(first posted 1/16/2013. revised/expanded 5/5/2017) “Horsey car!” Sometimes the past reappears for just a moment in all its perfect clarity, as if it just happened yesterday. You shake your head to make sure you’re not dreaming but yes, there it is– the exact car you brought home in the spring of 1984, in the same color and trim, and it still looks brand new. And suddenly the words of a certain verbally precocious one-and-a-half-year-old son shouting “horsey car” ring in your ear as fresh and clear as that day when he pointed at the spare tire cover and said it for the first time. To the best of my knowledge, his automotive awareness began right then and there.
And my awareness of the Bronco’s suspension design and its tendency to be tippy began right on the drive home from the dealer. This was the prequel to the Explorer’s roll-over issues to come.
Ted wasn’t the only one who was enthusiastic about the horsey car; Stephanie adored it too. Me? Not so much, by a long shot. It was my first deep lesson in the reality that women and men like different things in cars. Like handling: the Bronco didn’t. It always felt like it wanted to fall over, like the horses in a Western when they get shot. Or, to just buck you off like a wild little Bronco. Stephanie didn’t care; she loved sitting high in the nicely trimmed Eddie Bauer edition interior. Needless to say, her driving habits were substantially different than mine. I like to explore a car’s limits, or at least feel secure in knowing where they are, but the Bronco’s scared me off.
Keep in mind that we were stepping out of an ’83 Civic Wagon, which handled like stink for its time. That was a ball to hustle up Topanga Canyon for a Sunday hike when my Turbo Coupe stayed at home. But the Honda wasn’t ours; it was a long-term rental, as a company perk. So when a Ford dealer suggested trading any of his new cars for a six-month lease in exchange for advertising on the TV station, I bit. And Stephanie had her choice of anything on the lot…so I went down to Orange County and got into the Eddie Bauer Bronco and drove it home – and I almost turned around within a half-mile and took it back.
It literally felt like it was on stilts. The combination of a super short 94″ wheelbase and swing-axle front suspension was pretty dreadful. I remember driving down the near-empty boulevard by the dealer, and giving the steering wheel a couple of wags, just to confirm my suspicion. Yikes; I couldn’t believe Ford was actually selling a vehicle that felt so tippy and unstable.
I eventually got used to it, and it took us to some incredible places way up in the Sierras. But I was always on guard, especially when we had it jammed to the hilt with five adults and two kids. I built a little rear-facing seat out of plywood, foam and fabric, and rigged up some seat belts. When my parents and sister came to visit, all seven of us piled in for a quick day trip to Yosemite on winding Highway 120 over scenic Tioga Pass (they wanted to leave their rental in Mammoth and not have to drive) . The view out of those giant panoramic rear windows was like out of a sightseeing bus.
Ford’s original simple and rugged twin-beam front suspension, which first appeared in 1965, had many good qualities, but ultimately it was just a cleaver variation on the swing axle: two axle halves with a single joint each. The camber intrinsically changes with suspension travel, but because the swing pivots are so far apart, the camber change is quite minimal. On a full-size pickup with a long wheelbase it works quite well enough;my ’66 F-100 has it, and I’ve been very happy with it: a softer ride and better handling than the previous rigid axle, and I’ve never experienced any issues with uneven tire wear, although I hear others have.
But when Ford adapted the design for 4WD, with a something akin to what Mercedes did back in the 60s with their low-pivot rear swing axle,the pivot points are obviously not as far apart. And the Ranger and Bronco have a significantly narrower track. So on the super-short and tall Bronco II, it only added to the intrinsic instability of such a short, tall vehicle.
Consumer Reports was on it, and gave the Bronco II an “Avoid” rating. There were stories in The Wall Street Journal and other papers. Statistics showed that about 70 persons per year were getting killed in Bronco II rollovers, and that 88% of the vehicle fatalities in Bronos were the result of rollovers, by far the highest of any vehicle, including the Suzuki Samurai.
The NHTSA opened an investigation of the Bronco II and the Suzuki Samurai. The NHTSA decided they weren’t really significantly worse than other SUVs at the time, as it was written off as a price to pay for the privilege of riding in one of the first small SUVs. But Ford faced a flood (almost a billion dollars) of lawsuits, and most were eventually settled. Ford paid out at least $568 million in damages awarded by juries.
And within a few years, the longer Explorer took over from the Bronco II. Still the same front suspension, but the extra length helped–sort of–for a while. Obviously, the Explorer was no poster child for rollover resistance either, although the front suspension was replaced by a more conventional one fairly early in its life. Who knows; the twin-beam front suspension may not ever have been a significant factor.
After the six months on our “lease” were out, we bought our first new car, a 1985 Jeep Cherokee. I’ll never forget the test drive; it cornered so flat and secure-feeling after the Bronco II; the difference was like day and night. But the Eddie Bauer Bronco had a much nicer interior than the Cherokee, and generally felt better screwed together. But I felt much safer knowing my family was spending way too much time on the freeways of LA in the Jeep rather than in that bucking Bronco.
The Cologne 2.8 V6 ran decently and smoothy enough, considering its modest output (110 hp, I think). Obviously, fuel economy was barely half that of the Civic wagon. The price of sitting up on a throne.
I’m not trying to be all namby-pamby about the Bronco’s handling deficiencies. I’ve certainly driven worse things and survived. But for Ford to introduce this new Bronco II into the gale of the compact-SUV storm that was brewing seemed a bit odd. Certainly, in careful hands the Bronco was nimble, and had terrific off-road capabilities given its height and shortness, but realistically, most of them did end up in the hands of folks like…Stephanie. A sudden avoidance maneuver or flat tire at speed might well have turned ugly in the hands of someone not prepared for its vices.
I haven’t seen a green Eddie Bauer Bronco II like this in ages. The few old Bronco IIs are generally beaters in the hands of kids, waiting to be rolled over. This one appeared like a mirage, and was gone shortly later, never to be seen again. And it’s so fresh and almost like new. How and where did it spend its life? I’d be tempted to think the whole encounter was a figment of my imagination, but here it is, every bit as real as that first utterance of “horsey car!”
If I was a GM fanboy, I’d demand that you call this a Ford Deadly Sin! 😉
Even if you give them a pass on this apple cart, there was no excuse for the first Explorers to have been almost as bad. Cherokees had solid front axles and still felt like Porsches by comparison.
True enough, but then Ford didn’t ever quite fully die. Near-deadly Sin?
NDE-sin
The frightening but universal truth – we all turn into our parents. This was my first thought after reading about your 7 passengers-in-a-Bronco II road trip experience. All I could think of was your earlier story about a certain family of 6 in a 62 Fairlane quite a few years earlier. 🙂 https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classicauto-biography-1962-ford-fairlane-sometimes-it-is-about-the-destination/
My other reaction – I have always loved reading about your complicated relationship with Fords. Maybe it is Ford that makes the relationship so complicated. Few companies have gyrated so widely between utter brilliance and utter crap, occasionally in cars side by side in the same showroom. I guess the constant is that Ford has often been able to package a very flawed vehicle in a way that makes it so appealing and inviting that everyone wants one. If only someone could have combined the mechanical competence and handling dynamics of the Jeep with the assembly and trim quality of the Bronco II.
True, of course. But perhaps I need to put this cozy little trip into perspective: we were on a joint vacation in the Sierras (Mammoth), and my parents had a rental car for themselves and my sister. We decided to take a day trip over Tioga Pass to Yosemite, and it was a joint decision to all pile in the Bronco, for a two-hour drive, allowing them to enjoy the scenery through the Bronco’s huge windows and not have to look at the road. Not exactly cooped up three days each way to NYC and back….
It’s almost as though Ford spent a lot of time and money upgrading the build quality and fit-and-finish of this new-generation Bronco, but then decided that most people would still largely use it as an off-road vehicle (like the first-generation Bronco).
Thus is my favorite bronco. Smaller, tough and yes meantvto go off road. How would ford know it created a new market called the SUV…. Which has to be safe…. And thus not a true offroader…. For 1982.
