(first posted 2/5/2018) I’ve already written a full CC/Auto-Biography on the new 1984 Bronco II we had for about six months, so I’m going to go lightly on the text here. But I couldn’t resist shooting this one, as like so many other cars, they’re getting rather scarce. Quite so, actually. And this nice Eddie Bauer edition has been well-preserved right down to the original wheels. So many of these were given to a lower calling, as mud-stompers and such.
But there’s also another reason: these had a frightening tendency to roll, and some insurers like Geico refused to insure them.
We’ve covered it in our CC, but needless to say, a short 94″ wheelbase, a tall body on a high frame, and a swing-axle front suspension made for something less than stellar stability. And you think the Explorer had a tendency to roll?
Rather than do the high-school thing and try to re-write it in my own words, I’m just going to quote Wikipedia on the subject, which has a number of citations too:
Stability problems with Bronco II were noted during the design phase in 1981, as well as in the verification tests.[1] For example, the J-turn test was canceled during the testing procedures by Ford officials “out of fear of killing or injuring one of its own drivers.”[4] Engineering modifications were suggested, but Ford officials declined the modifications because they would have delayed the marketing of the new vehicles.[4] Eight months before production began, Ford’s Office of General Counsel collected 113 documents concerning the new vehicle’s handling problems.[1] However, 53 of these test, simulation, and related reports about stability of the Bronco II “disappeared” in an “unusual document handling procedure” that forebode the lawsuits against Ford starting in the late-1980s.[1]
The Bronco II was dogged by reports that it was prone to rollovers.[5] Some of the headlines in 1989-90 included “NHTSA Investigates Bronco II Rollovers,” Automotive News (March 20, 1989) “Magazine Gives Ford’s Bronco II ‘Avoid’ Rating,” The Wall Street Journal (May 8, 1989), and “Consumer Reports Criticizes Ford Bronco II’s Handling,” The Washington Post (May 18, 1989).
After analysis of SUV crashes of the Suzuki Samurai, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened a formal study of the Ford Bronco II in 1989.[6] There were 43 Bronco II rollover fatalities in 1987, compared with eight for the Samurai, but accident data in four states showed the Bronco II’s rollover rate was similar to that of other SUVs, so the investigation was closed. NHTSA declined to reopen the investigation in 1997 after more Bronco II crashes.[7]
It was estimated that 260 people had died in Bronco II rollover crashes, a rate that is several times more than in any similar vehicle according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.[8] By 1995, Ford had paid $113 million to settle 334 injury and wrongful death lawsuits.[9] A class-action settlement with owners of its controversial Bronco II provided “new safety warnings and up to $200 for repairs and modifications.”[9] Ford ended production of the Bronco II in 1990, but “always contended that rollovers are overwhelmingly caused by bad driving or unsafe modifications to the vehicle.”[8]
Individual lawsuit examples include famed jockey Bill Shoemaker, that awarded him one million dollars. Shoemaker was paralyzed from the neck down after rolling his Bronco II in California in 1991 while intoxicated.[10] Thereafter, he was confined to a wheelchair. The largest award involving the Bronco II up to 1995 was a $62.4 million verdict for two passengers, one of whom who received brain injuries and left her in need of a legal guardian, after the 1986 model in which they were riding rolled over.[11]
Automobile insurer GEICO stopped writing insurance policies for the Bronco II.[11] By 2001, Time magazine reported that the “notorious bucking Bronco II” rollover lawsuits had “cost the company approximately $2.4 billion in damage settlements.”[13]
Not exactly a pretty picture.
But the interior was pretty, for the times. The Bronco’s was decidedly nicer-trimmed than the Cherokee which replaced it. But the Cherokee felt like a Ferrari compared to the Bronco II, in terms of handling and stability. Amazing difference.
I got used to ours, and knew what its limits were. But it really was a remarkably tippy thing’ I’ll never forget my first drive in it, picking it up from the dealer. Who let this thing out on the streets? Well, now we know. And our SUVs today handle like F1 cars in comparison.
A good friend told me, “Whatever you do, don’t utter the phrase “roll over” to one of those Bronco II’s.”
1 in 500 involved in a fatal rollover? That is a staggering figure. What is doubly disappointing is that this was in an era when Ford was really on a roll (oops, didn’t mean to do that) and their quality had improved a lot. It seems that Good Ford and Bad Ford coexisted even then.
Ya that is a staggering figure as it is complete BS.
“The Insurance Institute looked at fatalities in rollover accidents between 1986 and 1990 involving single-vehicle crashes for small pickup trucks and some small utility vehicles. For the rear-wheel-drive Bronco II, it found 3.78 deaths for every 10,000 registered vehicles; the rate for the Samurai was 1.11. The rate for the four-wheel-drive version of the Bronco II was 1.74. About 88 percent of all occupant deaths in either version of the Bronco II occurred in a rollover accident, the highest for any vehicle studied by the Insurance Institute. “
Since the citation given doesn’t provide any support for that number, and because it does seem excessively high, I’ve removed that line. That the Bronco II was excessively roll-happy does not change as a consequence.
I think Ford finally “repented” of the Twin I-Beam front suspension on later Explorers, am I correct?
The insurance industry and civil courts can exert more effective negative feedback on carmaker stupidity than regulators can or need to. How costly those civil suits were!
I’m curious how many rollover fatalities involved unbelted occupants. My family survived a rollover with no injuries in our ’68 Country Squire (and I was unbelted in the back), but then we didn’t hit any immovable objects, either.
When I was transferred to Tennessee, I had only been there a few weeks when we learned on a monday morning that one of our co-workers had died over the weekend in a Bronco II rollover. To make matters worse, he was on his honeymoon.
The new bride was driving when the Bronco left the side of the interstate and rolled down an embankment (and apparently into a culvert).
I do agree though, that these were good looking and the size made them look quite sporty.
Sad…but a ran-off-the-road rollover could happen to any vehicle.
It could, in theory. But the likely hood depends greatly on the vehicle, and of course the odds of it happening in a Bronco II were drastically higher.
But I know statistics are meaningless to some.
You would have thought Ford’s ethics would have improved after the Pinto Fiasco. Thank you for the write up.
I see a few Bronco IIs around Tualatin though most are on the scruffier side. Perhaps I will photograph a few.
Sorry, ford’s which now? Their, um, “ethics”? Does not compute. They didn’t show any evidence of ethics in re the Pinto that killed people.
Nor in re their similarly negligent and deadly fuel tank designs in other cars they built.
Nor in re their shoddy transmissions that jumped out of Park and killed people.
Nor in re their engine cooling fans that flew apart and killed people.
Nor in re their wheels that fell off, nor in re numerous other gross fuсkups.
So…what are these Ford ethics you have in mind?
Thank you for the insight.
I always thought that the Bronco II looked blocky and a little ugly compared to the Chevy S10 Blazer.
Wrapping the rear side windows into the roof ruined the whole look of the Bronco 2. It should have had a more horizontal look to offset the shortness of the vehicle.
The bigger rear windows surely made the already top-heavy Bronco II even more so. Then, there’s what looks like more space between the tires and the body of the Ford. Don’t know if it’s due to more ground clearance or smaller tires, but it’s definitely there.
I’m not a big fan of the S-10 Blazer, either, but if safety was a paramount concern (at least for street driving, which is where the majority of these resided), the GM product would seem to have been a wiser choice at the time.
Does anyone here notice the side windows on that vintage Blazer have the same shape as those on the Aerostar and the full-size Bronco?
Found that out almost the hard way a couple of times. Both the news station I was working for and my girlfriend at the time had new Bronco IIs. In the news car, I took a curve marked 40 mph at 45 and felt like it could go over at any time. In my girlfriend’s, I had to make an emergency lane change to avoid an elk. Same “oh crap” feeling. Fortunately, I didn’t roll either of them.
I drove one of these briefly (it belonged to a co-worker; I was curious, she let me drive it) in either 1987 or 1988.
30 or 31 years later, I don’t remember much about it except it was – okay. But then again, I didn’t really push it or take sharp corners.
So what exactly is it about a short wheelbase that makes a vehicle more rollover prone? I get the effects of CG, roll stiffness, roll center, camber change, etc, but why was the BII so much worse than the Ranger? I suppose a shorter wheelbase creates slightly different steering angles for the same radius turn, but it seems that would be insignificant. And, the shorter wheelbase could pitch more, under acceleration/deceleration … but again, lots of other factors around load and weight distribution can influence that. So is it just yaw instability leading to rollover? Any ideas or pointers to a credible analysis?
I wish I could give you a good technical explanation. But here’s a few stabs at it. Keep in mind that rolling is almost always the consequence of lateral instability, meaning when someone tries to make rapid corrections, the results are exaggerated and a less-than experienced driver will often lose control. There is no doubt that the longer the wheelbase, the less likely that happens. It’s just not easy to provoke a lwb vehicle into sudden gyrations.
Also, the Bronco II sat considerably higher than the majority of Rangers, which were typically 2WD. A 4WD Ranger would have sat similarly high, but even with a short bed, it would have had a longer wheelbase.
A tall, narrow track, short wheelbase vehicle is the least intrinsically stable configuration possible.
Yes, the combination of short wheelbase and high center of gravity makes Bronco II’s inherently more unstable than other vehicles. Ironically enough, at about this same time, the U.S. Army realized that the M151 light utility truck, the replacement for the Jeep, was rolling over at an unprecedented rate. If anything the M151, which used swing axles at both ends, was shorter than the Bronco II and even more likely to roll over when traversing rough terrain. The Army’s solution wasn’t to modify the vehicles and make them safer; instead the Army installed a roll cage and seat belts. I suppose the reasoning was that then, when the M151 turned over, the occupants at least wouldn’t be thrown out of the vehicle and might survive. I was in the Army National Guard during this era and the M151 was hated by everyone who had to drive or ride in one of the things. It was hard enough to climb into and out of these vehicles before the addition of the roll cage, because in the field we typically had two canteens, a gas mask and other assorted equipment hanging from our web gear. Having to deal with the roll cage and seatbelts just made a bad situation worse.
CC effect: Saw one of these on my trip home from work, probably last Friday. And they are quite scare now around here (central VA).
“Individual lawsuit examples include famed jockey Bill Shoemaker, that awarded him one million dollars. Shoemaker was paralyzed from the neck down after rolling his Bronco II in California in 1991 while intoxicated.[10] Thereafter, he was confined to a wheelchair.”
Only in California can somebody that caused their own injuries get a pay out. He was drunk. There is no vehicle that is made that can compensate for being drunk.
Ford should have dug in and fought this as the problem was not the Bronco II (any SUV would have rolled driving it recklessly while drunk.
Of course this is the era of the woman that won a big payout due to spilling hot coffee on herself and claiming the company was at fault for giving her coffee that was hot(who buys cold coffee?)
The Bronco II did have a narrow wheel base but in almost every instance, the person driving the thing was doing something stupid (like doing high speed on an off ramp etc)
I think that the auto makers should have ran a campaign to educate folks that driving a high wheel base vehicle at high speed and making sharp turns will flip it.
Reminds me of how an angry, drunk Ernie Kovacs managed to kill himself by wrapping his Corvair Lakewood station wagon around a telephone pole.
All good points, but they are observations on legal outcomes without reviewing the complete story. Not condoning the excessive litigious situations we face in our society, but the McDonalds “hot coffee” payout was due to the franchisee using a coffee brewer that was brewing too hot and knowingly still using it rather than repair it, thus serving a cup of coffee that was above the recommended 140 degrees for service. Yes, the lady spilled it on herself, but a cup served at the recommended temperature instead of the estimated 180 degrees or more would not have caused burns, only discomfort. The public remembers the fuzzy details, not the facts. Now, the fact that the jockey was drunk and wrecked was a mitigating factor, and probably lessened the payout, as it was $1 Million for his injuries, while the lady with brain damage got most of a $62 million payment. Hard details trump hazy recollections every time.
A former neighbor rolled a bronco II while he was drunk. He felt really happy to get something else and not a day in court. Guess he missed out.
I owned a 88 Bronco II from 94-95. I liked it. I also knew it’s limits and never pushed ’em. This is it.
Time will tell if the 2020 Ranger-based midsize Bronco is as tipsy. Probably not, with a longer wheelbase, wider track, ESC and traction control, etc.
When I first saw the Bronco II in spy photos, I immediately thought it looked tipsy.
Never found its appearance assuring at all, it would not be vulnerable to rollovers.
Remarkable, they would essentially announce it, in its looks.
Let’s not forget the 2.8/2.9L Colonge V6’s insatiable appetite for heads and head gaskets.
I saw some videos from Consumers Reports where they attached some out riggers on a Suzuki Samurai. It was very disturbing to say the least. While a responsible driver can proactively keep their speed down, they can’t always compensate when they are forced to take emergency evasive action. I have witnessed several SUV roll overs. The driver braked hard for traffic that had stopped suddenly ahead of them. Then the driver swerved hard to the left. The SUV turned completely sideways, skid a short distance, then rolled over completely, coming to rest on it’s top. Generally, most cars, and I’m talking about regular sedans and coupes, will spin out completely, without rolling over on flat pavement. I have witnessed that many times also. You can see that at any autocross event. Vehicles with a high CG were not allowed to participate when I was involved with SCCA.
Compounding the problem was the low tire pressure that was recommended by the manufacturer. I had a ’97 V8 Explorer and I knew about this problem and kept my tires inflated to higher than recommended pressures. It seems that higher recommended pressures are now the norm.
Never drove one, but a college friend had one and it gave a very distinct impression of instability from the passenger seat. The Cherokees I drove at the time also felt a bit tippy, but nothing like that mini-Bronc