Off-Road Comparison: Ford Bronco Sasquatch vs Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Xtreme Recon

Article content

Elle Alder: Jeepers creepers, look at that Bronco! We’ve got a mightily rubbered matchup today, mates. Before us are the Ford Bronco Badlands Sasquatch and the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Xtreme Recon 392. Riding 35” tires, big suspension, and uhh, ‘comparable power,’ these off-roaders represent quite nearly the most capable of their breed.

Article content

Clayton Seams: Nearly, but we are short one carnivore: the Ford Bronco Raptor. The muscled-up Braptor was not available to pair up with the Wrangler 392, so we’re making do with the still-incredibly capable Ford Bronco Badlands Sasquatch. The ‘Squatch can’t match the big Raptor for high-speed off-roading or acceleration, but it’s a closer rival to the Jeep Rubicon — or it would be, were it not for the badge on the Jeep’s hood that says “392”. Those three little numbers make a very big difference.

EA: Very big. Converted from cubic inches, the big Jeep’s V8 measures 6.4 litres displacement. It’s straight off-road muscle, but fortunately for Ford, this comparison is really about the platforms beneath. The arrival of the new Bronco has unquestionably challenged Jeep’s trailhead throne, and the big question is how the two match up on road and trail.

Article content

Assessed as equals, these rigs offer similar but distinct skill sets at a similar price point. The V6-equipped 2023 Ford Bronco Sasquatch comes in from $72,189 with destination, or $74,289 as tested. A V6-powered 2023 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Xtreme Recon arrives from $67,480, from $78,495 configured with the good stuff, or a mighty $116,890 for the tested 392 V8 with one-touch power top and all of the goodies. 

Article content

CS: Mechanically, the largest difference between the two is the front suspension. Jeep famously hangs a solid front axle under the front of every Wrangler and Gladiator, while the Bronco uses an independent front suspension setup. Out back, both use burly live axles and coil springs. Both of these are real 4x4s built largely in the traditional way with body-on-frame construction, two-speed transfer cases, and are specced up with huge 35” tall tires. Underhood, the Bronco can be specced with a turbocharged 2.3-litre inline-four (the one to have), a 2.7-litre twin-turbo V6 like our tester, or the top-dog 3.0-litre twin-turbo V6 that you only get in the Raptor version.

Article content

EA: Jeep’s modern reputation was built on six naturally aspirated cylinders, and the available 3.6-litre Pentastar V6 — by no means a powerhouse — is plenty of power for the platform. Its 285 hp and 260 lb-ft bounce and crawl with a reputation for reliability and serviceability, making it an entirely respectable path. Standard today is a 2.0-litre turbo-four producing 270 hp and 295 lb-ft, an efficient commuter for the lifestyle crowd but perhaps not to the tastes of NA traditionalists. Manual transmissions are available in some Wrangler trims, but don’t expect to see many of them amid the usual ZF eight-speed automatic configurations. 

The 6.4-litre in the Wrangler 392 is the naturally aspirated gasoline powerplant seen in the Ram 2500 and Dodge Scat Packs, tuned here to deliver 470 horsepower and 470 pound-feet of torque. It’s a fun option with a silly sound and an expensive gasoline habit — and also entirely overkill. Accelerating in 4.5 seconds on solid axles and wobbly sidewalls is a skittery affair.

Article content

Ford Canada hasn’t dared make any Bronco Raptors available for comparison with the 392, so in the interest of fairness we’ll overlook the Jeep’s obvious power advantage and treat it as a Rubicon Xtreme Recon — a comparatively priced suspension and goodie package available with everything you see here, less the 470-horsepower V8. 

CS: While you’re commanding that muscle-car V8 through the trails, you’re sitting in a 2023 cockpit like no other. The exposed door hinges mean the doors swing freely with no stops to easily keep them from hitting cars next to you. There’s more visible painted steel in this interior than a 1985 Toyota Starlet, and the windshield appears almost vertical in front of you. Sure it has Stellantis’s latest uConnect touchscreen system, Alpine premium nine-speaker audio, and heated front seats complete with fetching Rubicon embroidery. But even when compared to the equally rugged Bronco, the Wrangler interior feels like a throwback to an earlier time. The cabin is noticeably narrower than the Bronco, the dash is more vertical, and it still knocks your ankle with its long door harness. It is certainly a Jeep. 