I was a Bronco II owner myself, from ’85 to 92 and loved it. With the exception of the truck always wanting to stall out at the first hint of dampness or rain. Ford recognized this glitch too, as they modified the 2.8’s distributor cap with a small plastic capped air vent. With it, it was still prone to shuddering and shaking and dropping rpms as the first rain drops fell, but not as severe as the non-vented cap. The electronic EGR valve was another source of angst, 3 times leaving me stranded on the road. Was it the valve itself or the sensor sitting atop the valve that was the culprit? On the second time it failed to start, 5 miles from home, I got so angry at it that I punched the door. That kind of hurt cause the Ford sheet metal was stout in those days! The twin traction beam front suspension created fairly quick cupping wear in the front tires if you weren’t religious in rotating the tires.
The Bronco II was Ford’s answer to the Chevy S10 Blazer. It sold well as it seemed you saw them everywhere in your travels. It was well made, with the exception of the EEC-IV computer controlled, carburated 2.8 solid lifter V6. The clatter at idle of those lifters rivaled that of my New Beetle TDI. Oh, and that distributor and EGR valve. I suppose the updated 2.9 V6 was a welcome relief.
I never understood the roll over issues of the Bronco II. In my years of 300 mile commutes every 3 days, I never noticed the tendency to roll. Rather, it was a slightly choppy ride as one would have expected of a short wheelbase vehicle, maybe I was not aggressive enough in driving her to explore those limits, who knows? It was a perfect Saturday morning, New Jersey Pine Barrens fire road touring vehicle. And it never failed in either sand or snow.
Without checking measurements, the Bronco II mirrored the earlier and much respected Ford Bronco. There never were horror stories of that classic SUV, then again, it was built in an age when people who bought trucks like that were using them for specifiic purposes. And of course, there was no Consumer Reports or NBC Dateline shows around to jury rig vehicles to roll over or accellerated unintentionally! 🙂
Jury rig?
No, I think the Audi 5000, Bronco II and Suzuki Samurai did that all on they’re own.
Bad ergonomic design and faulty acceleration equipment are sometimes manufacturer errors, not a consumer magazine or tabloid TV program witch-hunt.
Consumer Reports has been around since at least the 1940s, testing cars all along. But Ralph Nader’s book “Unsafe at Any Speed” brought handling deficiencies into everyone’s consciousness, and Consumer Reports came to greater prominence because of that.
You bought a car without test driving it and then overloaded it with people ( you must have been over the GVW with 5 adults and 2 kids) and was nervous about the handling characteristics….That sounds like something I would do!
Seriously though…that must have been a dark feeling inside after pulling in the driveway for the first time. At least it was only 6 months…
Kudos for fessing up to this one boss.
You jumped to a bunch of conclusions without (test) reading the article properly. I didn’t buy this car, it was a 6 months trade in exchange for advertisement. There was no need for a test drive; essentially, it was a 6 month test drive.
We run slim in my family, and the kids were three and a half and one and a half. Total passenger weight: no more than 700 lbs. I can’t find the specs on a Bronco II, but I’m pretty sure we weren’t overloading it (no luggage; it was a short day trip).
That trip over Tioga Pass was utterly uneventful; I was very familiar with the car, it was a leisurely sightseeing day trip (we didn’t want to drive both cars that day). The handling quirks of the Bronco only came into play in extreme situations.
Now please fess up for jumping to premature conclusions.
whoa there boss…. Just taking a little jab at you thats all. Its difficult to say things with a smart ass smile on your face on the internet. I guess I’ll have to put a smily face after everything I write so no one gets insulted.
GVWR was about 4200lbs, so you were pretty close, not that it should have mattered.
I guess I didn’t comprehend the that the “lease” was free or bartered for advertising.
If you took anything as more than a tongue in cheek finger point I sincerely appologize…
PS. Did you install seat belts in the home-made 3rd row seat? 🙂
Ditto; (almost) never take me too seriously 🙂 It’ll be obvious if I am.
True confessions: on that trip over Tioga, they sat in their booster seats back there without belts. It was for our Cherokee (that replaced the Bronco, and for long term) that I built that little rear-facing seat out of plywood, and foam cushions. And I did put in seat belts for that rear seat; attached them to the same mounting bolts as for the regular rear seat belts, and just ran them back.
Didn’t end up using it much, but it was handy for those rare occasions when we needed it.
I remember my neighbor complaining about his rolling over. He was half lit at the time and I don’t know if he was before it rolled or not. My SIL had one with a straight six. He got rid of it because it kept stranding him. Things like loose wires that should have required a trip under the hood with a pair of pliers. I was grateful he had it because it pulled my 57 out of the mud in the back pasture.
I don’t think this car hit the mark and your article confirms that to me. I agree it was a deadly sin. Do not recall Ford being called into question like this except for the edsel and rust.
Your SIL Did not have a Bronco II with a straight six!
I remember that bronco and straight six very well. It was not a transplant. However, Wikipedia agrees with you so it is possible that the six resides in that part of my memory that is normally reserved for unicorns and pixie dust. Too much chemical enhancement as a youth. Good catch.
1st generation Broncos had the straight six as the base engine, and were similar in size to the Bronco II. Perhaps that was the model you so clearly recall.
I had one of these – a 1988 model. The 2.9L V6 suffered badly from overheating and engine knock. Apparently this was not an uncommon issue. Felt quite tipsy especially with the strong cross winds we get here. My wife almost flipped ours after passing a semi.
Well, at least you looked good driving in it. Handsome yuppie family car du jour…
Still looks pretty good even today with the EB trim.
I had one as a company car. It had been rolled on its side and the owner had fixed it.
It had its faults. But what a fun car to drive. I really enjoyed my time in the little Bronco.
Really, selling such a short, high vehicle with a swing-axle FRONT suspension borders on negligence. The fact that no other manufacturer has ever done this is a good indication it is not a very good design. Heck, with the dynamics of swing-axles, only a madman would put them on any vehicle, especially the front since you are practically asking for rollover events due to the jacking characteristics of the system.
The Bronco II is the scariest vehicle I have ever driven. It just didn’t go down the road very well, needed constant steering corrections and felt, well, like it was going to roll over.
There were loads of these things on Vancouver Island when I was a teenager. Now nary a one. Guess they weren’t considered a keeper.
In this era, wasn’t the twin traction beam suspension a Ford hallmark on their other trucks save for the larger weight class vehicles? I believe your constant steering corrections may have mirrored my own personal observations of the vehicle hopping about should it hit frost heaves or pot holes at speed. If anything, I always attributed that to the short wheelbase, one shorter then the rival GM S10 Blazer. And not to the front suspension.
I must be one of the single exceptions in that I like the vehicle and never had any fears or sensations of rolling over. My own personal gripes revolved around the 2.8 carburated V6 coupled with the EEC-IV computer control system, a one or two year proposition until the EFI came round.
After years of ownership I was surprised to hear of these roll over incidents. Then again, I never explored the upper limits of it’s cornering capabilities…..that was what my 86 Fiero was for! 🙂
Yes, Ford used the Twin I Beam suspension for decades, starting in 1965, for their full-sized trucks as well as the Ranger/Bronco II. Technically it is a swing axle, but the pivot points are so far away, on almost opposite sides, that the actual camber change is fairly limited; a bit more so on the narrower Ranger/Bronco II.
I can’t say with certainty how much difference the Twin I Beam front suspension made in the Bronco II’s handling. I suspect the biggest issue was its very short wheelbase and tall height, along with softer suspension to make it ride civilized.
Sidney Allard sawed Ford axles in half for his race and road cars long before Ford thought of it.
Yeah, but he had the pivot points in the middle, which apparently made them very hairy to drive with the front wheels pointing all over the place.
At least Allards were low slung..
It’s interesting how certain memories stay stuck in your mind.
I test drove a four-speed Bronco II – must have been 1985 or 86.
I have no recollection of the driving experience.
The only thing I remember is that I thought the placement/design and colors of the power window switches was just awful.
Yeah the Ford window/lock switches in that era were hideous. In the Econolines they were placed right where someones knee might actuate them.
I almost bought one of these, because I liked their looks inside and out. After driving one though, I got an extended cab Ranger instead. Actually, I had two Rangers of this era.
What I remember of them is: the automatic transmission and push button transfer case drove me mad. The “aerodynamics” of the truck combined with the gutless engine couldn’t hold overdrive on the interstate.
I found a manual trans model with a lever operated transfer case and that one was loads better. That one lasted about 14 years until the doors rusted off.
One of our neighbors has a Bronco II, probably about a 1985 or so. They’re paranoid enough that I won’t add to the cohort pics…
My ’84 Ranger had the 2.8 V6. As I recall, it stranded me once (died at work) when the coil driver module fried its main transistor. As I recall, I got a spare part and the truck was kind enough to start the next day so I could take it home and swap the part. Access to the distributor was obviously not a priority for the designers… Later on the EEC-IV computer died at home, but that was an easy swap and reliability wasn’t out of line for automotive electronics in the ’80s. (From the standpoint of an electronics engineer–other viewpoints might vary.)
Handling on the long bed 2WD Ranger wasn’t bad, though my wife’s 98 extended cab is considerably better with conventional front suspension. The 4.0 V6 is also much better behaved, without the wear on the valve guides that plagued the 2.8 and 2.9. Apparently getting the heat out of the exhaust side of the heads was a tough challenge after the 2.6 turned into a 2.8 liter. The ’84 was also the last year for carburetors in the V6 Ranger, and it made a trip to the smog inspection station a nerve-wracking experience.
It’s a shame Ford never released the flip-out/removable rear side window option on these. It would have made for a, literally, cool ride.
OTOH, the windows were so large, where would you store them once removed? They likely would have been a handful for one person to remove (let alone two) as well.
http://www.broncoiicorral.com/library/quarter_flip_windows.htm – they had it all figured out, a special strap and tiedown arrangement. It was all there in the manual, so obviously it was all far along in development, *very* far. Wonder what happened!
Almost as mystifying as the blanked out section of the early Taurus service manual for AWD…
Having spent much wheel time in SWB Landrovers 88″ the ride in a Bronco must be similar though a L/R never feels unstable Ive seen the rollover reports on Broncos before but I always guessed some of those crashes must have been off road but maybe not. The Bronco never really showed up here too much competition I guess and no real foothold in any outside US markets, The Exploder was sold here until the Ford Territory was released after that Exploders were seen for what they really are cheap underdeveloped and were withdrawn from the market.
We got the full-size Bronco new for several years in the early-mid 80s, Australian assembled and very expensive. I liked them, still do. There are a few of these smaller Bronco IIs here, but all are LHD imports. Dad had an LR 90, and I agree, it never felt unstable.
Thats interesting I went to Aussie in the early 80s so wouldnt have seen any in NZ and having spent lots of time in the Aussie bush where 4WDs are very common Ive still not seen one, where did they sell them?
I owned a SuperCab 4×4 Ranger with TTB and the extra wheelbase (125″ IIRC) must have made a huge difference as I thought it cornered quite well. Mine was an ’86 with 2.9L fuel-injected engine. I had test driven the S10 and Jeep Comanche and in all respects the Ford was far superior to the 2.8 GM powered trucks. Of course a year later, Jeep introduced the 4.0 straight six and with that the Jeep might have been a more competitive option.
My brother-in-law used to have a Bronco II (about the same year – a 2WD model) and having driven it a few times I can attest to its handling qualities…or lack of, in this case.
The interesting thing about the 2WD Bronco II is that they had a “transfer case”. It was a straight through box without a front output shaft nor a neutral position.
Isn’t that odd. I have to assume that somehow that was cheaper than tooling up a longer drive shaft, although it’s hard to believe.
