[Solid]

The current Forester isn't really riding on the coattails of another product. My point is that the real Bronco is what people actually want, the sport is for someone that wants to pretend like they have some of that "mystique." It's like buying a beetle when you really want a 911.

If we wanted the more reasonable car, we'd all be driving sedans and minivans. (Safer, more convenient, better mpg, etc.) We don't though. For example I daily a two seater sports car not because it is the best tool for the job.

 

[YoGeorge]

@Solid, I have a car, a minivan, and 2 SUV's for my wife and me. I've been driving for 53 years now and have owned over 35 vehicles that span a range from camper vans to a SAAB Sonett to a couple Corvettes, etc. (I've also had 3 English roadsters and 2 390 AMX's so I know about 2-seat cars and deafening freeway noise.)

Ford's naming choice is ultimately nothing I care about. They are doing a Bronco line as their off-road vehicles, like Jeep. That's their strategy.

Compact car-based SUV's are IMO the most practical all-round vehicle design in automotive history. I'm 70 and have friends that I would not expect to make it into the back seat of a Honda Civic because of failing knees and hips. And I have to carry their walkers.

I carry a bicycle with me, inside the vehicle; this is mandatory for me over the last 40 years. I carry guitars and amps and PA systems around. I park in downtown parking structures and drive in city traffic. The Forester is insanely good to see out of and maneuver in tight parking situations.

The Forester and Bronco Sport are both excellent and appealing daily drivers for active people of all ages, and great for demographics ranging from young families to seniors. They are in high demand for very good reasons.

 

[FozzieBalou]

If you think the majority of the purchases of the 'real Bronco' are going to be by folks looking for some serious off-road, might I interest you in some ocean view property in Mesquite I have for sale...?

I mean, they're both Ford products and yes, one will have a better platform for off-road potential but - it's just that - potential. The majority of them (whether the Sport or the "real" Bronco) will be mall-crawlers and grocery-getters driven by folks that just want "the look". These are the same folks that buy the full size trucks, lift them, 33" rims and tires and all the rest and the closest they get to off-road is when they go hunting for a Christmas Tree or pumpkin at some farm stand just outside of town. Or the dirt over-flow parking lot at some sporting event...

Mind you, I'm not saying that the Forester is used off-road in far greater numbers and most also are used in grocery-getting. But the Forester has a solid reputation on being one of the most capable AWD vehicles right out of the box and has one of the best AWD systems on the market today. As most of the competition starts life as a FWD or RWD box on wheels, the Forester (and really the entire Subaru line-up save the BRZ) is based on the same "AWD" platform that - wheels down - out performs most (all?) competitors in the foul-weather driving department.

And honestly, a lot of Jeep Wranglers are used the same exact way. The vast MINORITY of them will actually be going off-road and to find secluded spots away from it all; or at least enough miles away from it all. One of my neighbors has a tricked out Wrangler that - from all I've seen - has never seen a rocky trail. But it sure looks good.

Comparing the "real" Bronco to a Forester is a faulty comparison to begin with. They're not in the same class of vehicle beyond both being considered a Sport Utility Vehicle SUV. Bronco Sport to Forester - yes, much closer and better comparison.

As was mentioned - it seems like Ford is trying to position Bronco as a sub-brand for marketing butch "looking" SUV models that share a common look/style. It's a sales strategy, just like lumping an electric 5 door "crossover" with the Mustang brand (and style) is a sales strategy to build on a storied model name.

The other day, I was watching one of those Doug De Muro YouTube vids on the old Dodge RamCharger... He went off on some side-trip about having to register and insure a RamCharger and folks at the DMV wanting to know if it was a Dodge Ram or a Dodge Charger and not getting that the name is RamCharger. He also got it wrong when he suggested that the mid-to-late-90s RamCharger sold in Mexico was a Durango...

But it does go back to "what's in a name" ... Cadillac lost so many buyers when they dropped model names with history (DeVille, Seville, Eldorado) for groups of letters (DTS, STS, ETC)... Wonder what would happen if the Escalade was renamed? Or the Porsche 911 was referenced. Do you know that - technically - it's no longer the 911? I believe the current model is the 992... It started as a model designation but then the name stuck and we still have the 911 almost 60 years later. Even VW kept the "beetle" name - which technically was NOT the original name but a cute moniker applied to it during the 60s or 70s.

