1966-77 Ford Bronco and Bronco II
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I refer to the brief period during which I owned a Ford Bronco II. Now, I will readily admit that the Bronco II does not, shall we say, have a sterling reputation, probably about on par historically with its II-suffixed cousin the Mustang II. And it certainly didn't worm its way into my heart by breaking down 500 miles from home in the middle of Oregon and causing me to
leave it there with a dead engine. In fact, I do find it rather difficult to defend in great depth which is, partly, why this post lumps it in with the original Bronco.
But they share a common heritage and design philosophy that seems to keep cropping up: the small, fairly utilitarian sport utility vehicle. . .with an emphasis on the utility. The original Bronco has achieved something of a cult status--a perennial favorite here at Car Lust--and it also represents some of the cultural and market factors that were going on at its introduction and says something about the modern SUV and its many manifestations.
That and both really look cool.
As I have argued earlier, the mid-late '60s were a time when a youth market with larger amounts of disposable income and a budding environmental movement came together and made for a spate of vehicles that were both affordable to the younger crowd and also provided enough off-road capability to get those people out into the great outdoors and back country. And, of course, the beach and drive-in. The Jeep CJ led the way and is probably the most iconic off-roader for the time, International had its Scout, and even VW had a go at it with The Thing. The idea back then was simple: rugged and tough and not much in the way of comfort or looks. They were trucks from the ground up and didn't really pretend to be much else.
The original Bronco was introduced in August of 1965 and was spartan indeed. Initially, only a single engine and transmission were offered: a 170-cubic-inch six from the Falcon and a 3-on-the-tree manual. Early in '66 Ford made the 289 V-8 an option. It had a short wheelbase at 92 inches, giving it excellent maneuverability and making it a pretty good off-roader. Interestingly, although it shared some components with other Ford trucks, the frame, suspension, and body were entirely new and not based on an existing platform. A lot of options were available such as a second gas tank, snow plow kits, winches, etc.
I tend to prefer the Bronco to the competition of the time. The Thing was a little too dorky looking, and the Scout was a bit too rounded for my tastes. I like the very square lines of the Bronco; makes it look a bit neater and adds to the ruggedness.
It had a pretty good run for several years, but by the later '70s it started to pale in comparison to the larger Scout II and Chevy Blazer and the various offerings from Jeep. The larger Bronco debuted in 1978 and was based on the F-100 series pickup, surviving until 1996. As I often say, you can't keep a good idea
down and the small truck-like Bronco returned in 1984 with the introduction of the Bronco II. The II was based this time on an existing truck, the Ranger, which was introduced the year before; both the Ranger and the Bronco II were a response to Chevy's introduction of the smaller S-10 pickup and the smaller Blazer based on it.
It was actually pretty similar to the first generation Bronco: the 94-inch wheelbase was only slightly longer than the original, meaning it was as maneuverable and a capable off-roader. On the other hand, it also was somewhat more prone to rolling over especially when driven hard in reverse, though probably not any worse than most other off-road vehicles. It had another serious problem as well: the engine. The only engine available for 1984-85 was the 2.8-liter Lima V-6 followed in 1986 by a fuel-injected Cologne V-6. Both had serious reliability problems. The Cologne suffered initially from poor cylinder heads, but also had oiling problems resulting in a loss of oil pressure to the lifters, rocker shaft and rockers. The Lima had similar problems with the oil system ... which can I attest to.
Why do I lust for these? Well, the original is easy: it looks cool and was one of the first of the consumer SUVs, and it still looks pretty fresh and clean today. The II? Uhhhhh ... well, let's face it: It kinda sucked in a lot of ways. It didn't have a lot of power, it wasn't what one would call extraordinarily safe, and the engine was unreliable unless scrupulously maintained. It had its good points though. The short wheelbase and high center of gravity made for a capable vehicle when off the beaten path. And if you're partial to smaller SUVs, it was a great size for those who didn't need a lot of storage or passenger capacity. Its small size made it perfect for city dwellers, and it was relatively easy on the gas mileage. Reliability issues aside, it was pretty good at what it was designed to do.
