post anything about old full size broncos

[john keyes]

seems to be alot of old full size broncos for sale.  I've looked at a couple.  my kids are still small enough to enjoy riding in the back and climbing in and out.  I'm worried about the front transaxle more than anything.  never had a 4x4 before and its gonna be a whole different ball game than some control arms, spindles, link and tie rods.  and a whole lot more $.   plus its gonna be in 2WD like 100% of the time. I live in the suburbs and use a four wheeler out at my deer lease.  so not needing 4WD I"m lugging a lot of extra freewheeling weight. 

so I don't know, all the sudden I  just want one.  I like the idea of having a "truck" that I can have some gear riding in dry storage.

[Graybeard]

Not sure how old you are talking about. I bought a new '85 and '88 and a slightly used '92 which I drove longer than the others. My '85 was as perfect a vehicle as you could ask for but didn't get great gas mileage of course it had the high performance 351 engine. I traded it on the '88 with fuel injection and 5.0 L engine and picked up perhaps a couple mpg but no more and lost performance.

The '92 also had the 5.0 L engine and four speed auto tranny. The '88 had a three speed auto tranny. I got around 16.5 mph on the '92 until I quit keeping up with the mileage after 30,000 or so miles.

I'd love to get another if I could find one not needing a lot of work but realistically I can't afford another truck rat now. If I could get one tho it would be a '92 or newer and I'd love a '95 or '96 which were the last two years they were made.

I drove the '92 from May of '95 until I bought my 2004 Toyota Tundra then Matt bought it from me and drove it a good while. He sold it back to the same guy I bought it from and got I think the same amount for it that he paid me when I sold it to him.

[Lloyd Smale]

im kind of with bill. I have more experince with the full sized blazers but the answer would be the same. They both suck gas! If you dont need the 4x4 abilitys its kind of silly to pay the gas bill for nothing.

[bigbird09]

at least ford and the older burbans have lock out hubs so your not spinning the entire front axle saving you some fuel.  We had a 87 F-150(ya I know not about bronco's but I wanna share my story)  that had a 351 Windsor and a c6 3 speed auto (no overdrive)  it was  4wheel drive and it got about 8 miles to the gallon on a good day,  I miss that truck.  Really the 351 is prolly one of the best motors for a light pick up and even in the full sized broncos,  Fuel injection makes them even better.  One of the best trannys that ford had was the c6,  it was capable of over 1000hp with no modifications.  The one in our truck had been run dry 2 or 3 times,  we filled it back up and it worked like nothing had happened.

[scootrd]

Love the old Full size Bronco's . When I was younger I use to scuba dive alot. they were perfect for hauling Tanks and gear.  I use to almost live outta the back of that Rig.

After I got married , other priorities. So gear was sold and eventually Bronco sold.  

Dont so much miss the single Diving lifestyle anymore (Got a great gal in the trade
.... But I do still miss my old Bronco occasionally.  

[pmeisel]

I had 3 over the years, one each in 300 six, 302, 351.

They are great and if you are mechanical you can keep them running about forever.  Things do wear out but parts are around....

Who cares about gas mileage when you drive 100 miles a week?

[bigbird09]

I wish i only drive 100 miles a week.  I would try to talk my step dad into letting me take the f-250, lol.  I average around 250 miles a week,  and that is just between home and school.

[hillbill]

there must be sumpin about those old broncos. a buddy of mine had a late 80's one and its been stolen twice, once in front of the local bar and once right off a jobsight.both times it was right there with a bunch of other stuff that had the keys in them.he is still drivein it today.

[cwlongshot]

Well I have had a couple too... They have gone thru quite a transition thru the years.

First they where LITTLE!! From the 1966 thru the 1974 model they where small with solid axles and a 289 or 302 V8 engines.

Then in 1975 they grew up!! Stayed with that style untill 1976 when minor changes came with the 1977-79 year. Changed again in 1979, Like twin traction indipendendent front suspention and a solid rear axle. Then another style change came in 1996 until it was discontinued. Also in 1984/5 they brought out the Bronco II !!!

BTW they never had control arms or a transaxle. They have (depending on years) a solid axle with coil springs or twin traction beams (Indipendent suspention) with coils and same The "control arms" are actually single radius arms. Quite different, but do the same or simular things.

They all have conventionally mounted engine and transmittion with a transfer case and two drive shafts. They will all work just fine in 2WD. They will shift on the fly into 4WD at around town road speeds. Some models have hubs to engage, some newer models have automattic hubs. Newest trucks and electronic shifting with most others have a T case shift lever on the trans hump in the cab.

Not that we dont have knoledgable people here, but there is a world on information alalible at one of the many ford/Bronco forums for these great trucks...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=2&oq=ford+bronco+forums&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS336US337&q=ford+bronco+forums

CW

[scootrd]

1968 was a very good year





Of Course 1973 not so bad either

[hillbill]

1968 was a very good year





Of Course 1973 not so bad either

what motors did those old bronchos come with?im curious if they came with a straight 6.those are my fav motors

[Hooker]

66 to 77 broncos came with inline sixes and V8s. I'm not sure if they had the 300 six but the V8s were 289s in the earlier models and later I think 68 they came with 302s.
Mine is a 79 which is the big Bronco 78-79 shared the same body style they still had the solid front axle and were only available with 351m and 400 v8 engines.