 

[OutbackJon]

Even VW kept the "beetle" name - which technically was NOT the original name but a cute moniker applied to it during the 60s or 70s.

Yeah, "Tippe Eins" isn't quite as catchy.

 

[Murphy Slaw]

We "glanced" at the Bronco Sport. A three cylinder was a bit weird for me, and the 4 bangers weren't in stock around here.
The Subaru won out because of the AWD system, plus the reliability record. And the "Wilderness" package closed the deal.

 

[jjjjsuba]

The current Forester isn't really riding on the coattails of another product. My point is that the real Bronco is what people actually want, the sport is for someone that wants to pretend like they have some of that "mystique." It's like buying a beetle when you really want a 911.

This is a weird take.

For one, people buying a certain make/model of car aren’t a monolith. Maybe some people are buying a Bronco Sport so they can pretend they got a full-size Bronco, but certainly not all of them. I would wager the number is actually pretty small, since that’s kind of an absurd reason to buy a car, and the full-size Bronco isn’t really all that much more expensive or hard to obtain. Probably most people are interested in the Sport over the full-size for all the normal reasons people buy a mid-size crossover instead of a body-on-frame SUV: like the gas mileage, don’t need the extra size or capability.

But it’s also just weird to act like any of this is a bad thing. Ford made a good looking car that people want to buy. So they made another car that looks similar, but more closely fits the needs and desires of a different buying demographic. Why should anyone feel like they’re “cosplaying” or “riding coattails” for buying a car that looks good and makes sense for their lifestyle?

If we wanted the more reasonable car, we'd all be driving sedans and minivans. (Safer, more convenient, better mpg, etc.) We don't though. For example I daily a two seater sports car not because it is the best tool for the job.

Outside of the fact that sedans and minivans make zero reasonable sense for a lot of people.

 

[YoGeorge]

I absolutely agree that "sedans" are stupid when you can have a hatch or wagon on the same platform and actually use it to carry things. Europeans have known this but something about Americans makes them think that hatchbacks are low-rent or something.

I love vans and owned full size vans for 30 years and now have had my minivan for 6, so more than half of my life spent with the ultimate cargo carrier. I think Ford could have created a wonderful niche vehicle with an AWD, lifted compact van instead of cancelling the Transit Connect.

 

[jjjjsuba]

I learned last week that there’s exactly one minivan for sale in the US with AWD, and it starts at $37,300

 

[OriginalTwoTone]

Didn't read through the entire thing- main difference- Sport Badlands has locking rear diff.

 

[FozzieBalou]

Err.... no. There are two AWD minivans available in the US -

Chrysler Pacifica AWD (MSRP of about 37k) and the Toyota Sienna (starts about 35k).

People tend to prefer SUVs over minivans because of perceptions. The minivan is perceived as being a "soccer mom" car although there have been studies that show a large portion of minivan owners were single or, if a couple, were often childless and the minivan was purchased because of the ability to carry "stuff" places... This was probably more true in the 90s and early 2000s when SUVs were either too small or too big.

As for sedans - well, a lot of folks prefer sedans because of the more secure trunk. You can steal what you can't see. If "shooting brakes", wagons and the like were more popular in Europe, we'd see a lot more wagons in their local markets; in their local markets, only Audi and Volvo really have a lot of wagons on order, and I mean TRUE wagons and not SUVs.

Instead, most European markets are full of sedans and SUV/Crossover vehicles - whether BMW with the "X" series of vehicles or Audi and their Qs, Benz and the Gs... I'd wager that the sedan still outsells the comparably sized wagon or SUV for each of them.

But this is wholly off the topic.

 

[YoGeorge]

You are missing what I am asking for--an OVERLANDING van. Do a minivan like Subaru did the Outback. I thought that's where Ford was going with the Transit Connect when they talked about moving to Mexico. Look how successful the Maverick pickup is. Put a van body on that. Overlanders could go nuts with camper conversions. (I owned 2 Turtle Top full size van conversions in the last century for many years...)

I drove AWD Siennas when shopping my van--Toyota seats kill my back, there is no spare tire, and no ground clearance. And the center row is not Stow and Go. The new Pacifica is ultra low ground clearance also, ultra $$$ especially in AWD, and I have a van. I have Chrysler engineer friends and drove prototype Pacifica hybrids with one, as well as doing hot dirt track laps in an old AWD Chrysler minivan years ago with the other bud.

The Metris was gonna be done as AWD for the US, but they killed it instead. I drove the RWD version in 2016 and the seats killed my back.