As I mentioned above, I did, in fact, own a Bronco II--for a grand total of about a month and a half. It was a 1984 model that I picked up in mid-1990. I was doing archaeological fieldwork for a living and it was, for the short period I had it, really good for that: okay on the highway, good for bumping along back roads, and enough storage for
equipment and luggage. I loved it, for the most part. Not too big, not too small, capable but not overdone. But it was a total jinx. Within 24 hours of taking possession I had my first.accident.ever. I made up for that somewhat by having the (ruined) front bumper replaced by a bad-ass black wraparound tubular steel thing. Tough little bugger, it was: there wasn't a whole lot of other damage in the accident besides the bumper. The engine trouble started right away and by the time I drove it down to northern California from Washington for a job, one side of the engine seized up in the middle of Oregon from lack of oil. It was too expensive to have the stupid engine rebuilt so I left it with a dealer there and swapped it for a Mustang II.
Even though it caused me endless headaches and ended badly, I still kinda miss that thing (insert ex-girlfriend/boyfriend analogy here). It was fun to drive, exactly what I wanted at the time, and it was a true truck. But I don't want to unduly romanticize the whole truck-ness of either of these vehicles. As we often say around here, even the best of these old cars performs pretty pathetically compared to their modern equivalents. The basic quality of pickups and SUVs today are simply on another level, as are passenger cars, and that's most assuredly a good thing: they're safer, quieter, more efficient, and more functional in nearly every way than these, their predecessors. They look nice, but living with one is another matter.
Bronco IIs are dirt cheap these days and popping in a new engine--the compartment can easily accommodate a 302 or 351 Windsor, hint hint--would make for a wicked little 4x4. First-gen Broncos are far more desirable and command higher prices.
The basic idea is still around and has been for a while. Nearly every manufacturer doing business in North America has offered a small SUV at one time or another and I'm beginning to suspect that these might be filling a good part of the market niche that smaller hatchbacks fill elsewhere, as we have been noting of late.
--Anthony Cagle
Chuck on January 08, 2009 at 09:34 AM
Ah, this is true car lust... wishing we had back the things that caused us trouble. They say after time that we forget the bad and remember the good. I have had times when I could not wait to dump a vehicle, then years later wishing I could get it back... except for the Pontiac T1000 that I just HAD to have when they first came out LOL!
The only original Bronco I ever rode in belonged to Elvis Presley, who is celebrating his 74th birthday today (Jan. 8)... somewhere. But that's another story.
JimB on January 08, 2009 at 09:39 AM
Are you kidding?? I once owned a Bronco II and it was the biggest piece of crap I have ever had the displeasure to own. It was a "Eddie Bauer" model with a V6 engine and a automatic transmission. Besides the narrow wheel base and high center of gravity combining to make it a roll over waiting to happen, it was a mechanical disaster. To change the spark plugs you had to partially remove the engine and the transmission required a rebuild every 30,000 miles.
By the way, I did not buy this peice of automotive crap. My father left it to me when he passed on. I do believe his purchasing of it was a sign of his increasing dementia
Lil on January 08, 2009 at 10:20 AM
My cousin had a Bronco and it was the most UNCOMFORTABLE car to ride in the back seat!
David Colborne on January 08, 2009 at 11:59 AM
The Bronco II is one of those products that's definitely better on paper than it is in reality. The concept is brilliant - small, easily tossed SUV that is utilitarian and gets you through the backcountry. Sounds great. Unfortunately, as the swarm of commenters is already beginning to attest to, it was a pretty thoroughly compromised piece of machinery. Then again, at that time and with that body style, you were pretty much looking at the Bronco II or the Blazer, which wasn't exactly a paragon of virtuous reliability itself. Of course, there was the Jeep Cherokee, which got the newer body style around the same time the Bronco II came out, so that market segment wasn't a total loss. It'd be a few more years before the Japanese caught up and threw the Samurai, Montero, and Rodeo at us.
That said, I totally understand your take. I had a '76 Fury with similar reliability issues that I loved for the month and a half that I had it. It was big, baby blue, had two bench seats, and was unmistakable in traffic. Unfortunately, as much fun as it was to have a distinctive late '70s beater, it wasn't fun enough to justify rebuilding the engine when the valve guides went south, nor rebuilding the steering, nor fixing the speedometer cable, nor... yeah, you get the idea.
It was still a neat car. I miss that ol' thing.