I was really shocked when I saw it the only time I was under a 2wd Bronco II.I certainly seems that the cost of designing and tooling a new drive shaft would have been quickly recovered vs the added unit cost of the dummy transfer case. On the other hand Ford didn’t sell a lot of them and I don’t think they ever intended to. It wasn’t added until 1986. The even stranger thing is that for it’s final year they aparently decided to use proper 2wd transmissions according to this http://www.broncoiicorral.com/facts.htm
Looks like the Bronco II Chanice Kobolowski (Uncle Buck’s GF) drove in Uncle Buck.
Except hers had the “aero” nose that was added in (I think) ’89. Just watched it recently; I love Buck’s clunker Marquis.
Ah, yes. The clunker Marquis with the “abandoned vehicle” sticker. I can see John Candy’s grin as he waits for it to backfire and shoot out a cloud of black smoke. The huge trunk came in handy later, as I recall.
I realize I may be the only member of the Bronco II fan club, but here’s my story.
I’ve wanted one of the tippy, bouncy beasts since college — a good twenty years ago. After spending three years looking for one, I snagged a 1989 XL model for a paltry $1,500 on Craig’s List last year. The red interior was perfect and the Cabernet Red paint came back after spending three hours with a can of polish. The 2.9 engine, which had 89,000 miles on it, runs absolutely marvelous with none of the valve ticks common on the earlier models.
I put all-terrain tires on the Bronco, got used to the bounce and roll of the ride, and have been using the SUV the way SUVs are meant to be used — engaging the four-wheel drive and attacking pavement-free roads and mountains. So far I’ve taken three 2,000 mile trips to Colorado in the Bronco II: One trip was a climb up to 13,000 feet on the Alpine Loop ; a 300-mile drive across an ice-covered highway in eastern Colorado; and a drive up to a ski area in three feet of snow. The Bronco II ate up the road every time.
I’ve camped inside the Bronco II (I’ve got a cool tent that goes over the tailgate) and trailed a couple of motorcyles across country behind the SUV. And believe it or not, I’ve been getting about 27 mpg on the highway.
Granted, this vehicle is not for everyone. Because it’s tippy, I’ve really never felt safe cruising over 65 mph on the highway — and I’ll take it even slower in gradual turns. But man, it’s a fun vehicle.
Brother had an ’89 Bronco II Sport purchased new, black and silver trim, red interior with a manual transmission, it was a 4 or maybe even a 5 speed,I drove it a few times, nice truck….. but he traded it in in ’91 for an Isuzu Rodeo?!? Oh well……
I have an 84 Ford Bronco 2, and other than the tires needing replaced, and a lot of cosmetic work thanks to the previous owner’s son beating the crap out of it it runs and drives pretty well for being 30 years old.
For those who complain about its handling characteristics…It is a truck not a sports car, it will never handle like a sports car so don’t drive it like one. The whole rollover lies were due to inexperienced people behind the wheel of a box on wheels so to speak. They’re top heavy, and had a narrow wheelbase. When operated correctly they were more stable than people think they were. The rollovers that occured were due to the driver going too fast for conditions, had nothing to do with the design of the vehicle. Hell there are small cars that are involved in rollover crashes every day, no one ever goes about blaming the cars for that. Its all in how the vehicle is driven period.
Small cars involved in rollover crashes everyday? Really?
Care to specify?
Seen plenty of rolled sports cars during my tour of duty in the wrecking yard biz. People will take a car’s forgiving handling nature to a whole another level often enough. Seen a 3000 GT come in looking like it already went through the crusher and a Chrysler 300 where the driver suffered a decapitation.
I’ve had an 87 BII for about eleven years now. I’ve never rolled it, but I’ve been skidding sideways once or twice in winter, tho, plowed up the neighbors’ yard real bad!) In the eleven years I’ve had it, I’ve put ~150,000 miles on it. It’s been a bundle of trouble though. I had to put new pads on the front, new shoes and brake cylinders in the rear, a battery, five headlights, several other bulbs (signal, reverse, license, tail, dash), two flashers, ten wipers, prolly twelve tires, and a heater core. Around the 230,000 mile mark, I had to get a “new” rear driveshaft (junkyard), fuel filter, and valve cover gaskets. Oh, I put a set of spark plugs in about eight years ago. Change the oil once every year or two, and filter. I don’t know how much all that stuff has cost me over the years, but it ain’t cheap! Still beats payments.