The toughest Boy Scout leaders and bicycle racers I know drive minivans because that's what they need. The old 4WD Astro/Safari was "almost" there.

I guess a locking trunk is good if you're in the Mafia and need to keep a body or two out of the main passenger compartment I had a SAAB 900 hatch that was amazing to roll a bicycle or two into, more than 6 feet behind the front seat.

Sorry about the tangent again, but what I'd like is a Subaru minivan. And I think it's a good discussion because it's helping me think about vehicles in context.

 

[FozzieBalou]

When I had my "other" Town & Country - it was a 1994 AWD version. There was a minor bump in ground clearance over the FWD version.

With the Sienna and the Pacifica and most AWD vehicles, they are designed more about inclement or foul-weather driving and maybe a trip to the snow once in a while. The SUV models came out of the previous generations of 4WD trucks - like Pathfinders, 4Runners, Bronco, Blazer, RamCharger and Jeeps. Back in the 90s it was all still body-on-frame "truck" designs being glammed up to appear to car shoppers.

An aside - when I was shopping trucks in the early 90s, I was shopping a Toyota - the Xtra Cab SR-5 model and wanted power windows and such... I was told "in a truck? That will never happen!". Now it's common place - even on stripped down versions.

They do make an overlanding type VAN - but they're usually pretty damn pricey - just look at all of those Mercedes Sprinter vans... At an overlanding VAN expo event a few years ago, I do remember there being a Metris based beast - but if I remember it was more of an "all-weather" kind of thing and less about overlanding. I think that for most people, a smaller overlanding camper-van would be less than ideal because of the needs to put all that stuff in there AND maintain a compact/middle-sized footprint, and the accompanying maneuverability and MPG needs.

When I did have my T&C AWD, I had a niggling desire to call into one of those "pimp my ride" shows and have them make a more off-roadable version of my T&C... I had the faux wood panels on the side and was thinking "The Woodsman" would have been a blast to have.

 

[Kevin]

and I thought this thread was about the AWD differences between two vehicles

 

[Solid]

This is a weird take.

For one, people buying a certain make/model of car aren’t a monolith. Maybe some people are buying a Bronco Sport so they can pretend they got a full-size Bronco, but certainly not all of them. I would wager the number is actually pretty small, since that’s kind of an absurd reason to buy a car, and the full-size Bronco isn’t really all that much more expensive or hard to obtain. Probably most people are interested in the Sport over the full-size for all the normal reasons people buy a mid-size crossover instead of a body-on-frame SUV: like the gas mileage, don’t need the extra size or capability.

But it’s also just weird to act like any of this is a bad thing. Ford made a good looking car that people want to buy. So they made another car that looks similar, but more closely fits the needs and desires of a different buying demographic. Why should anyone feel like they’re “cosplaying” or “riding coattails” for buying a car that looks good and makes sense for their lifestyle?




Outside of the fact that sedans and minivans make zero reasonable sense for a lot of people.

If they want a CUV from Ford, then they could save money and buy the Escape. The bronco sport is obviously riding the cost tails and is the Escape in a faux off-road exterior.

 

[Solid]

@Solid, I have a car, a minivan, and 2 SUV's for my wife and me. I've been driving for 53 years now and have owned over 35 vehicles that span a range from camper vans to a SAAB Sonett to a couple Corvettes, etc. (I've also had 3 English roadsters and 2 390 AMX's so I know about 2-seat cars and deafening freeway noise.)

Ford's naming choice is ultimately nothing I care about. They are doing a Bronco line as their off-road vehicles, like Jeep. That's their strategy.

Compact car-based SUV's are IMO the most practical all-round vehicle design in automotive history. I'm 70 and have friends that I would not expect to make it into the back seat of a Honda Civic because of failing knees and hips. And I have to carry their walkers.

I carry a bicycle with me, inside the vehicle; this is mandatory for me over the last 40 years. I carry guitars and amps and PA systems around. I park in downtown parking structures and drive in city traffic. The Forester is insanely good to see out of and maneuver in tight parking situations.

The Forester and Bronco Sport are both excellent and appealing daily drivers for active people of all ages, and great for demographics ranging from young families to seniors. They are in high demand for very good reasons.

Then shouldn't the Bronco Sport customers should be buying the Escape?

 

[jjjjsuba]

If they want a CUV from Ford, then they could save money and buy the Escape. The bronco sport is obviously riding the cost tails and is the Escape in a faux off-road exterior.