Pat

[Empty Quiver]

They cannot pass a gas station.  If you are not mechanically inclined be wary, if you have not worked with carbs be wary. If you will have to drive this as a commuter run away. The ride is very choppy. A truck will pull a trailer much better, actually will do most things better. A truck will never be a Bronco though.

If however you enjoy tinkering and have the intention of mods to engine and drivetrain, jump right in the water is muddy. Avoid the independant front suspension. Make sure it has a C6 and a 351m/400m mill. Immediatly dump the 351 and step up to a fresh 460. Very lightly tuned a 460 will do anything the 400 could do with plenty of mods. Don't waste much money on the M motors without investigating a 460 swap. Parts are available but not as readily accesable as you might wish. Finding someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to pre computer autos is harder than you think. You better have the chops to do your own diagnosis or be financially prepared to learn.

These are old trucks, and finding one that hasn't been abused is expensive enough to warrent a much newer ride. Especially if all you want is basic transportation to hunting camp.

Yea I can be a wet blanket.

[bigbird09]

They will shift on the fly into 4WD at around town road speeds

This isn't entirely true.  If you are locking in the hubs, then you will need to stop to do so.  Once engaged then yes you can shift in and out of 2h and 4h at any time.

On another note I would take a 351 over a 460 just about any time,  unless I was building some stupid sized mud truck then I might drop for the 460.  Our '87 f150 had a 351 back by a c6 and it didn't have any problem hauling a bed full of wood through the woods or down the road, except when it met a fuel station,  6 mpg was bad enough.

[cwlongshot]

They will shift on the fly into 4WD at around town road speeds.

This isn't entirely true.  If you are locking in the hubs, then you will need to stop to do so.  Once engaged then yes you can shift in and out of 2h and 4h at any time.

But of coarse the hubs would need to be first engaged. As stated, you cannot get 4WD with out first engaging the hubs... On early models manual hubs where standard equipment and an option on later models. (Later models had automatically locking hubs standard.)

Just to be clear, shifting into LO RANGE you should only be done if completely stopped or barely barely moving forward.

CW

[bigbird09]

yep,  our f-150 had auto lockout and they were the biggest PITA,  we eventually swapped then for manuals and life was so much better,  except if you didn't plan ahead you had to get out in the mud hole to lock in the hubs, lol.

[Empty Quiver]

They will shift on the fly into 4WD at around town road speeds

This isn't entirely true.  If you are locking in the hubs, then you will need to stop to do so.  Once engaged then yes you can shift in and out of 2h and 4h at any time.

On another note I would take a 351 over a 460 just about any time,  unless I was building some stupid sized mud truck then I might drop for the 460.  Our '87 f150 had a 351 back by a c6 and it didn't have any problem hauling a bed full of wood through the woods or down the road, except when it met a fuel station,  6 mpg was bad enough.

The 351m was a very inefficient engine as it came out of the factory. Timed and tuned only for emissions compliance fuel milage and power suffered terribly. Given lousy mileage and low power why not go ahead and get awesome power and poor milage. The 460 will never work hard and still get 8 - 10 mpg towing a boat or sailing over a cliff same as your 351. But if six plugs foul and you still need to pull stumps go right ahead.

A 300 I six would be my first choice truth be told. I'm past power at this point in life. Less stuff breaks with patience and liberal application of brains rather than brawn.

[bigbird09]

Not gonna lie, not to sure what you mean by 351m,  the only 3 351's I know of are the 351 Windsor, the 351 cleveland and the lightning,  ours had the windsor and it wasn't a slouch by any means,  before we got it, it hauled pallets of seed and pulled tandem anhydrous tanks around on a farm for years.

[Empty Quiver]

Not gonna lie, not to sure what you mean by 351m,  the only 3 351's I know of are the 351 Windsor, the 351 cleveland and the lightning,  ours had the windsor and it wasn't a slouch by any means,  before we got it, it hauled pallets of seed and pulled tandem anhydrous tanks around on a farm for years.

The 351 M was in service after the 351Cleveland, it was a bigblock design whereas the Winsor was a long stroked 302 type engine.  It lost the big valves of the Cleveland among other things.

The major thing in my mind is this. A small block Ford nor an FE block Ford will not bolt up to a trans intended for the M motors or the 460.

[scootrd]

I'm past power at this point in life. Less stuff breaks with patience and liberal application of brains rather than brawn.

Great statement,

But I got there reluctantly , this holds true for the human body as well , the older I get the more ways I need to figure out how to accomplish the same feats I did when I was younger with less muscle and more thought. Thank God for the Lever , Fulcrum and pulley

Heres a good link on the 351m

http://www.ford-trucks.com/article/idx/0/104/article/High_Performance_Options_for_the_351M400_Engine.html

[pmeisel]

300 six was a great motor.  I had broncos with all 3 (300, 302, 351) and liked it best....

[scootrd]

I gotta stop reading this thread. makes me want to go looking to purchase a old Bronco again.