Article content

Conversely, the Bronco interior manages all of the rugged off-road looks and sacrifices nothing in practicality over a ‘normal’ SUV on the inside. The cabin feels more modern, the touchscreen is much larger than that in the Jeep, and the quality of materials throughout the cabin is superior to the Jeep’s. Despite costing as much as a luxury sedan, both of these SUVs have rubber floors — not carpet — for easier washing after a muddy day on the trails. One gripe would be that the chunky grab handle is located on the dash and not higher on the A-pillar. This makes it easier for passengers to grab during “oh heck” moments, but less helpful for shorter people using it to hoist themselves into the cabin. 

Article content

EA: Fording is a loss for the Bronco. Ford says that the Sasquatch is good for the same 85-cm (33.5 in.) water crossings that the Jeep is rated for, but that V6 engine leaves its alternator low and vulnerable to rushing water. The Wrangler, meanwhile, mounts its alternators up high and clear of water, and an optional water-diverting intake provides further protection from overenthusiastic gulps — albeit at the compromise of a seriously hefty hood. 

That weight shouldn’t be surprising, however, for nothing about either of these rigs is in any way light. Exact figures vary depending on configuration, but equipped with V6s, the Bronco Sasquatch curbs around 5,100 lbs; the Wrangler Xtreme Recon at ~5,200 lbs. 

Similar as these curb weights are, the two SUVs carry their weight very differently. The Bronco’s independent front and overall construction feel lighter, whereas the unsprung mass of the Jeep’s solid Dana 210 front axle (an electronically modernized 44 variant) renders a more precarious highway drive and more heaving sensations on the trails. With that handling shortcoming comes confidence in durability, however, and I’d certainly rather have the option of running that solid axle up a log for a backwoods wheel swap than wince at the mercy of a mud-footed jack under the Bronco. 

Article content

Such weight doesn’t assure invulnerability, however. While both the Sasquatch and Xtreme Recon packages equip these SUVs with underbody shielding in vulnerable areas, it does leave a little to be desired. Hesitant gut impressions of the Bronco’s under-sump shielding and the Jeep’s fuel-tank cladding will hold most stock drivers to the side of caution. 

Article content

CS: But to get to those trails where fording depth, breakover angle, and tire height matter, you probably have to commute there on pavement. And in that asphalt environment where these vehicles will spend easily 90 per cent of their time, these SUVs are severely out of their element. To be fair, the 392 Wrangler is the first Wrangler that’s ever been fun to drive on the street, thanks specifically to its outrageous muscle-car power and NASCAR soundtrack. But the Wrangler is sketchy to drive at speeds in a way that no other modern ‘car’ is. Those huge meats and solid front axle make for a decidedly wobbly experience on pavement, and drivers must constantly steer a Jeep in its lane on the highway to keep it pointed between the lines. Wind noise is strong at speed, though it faces competition from the droning mud tires and the 392’s dual-exit exhaust. On the plus side, the steering wheel turns easily even with those massive tires, and the ride is cushy-smooth across rough pavement because, of course it is. And that’s before we talk about the fuel economy which is good only when compared to a TRX. Even with gentle driving, you can expect to average around 14 L/100 km at best, and you won’t get that number without a tailwind and some luck. 

Article content

Compared to the Jeep, the Bronco is a serene experience much in the way that skydiving would feel calm after going over Niagara Falls in a barrel. The independent front suspension allows the Bronco to do novel things like track straight down a highway lane. Although the exhaust is markedly more subdued (granted, the V6 Wrangler is similarly tame), the Bronco’s seats are not as comfy as the Wrangler’s and the ride is a bit harsher over highway bumps. That said, I vastly prefer the Bronco’s stereo, and if I had to take one of these on a road trip, I’d choose the Bronco.

EA: As a single vehicle to live with every day, I must reluctantly agree that the Ford takes it. The Bronco is significantly more ‘car’ than the Jeep, and carries itself along the commute with far shinier technological comforts as well. Nicely appointed and priced to compete directly with the Wrango-dango, it’s simply a better truck for the roads of today.

Still, neither vehicle should be looked to as a commuter. These trucks are large, inefficient, and costly toys better suited to a multi-vehicle family. Relegated to a secondary role for off-road play days, the Jeep is doubtless the hardier, more trustworthy, more capable, and more customizable rig. The Bronco makes trails more accessible, but it’s no old-fashioned, hard-knockin’ Wrangler.