Chris Hafner on January 08, 2009 at 02:15 PM
I'm glad Anthony did this post for two reasons.
1) The first Bronco has always been a favorite of mine - no surprise, since I like the Wagoneer and the Scout - and I have been thinking about writing a post about it for some time. Yet ... I know next to nothing about the Bronco. So thanks, Anthony, for doing it right.
2) My grandmother owned a Bronco II for some time, so I have a fair amount of history with them. She bought it as a replacement for her Wagoneer, and while the Bronc-Deuce didn't compare well, it served her just fine and got her up her hill when snow fell.
It looked pretty sharp - black paint and silver rocker panels, rawr! - but had absolutely no pickup. Late in its life, I drove it for the first time. I was merging onto the freeway, floored the throttle, and ... nothing. The Bronco II's 40-60 mph acceleration could be measured in hours.
Chris Hafner on January 08, 2009 at 02:16 PM
I'd like to publicly apologize for using the word "rawr" in my comment. I ... I'm so sorry.
Shawn on January 08, 2009 at 03:52 PM
To pile on some more Bronco II hate anecdotes, my aunt owned an '85 with the Lima engine during the mid-80's. Of course, the engine seized on hers too. It caused her to switch to Volvos then and she's been a loyal Volvo buyer ever since.
Anthony Cagle on January 08, 2009 at 07:16 PM
I learned a lot from buying that thing. Mainly to have a trusted mechanic thoroughly check any used car out first. There were signs right from the start that something was amiss. Too bad too, because the rest of it -- body, undercarriage, interior -- was all in beautiful condition. Sometimes I think I kept keeping up my Mustang just to avoid having to buy another car. . . . .
V8Dan on January 09, 2009 at 06:27 AM
I still like the first Bronco's, but the International Harvesters Scouts remain my favorite truck. All you have to do is look at it to know that an old tractor and an abandoned refrigerator got drunk together one night and produced this thing.
I'd go with an IH Scout first, then a Bronco, but if you threw a Jeep cab-over-engine into the mix, I’d take that in a minute. I love those dorkmobiles.
on January 09, 2009 at 06:55 AM
Well, if someone must say a few positive words about the Bronco II, it might as well be me. My personal experience with the stubby little buggers is limited to two weeks, on two separate occasions. Each was an '89, and both were nearly new when I borrowed them, so I can't speak to long-term reliability. As to utility, though -- and keeping in mind that the bar was far lower 20 years ago -- I have vivid memories of being very impressed.
I took the first one on what turned out to be a 500 mile day trip, and found it to be amazingly comfortable. This was undoubtedly a function of the seat and and my body being unusually congruent. The ride was decent -- soft enough to keep expansion joints from jarring, controlled enough to keep from being scary -- and the power was sufficient to keep up with freeway traffic.
The second one, chosen because the first was so satisfactory for the purpose, took me and my wife on a Cape Ann vacation that included a full day -- my very first -- of off-roading as well as an overloaded trip home with the back seats folded down and the cargo area loaded top-to-bottom with (heavy) antiques.
Yeah, it *felt* tippy, but I had no trouble keeping all four wheels on the ground at extra-legal speeds. The contemporary Cherokee was probably more stable in that respect, and time has shown it to be nigh indestructible, but the cramped driver's compartment was a deal-breaker for me at the time.
(BTW, I'm feeling much better, and am glad to be back.)
David Drucker on January 09, 2009 at 06:58 AM
The above comment -- unsigned for some reason -- was mine.
--David Drucker
Cookie the Dog's Owner on January 09, 2009 at 07:38 AM
If you could find a Bronco II in solid shape and swap in a decent modern engine (say, a Modular V-8 with fuel injection), you could end up with a right handy little truck.
Chuck on January 09, 2009 at 08:02 AM
Anybody got a good used Pontiac T1000 for sale? Just kidding. :+)
That Car Guy on January 09, 2009 at 08:09 AM
Glad you're back, David. I hope you are feeling oakally doakally! :-}
bwbandy on January 11, 2009 at 10:14 PM
My father bought one of these from the early seventies, for the life of me I cannot remember what year it was. I was in high school and it was his project, this was over twenty years ago. I got drafted into spending a lot of time helping him rewire it (and I mean rewire everything), replace the brakes, fix the steering, and other assorted fixes. The great thing was that the top unbolted and it made a decent convertible. Dirt was never a problem because you could just hose it out. It had a three speed column shift so I could park it anywhere without any fear of anyone stealing it. It turned out to be a lot of fun. About a month after getting everything perfect he sold one day in the late summer without warning. I never forgave him for that.