It’s showing its age though. The one bumper is starting to rust, and the doors are plenty orange and brown. Indiana winters are harsh on these old metal bodies. I still wouldn’t trade it for anything, and as long as it keeps starting and running, I won’t have to.
Gas mileage is pretty paltry in the city, I don’t think 30 mpg is so bad on the highways though, considering how much you can haul in the back… And It can go 88 mph in fifth gear without too much trouble. Maybe the automatics are a lot weaker though?
I only drove a B2 once (my Uncle’s, to go get burgers at the drive-thru), and don’t remember it feeling tippy, but I do recall the bouncy-jouncy ride due to the short wheelbase.
I owned two Samauri (long story), and drove both ‘vigorously,’ and never once felt unsafe. Both were soft-tops, so maybe a lower CoG? They were fun vehicles, wish I could get another new one today…
An older relative of mine had a loaded Eddie Bauer. I drove it a few times, and really liked it, but did feel the tippiness. I suppose anything would have felt tippy to me as I was driving a decidedly well planted ’72 Pontiac Grandville at the time.
She did eventually roll it. She worked late nights, and returning home in the dark and rain she got too close to the edge of a rural gravel road in a bend in the road. I think my Grandville would have just slid in, but. the Bronco bucked her off. She was lucky to have few injuries considering she landed upside down in water.
Nice Bronco II, I remember a former family friend of ours had a 1986 Ford Bronco II with the 2.9 Liter V6 fuel injection engine and I remember it being a really good vehicle, it’s a shame you don’t see nearly as many of these like you do with the Chevy S-10 Blazer’s/GMC S-15 Jimmy’s of the same era.
So, the reports in Consumer Reports in 1989, weren’t exaggerated.
Always cringed at this pic back then…This one, and the one of the near toppled Suzuki Samurai.
Whoomp! There it is.
Now Swedish magazine Teknikens Värld does the moose test, and finds some vehicles that don’t cut the mustard.
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fs5M8GuvcU
2016 Toyota Hilux pickup
We had a fleet of these things as news cars at the TV station I worked for in Phoenix. Take a corner at 40 and pray.
On the other hand, I dated a woman who had one of these and I had to take evasive action to avoid a deer up around Flagstaff, Arizona. That should have laid the Bronco II right on its side, but it didn’t.
One nifty feature of the B2 was that little piece of rain gutter behind the mega sized back windows. It allowed the use of gutter mounted roof racks that were popular back then. I always thought that the tall side windows ruined the look.
My cousin had one of these. In his less than illustrious driving career he has managed to upend a Ford van, a Datsun,a Ford convertible and a Firebird. If he managed to keep it up right it can’t be that bad !
I remember when these were all over the roads.
I just do not comprehend the depths of lazy tonedeafness that induce an automaker’s marketing department to randomly slap a “II” on a vehicle instead of doing a proper job of naming it. The Plymouth Fury I, Fury II, and Fury III made sense, as they were trim levels increasingly de luxe. Fine. The Lincoln Mark series made sense, as they were sequential versions of a model. Fine. But Bronco II, Mustang II, Chevy II, Citation II…c’mon. Just don’t. It looks and sounds tacky and cheap if (as in these examples) there’s no credible reason for the II to be there.
There is at least a little sense in the Bronco II since it was sold alongside its bigger brother and the Bronco name was widely recognized at the time.
In that same vein, Chevy II for the compact model alongside the full-size Chevy was okay too. And I guess the LTD II followed that same reasoning, even if it ended up being larger than the ’79 LTD.
Mustang II seems like an attempt to attach unnecessary excitement to a car that ended up being worse than the original. And Citation II wasn’t even a new model.