Wait… no… you don’t mean… They…bought a car that looks nice instead of the ugliest, most boring CUV on the market?! 😱😱😱 What could possibly be worse than buying the car that you want?! Quickly, we must assemble on the internet to ridicule them because their nice looking car looks similar to another nice looking car!

…

In all seriousness, though, this is a bad take.

Never mind that the different look they have has practical implications. (Bronco Sport is shorter but has more cargo room because of its taller, boxier profile—I cannot stand Escape’s egg shape that needlessly cuts out interior space.)

And never mind that as soon as you add AWD to Escape (standard on Bronco Sport), the price difference evaporates.

And of course never mind that Bronco Sport can be configured with features not available on Escape that legitimately add off-road capability.

The fact that they share a platform and drivetrain doesn’t make them the same car, and I’m surprised someone is making this claim on a Subaru forum of all places! Crosstrek, Forester, Outback, and Legacy all share a platform and drivetrain, lmao.

…

If anything, we should be congratulating Ford on building a compact crossover that people are actually excited about buying. Escape has been hemorrhaging sales for the last five years. But yknow, it’s aesthetically similar to another Ford car that people are excited about buying, so let’s…ridicule them mercilessly instead? 🙄

 

[ForesterTheGrey]

and I thought this thread was about the AWD differences between two vehicles

What?!? A thread on this forum went off in the weeds?!? I'm shocked.

 

[Solid]

Wait… no… you don’t mean… They…bought a car that looks nice instead of the ugliest, most boring CUV on the market?! 😱😱😱 What could possibly be worse than buying the car that you want?! Quickly, we must assemble on the internet to ridicule them because their nice looking car looks similar to another nice looking car!

…

In all seriousness, though, this is a bad take.

Never mind that the different look they have has practical implications. (Bronco Sport is shorter but has more cargo room because of its taller, boxier profile—I cannot stand Escape’s egg shape that needlessly cuts out interior space.)

And never mind that as soon as you add AWD to Escape (standard on Bronco Sport), the price difference evaporates.

And of course never mind that Bronco Sport can be configured with features not available on Escape that legitimately add off-road capability.

The fact that they share a platform and drivetrain doesn’t make them the same car, and I’m surprised someone is making this claim on a Subaru forum of all places! Crosstrek, Forester, Outback, and Legacy all share a platform and drivetrain, lmao.

…

If anything, we should be congratulating Ford on building a compact crossover that people are actually excited about buying. Escape has been hemorrhaging sales for the last five years. But yknow, it’s aesthetically similar to another Ford car that people are excited about buying, so let’s…ridicule them mercilessly instead? 🙄

It's the same marketing strategy as the Mach E. Use the Mustang name (or Bronco) to sell a car that has nothing to do with the namesake.

The Bronco Sport is literally a Ford Escape underneath.

 

[jjjjsuba]

@Solid
Was there more to that thought, or what? Everyone here is well-aware that the Bronco Sport and Escape share a platform and drivetrain.

The real question is this: if they’re the same car underneath, why does it bug you so much that people are choosing the better-looking one?

 

[FozzieBalou]

As we all know - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find the Bronco Sport to be a psuedo-rip-off of a Land Rover - not necessarily a bad thing to aspire to but .. I just don't think they nailed it... It looks (to me) that they tried to marry the retro "full size" Bronco style to the compact Land Rover Defender. And it failed miserably in that copy.

And yes, the Escape has taken on the more aerodynamic "egg" shape of many other compact CUV/SUV - like the Mazda CX5, CX30 and the like trying to ape the look of the Lexus RX and NX and possibly even a small steal from the Macan from Porsche. Again, not a bad look to copy but ...

It's often in the execution that the copy fails. Ford has managed some decent copies - the Fusion does a good mimic on an Aston Martin but ...

But that can be expected, given that Ford owned most of JLR (Jag/Land Rover) and also Aston Martin in the early parts of this century (2000 - 2008 and 1987 - 2007 respectively). Just like many Chryslers took on a boxy Germanic style under the Mercedes "merger"...

But - again - as pointed out before - many of the Bronco Sport buyers and the Escape (and the Outback and Forester and - frankly - just about ANY SUV on the market) are bought by folks that the furthest they'll ever get "off-road" is when they have to go shopping for pumpkins, Christmas trees or actual farm stands out in the country.