Rjr on January 14, 2009 at 05:16 PM
I bought a '91 Bronco II in 96 or 97. It had 115,000 miles on it. Fuel injected, automatic transmission. I put 270,000 miles on it. Three sets of tires, Jiffy Lube every 5-8k miles.
Trying to think what else I had done. Brakes once. The injector wiring harness fried on me one morning when I started it up. Easy job, except finding a replacement was a pain. Took a week to find a new one, an hour to put it in.
When I went to do the second brake job, I got a quote of $700, and the bluebook was $600, so I traded it in. Still ran great with 385,000 miles on it. Interior was still clean. No broken door locks. The little hydrolic things that hold open the back hatch'd long stopped working, so I carried a wooden dowel to prop it open with. That probably would've been a $30 fix, but never got around to it.
I got rear-ended in it once. The Nissan truck that hit me had the hood caved in and the radiator had been crushed up against the fan. My bronco suffered some peeling paint around the spare tire mount where the metal buckled, then popped back out. The cover on my spare tire ripped.
I got pulled over in it on the I-10 just inside of Palm Springs. The cop insisted I was doing 85 mph. I laughed in his face.
Lots of time spent off road. I miss it.
matt on January 28, 2009 at 05:17 PM
i have a 1984 ford bronco 2 that i bought about a month ago i went and looked at it and everything worked good to have 220,000 miles on it well when he brought it to me i noticed that it would not take reverse no grinding or nothing but every other gear works great in 2 wheel and in 4 wheel i dont know what has happened if anyone could help me i would greatly appreciate it thanks
Tim on January 29, 2009 at 02:07 PM
This is really the first I've ever heard of the Bronco II's being unreliable... The only engine problem which was fairly common was with some of the earlier cylinder heads cracking if the engine was overheated very badly. Thats something that should normally happen anyway. I have a 1990 Eddie Bauer Bronco II which has been in my family since 91, and it runs perfect! Its got 180,000 miles on it, and burns no oil, starts perfectly, and runs and drives fine. I know of a guy who has 630,000 miles on his original 2.9, granted with a rebuild, but still thats pretty crazy. The only thing that no longer works is the drivers side electric lumbar support, which is only because a wire became pinched in the adjustable seat rail and was cut, and also the drivers side electric lock solenoid. Not really too bad. One of these days I'll get around to fixing those things, but I still love the thing!
matt on January 29, 2009 at 03:46 PM
other that the trans not taking gear the truck runs and drives great it don't burn no oil i had to put a manual choke on the carb.the bronco has a great four wheel drive system in it i cant complain about that.i have had some friend that has had them and i have not heard them complain at all
i have done alot of research on that trans and everthing says to tighten the reverse bands i have no idea how to or even where they are at.Does anyone know how to do that if so please tell me how thanks matt
Erb on January 31, 2009 at 10:12 AM
the broncoII realy sucks because I cant find out what to do to fix this 1984 bronco of mine
Erb on January 31, 2009 at 10:22 AM
any body got any ideas on how to fix my bronco II
matt on February 01, 2009 at 06:10 PM
what is wrong with your bronco2?my bronco2 runs great and drives good but the reverse want take gear
matt on February 01, 2009 at 06:11 PM
what is wrong with your bronco2?my bronco2 runs great and drives good but the reverse want take gear
matt on February 06, 2009 at 06:37 AM
i am taking the transmission out of the bronco2 the person i bought it from had backed out the intermediate reverse band almost all the way so it would just barely catch gear
Arlen on March 03, 2009 at 08:23 PM
I recently boughta 1985 bronco II. I happen to love it. I will say they have Ford quirks that you just learn to understand after owning a lot of Fords. It is great for backing a trailer in. I have owned rangers of a similiar year so I know to watch the transmission. But I also know the four wheel drive works great and I cam't wait for the next snow storm. I know a good running v6 can pulla full size Blazer because I did it. You can bash it a little, but I keep it because it actually looks like it could go off road and still drive the highway without much.