratio of 4.69:1 ratio and a final drive of 3.81:1 for a crawl ratio of 17.9:1. On par for the segment but behind leaders in the space pushing 20:1 or more. This is the GM designed 9 speed that Ford decided was one gear too many for its liking. Its been good so far, we’ll see. The good news is that those lub feets are available right near torque converter stall speeds meaning more hp for moving up a hill from a stop than other NA competitors. Whether or not the computers let that happen is still TBD.
What about other off-roadness? angles are good in badlands trim.
8.8 inches ground clearance, 30.4/33.1/20.4 Approach/departure/breakover. Pretty good actually.
For reference, the current Land Cruisers numbers are 8.9 and 32/24/21.
Tires are a nice meaty 29 inch AT tire (with full size spare). and unlike some of its other competitors it appears wheel travel was given at least a little consideration.
Another thing...it has a real skid plate.
Which sucks for the shops selling ugly, overly thick aftermarket aluminum plates that kill clearance and make oil changes suck.
In its most off-roadiest trim (badlands) it also comes with an andvanced twin clutch RDU that is the new hotness in the cute off-roader space. If you feel like torturing yourself you can read more about crossover AWD systems here. The twin disc system is a basic on-demand type AWD system that doesn’t have a center differential, instead using clutches to engage and disnengage the rear axle as needed. Most simple systems have a single clutch in the Rear Drive Unit that does the job, locking up as demanded, or programed and then slipping or disengaging for fuel economy or turning. A Twin disc replaces the single clutch on the input shaft and replaces it with clutches on each output.
This is the GKN twinster which is probably the same or similar unit on the badlands. No differential here, just a pinion driving a spool to 2 output shafts that are only conntected via cltuches. The idea is simple enough. You want AWD? lock up both clutches. You need to turn? Lock up the outside and slip the inside. You have a wheel in the air with no resistance? Disengage that clutch and lock up the other one.
This is the actual hector, so yeah...pretty much.
Here’s the rub. It, like all on demand systems, is not meant as a substitute for 4WD and these small units and their small cluches have limits. Usually they are calibrated to take about 50% of the power. Don’t get excited...that doesn’t mean a 50/50 split. It means no more than half the engine torque can go to the rear axle. In 4wd or a “50/50" split system 100% of the torque can go to either axle automatically. The good news is that these units are far more efficient with that 50% than regular single clutch units with differentials that have to use brakes to redistribute torque.
if your back axle needs that 50% torque but only one wheel can handle it, it will give it all to that one wheel. In brake based systems only half of the torque can go to either of the rear wheels and its done reactively with brakes, not proactively at the diff. The best way to think of it is that a twin disc is a combination center and rear LSD.
Thats good. Not 4WD good, but good considering.
So it off-roads...what about the rest? Well it looks nice, inside and out, and im a fan of the obvious efforts to make activities like biking easier. It reminds me of the old Escape No Boundries rack which was a less useful version of the same idea.
So...what of it?
When I was growing up there was a definied point in most Utahns lives. The moment they sell their Jeep for their Subaru. Its the moment you realize as much fun as the Jeep was, it was time for something that was drivable and affordable to fill up. That was kinda the only real choice for people who still wanted to bike, hike and so forth but make that change. It was a point that happened to most responsible folk. I myself had a Cherokee and went to a RAV4.
Today we call those vehicles “most cars”. Still, some certainly do it better than others, with some others are barely more than thin attempts to move more metal by appealing to the advantages of a taller car with the pretense of additional capability...even if its only 2wd.
Whats my point? I think this Bronco not-sport-utility Sport is closer to the promise of the compromise between the Jeep and the outback than we’ve had in a while.
