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.
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.
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment