2002 Jeep Wrangler Sport 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford will put solid axles under the Bronco as the off-roading gods intended

We've been wondering what sort of creature the Bronco would be since we first heard of the thing last October, when a union chairman spilled the beans on the SUV and the Ranger pickup. Ford confirmed a 2020 arrival date for the Bronco at the 2017 Detroit Auto Show, but at that point pretty much all we were sure of was that the Ranger and Bronco would be returning. The open question would be how hungry Ford was to spoil the Jeep Wrangler's solo party as a compact(ish) off-roader with dual solid axles, since the easiest thing would be to carry over the suspension design of the presumably related international Ford Ranger and its Everest SUV version: independent front suspension with either a leaf- (Ranger) or coil-suspended (Everest) solid rear axle. Enter Dana, the long-time supplier of Jeep stick axles, to confirm that the 2020 Bronco is getting a pair of them. That means solid axles front and rear, just like under a Wrangler. So reports Automotive News, citing an investor presentation from Dana. All signs so far, such as the report that the Bronco would be engineered by the same team in Australia that created the Ranger pickup, indicated that the Bronco would share a platform with the Ranger and thus be body-on-frame. The solid axle confirmation essentially confirms that theory. Some off-road-capable vehicles have paired solid axles with unibody frames, like the Jeep Cherokee (XJ generation) and Grand Cherokee (ZJ and WJ generations), but they are outliers. Generally, if you've got solid axles at both ends, they're going in a vehicle with a ladder frame. It also lends credence to the notion that our Bronco won't simply be an imported Everest, which might be too understated to stand out from lesser crossovers anyways. This is good news if you have Blue Oval in your blood and pine for a modern SUV that'll show up the Jeep guys on the trail. Less directly, it could mean a wholesale assault on the formula that makes Jeeps successful in the first place: the massive aftermarket of off-roading equipment and dress-up bits that appeal to Jeep buyers almost as much as a Trail Rated badge. At a minimum, Bronco enthusiasts can breathe easy that the reborn SUV won't merely be a light-duty crossover with styling "inspired" by true off-roaders. There's still a lot left to learn about the Bronco. Keep up to date with our running summary of everything we know about the returning off-roader.

The future's electric — but the present is peak gasoline. Burn some rubber! Do donuts!

I vividly remember the year 1993 as a teenager looking forward to getting my driver’s license, longingly staring into Pontiac dealerships at every opportunity for a chance to see the brand-new fourth-generation Firebird and Trans Am. Back then, 275 horsepower, courtesy of GMÂ’s LT1 5.7-liter V8 engine, was breathtaking. A few years later, when Ram Air induction systems freed up enough fresh air to boost power over 300 ponies, I figured we were right back where my fatherÂ’s generation left off when the seminal muscle car era ended around the year 1974. It couldn't get any better than that. I was wrong. Horsepower continued climbing, prices remained within reach of the average new-car buyer looking for cheap performance, and a whole new level of muscular magnitude continued widening eyes of automotive enthusiasts all across the United States. It was all ushered in by cheap gasoline prices. And as much as petrolheads bemoan the coming wave of electric vehicles, perhaps instead now would be a good time for critics to sit back and enjoy the current and likely final wave of internal combustion. Today, itÂ’s easier than ever to park an overpowered rear-wheel-drive super coupe or sedan in your driveway. Your nearest Chevy dealership will happily sell you a Camaro with as much as 650 horsepower. Not enough? Take a gander at the Ford showroom and youÂ’ll find a herd of Mustangs up to 760 ponies. Or if nothing but the most powerful will do, waltz on over to the truly combustion-obsessed sales team of a Dodge dealer and relish in the glory of a 797-hp Charger or 807-hp Challenger. Want some more luxury to go with your overgrown stable of horses? Try Cadillac, where you'll find a 668-horsepower CT5-V Blackwing. You could instead choose to wrap that huffin' and chuggin' V8 in an SUV. Or go really off the rails and buy a Ram TRX or Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 and hit the dunes after a quick stop at the drag strip. Go pump some gas. Burn a little rubber. Do donuts! There is nothing but your pocketbook keeping you from buying the V8-powered car of your dreams. Yes, just about every major automaker in the world has halted development of future internal combustion engines in favor of gaining expertise in batteries and electric motors. No, that doesnÂ’t mean that gasoline is going extinct. There are going to be gas stations dotting American cities and highways for the rest of our lifetimes.

FCA to appeal reduced judgment in Georgia Jeep case

FCA is appealing the $40 million verdict against it in a case in Georgia where a four-year-old boy died in a fire in a Jeep Grand Cherokee, according to The Detroit News. The jury originally awarded the child's family $150 million, but the judge decided to significantly to reduce the amount based on other precedents. The automaker has been considering further legal options since the decision was announced in July. The boy's death happened in 2012 when he was riding in a Grand Cherokee. The vehicle was rear-ended, and the fuel tank burst, causing a fire. This is the same issue that led to a recall of millions of the SUVs and a recent agreement with the US government from FCA to pay to get them fixed. In the original ruling, the jury said that the automaker was 99 percent responsible for the fatality and didn't adequately warn owners. It asked the company to pay $120 million for wrongful death and $30 million for his pain and suffering. FCA countered that the Jeeps met the safety standards of the time they were made. FCA requested that the jury's award be reduced in May calling the amount "grossly excessive." If the family didn't agree to a lower amount, the company also threatened to seek a new trial. Among the arguments was that $30 million was too much for the child's one minute of suffering. The parents did accept the judge's adjusted figure, though.