I’m not so sure about the Chevy II since the full size line all had names by the time the II came around. The LTD II was pretty cynical, renaming the mid size car with a familiar full size name in an attempt to counter the newly downsized Impala and Caprice.
But you really have to wonder if GM really thought that they could erase the bad rep the Citation had earned by tacking on a II to a car that looked pretty much exactly like the one w/o the II?
“…[T]he full size line all had names by the time the II came around.”
Absolutely correct, but before that, all Chevy had for cars was the full-size line, the Corvette, and the Corvair, so chances were good if you said you had “a new Chevy,” it was a full-size model, and the same was often true of other makes. Even into the ’70s, the “19XX Chevy” or “19XX Dodge” brochure might not cover the full line of vehicles, but only the full-size models.
In 2001, my brother got a ’94 Toyota 4-Runner, with the famous gasket-eater V6.
Even with a double-wishbone front suspension, that thing was scary in the corners – not helped by the noisy, knobby, off-road tires my brother kept putting on it, as if he ever went off-roading.
The first time he tried to go in deep snow, he got stuck because he couldn’t figure out how to get it in 4-wheel drive!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Best friend’s was metallic brown with manual. Drove it several times and was puzzled by the jerkiness of the clutch take-up, and the overall jitteriness of the ride. Agree, the Eddie Bower trim was purty darn nice, but I would not have tolerated the awful ride and road manners just to sit high above the road…..I still, despite the popularity, and great improvement of SUVs, prefer a sedan any day of the week!
I knew someone who bought one used. He sometimes used it for long road trips, but also for two-track. At the time I liked it a lot, it was agile and very useful on two-track, yet it could eat miles with less fatigue than a CJ.
The fun didn’t last: Every time I saw it more stuff was broken or bodged, more wires hanging below the dash from quick fixes so he could just get to work.
Was the last American car for him. Its compact size was more like an import than what was available domestically at the time, so it served as a transition vehicle, having good handling and agility points but Ford reliability.
I know that saying it was agile sounds inflammatory, but in all the rides I had I never felt it was tippy. I think that dirt-road drivers have different base requirements and sensitivities than hard-road-only drivers do.
I’ll probably be picking up one these off of Craigslist soon. My 2WD Ranger can’t handle much snow. BII’s do fine at stock height with a set of all-terrains. Handling? I’m used to short wheel base trucks. I’m on my second shortie Ranger. It skips a little where we have a train track on a sweeping 45 mph turn. No biggie.
In the 4 years since Paul’s original posting, can any vehicle dynamics experts come up with a convincing explanation of why the short wheelbase affects rollover resistance? I understand that straight line stability is helped by a long wheelbase, but unless it’s due to some transient or variable situation, rollover should just be a function of CG height, lateral acceleration, and track width (assuming tires don’t slide first). Perhaps there’s a secondary effect due to front-end “tuckunder” jacking the CG and narrowing front track simultaneously, but as Paul noted the TTB swing axles are pretty long, so tuckunder/positive camber are pretty minor, and in any case that’s not a function of wheelbase. As I commented back in ’13, my long wheelbase SuperCab Ranger, 4wd with the same Twin TractionBeam suspension, cornered well (and crossed Tioga and other tight Sierra passes many times at speed).
I think I understand what your saying. But, I think wheelbase does play a big part in stability. I remember beating the hell out of my ’76 Cordoba trying to get it to break loose. Took a l-o-n-g time. Longer and lower car. A higher -and shorter- car is just gonna have more of a snap attitude to sudden direction change. A 20 inch change in wheelbase can make a helluva difference.
I think that outside of the lab, a variable or transient situation would be involved in most rollovers; ie people don’t just drive ever-faster in circles until the vehicle tips over.
I’d say the shorter wheelbase means that any movement/slip at either end creates a greater yaw angle, exacerbating any other issue present. Also the shorter wheelbase means that the vehicle will rotate more quickly, which will be an important factor in over-correction type accidents.
Yes. Especially that last sentence. Drive accordingly.
My brother-in-law had a maroon 2WD Bronco II. I drove it once…and that was enough for me. No thanks.