Full size Bronco questions?

[rusty ol ranger]

1-What was the last year for a removable top? Was it 91 or eariler then that?

2- Whats the rough towing capacity of a 302/auto in the 87-91 model years? Im guessing around 5000?

3- How rare are 300 I6 models?

Thanks.

 

[adsm08]

Technically the top could be removed up to 96.

Starting in 92 though the top was secured with security torx bolts, there was a 3rd brake light mounted to the cap, and the rear seat had shoulder belts that had the upper ring mounted to the cap as well, so depending on your local laws and planned usage there may be some legal issues with taking the top off.

No idea what the towing cap is on any of them. Availability of the 300-6 is probably going to be largely a local thing. It will just depend on how many are around.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Technically the top could be removed up to 96.

Starting in 92 though the top was secured with security torx bolts, there was a 3rd brake light mounted to the cap, and the rear seat had shoulder belts that had the upper ring mounted to the cap as well, so depending on your local laws and planned usage there may be some legal issues with taking the top off.

No idea what the towing cap is on any of them. Availability of the 300-6 is probably going to be largely a local thing. It will just depend on how many are around.

Gotcha on the top. And i was curious about the 300 as i have only seen one as i was poking around. Id prefer a 300 over a 302, but would pry aim for a 351 if...hypothetically...i was looking.

 

[racsan]

Dad pulled a 29’ travel trailer with the ‘89 (302 4 speed) and the ‘96 (351 E40D auto) Think it weighs 6,000-7,000 #.

 

[Grumpaw]

In 1989 we had a Bronco with the 302, an XLT. Later that year we bought a 24 foot Coachman travel trailer. I believe the weight was around 5000 lbs, loaded with food, clothing, water, ect.
On flat ground like Fla it did fine, but in any kind of mountains, like No. Ga or the Smokies, it was a slug. Also, while it was adequate on flat roads, at xway speeds, it always felt a bit "squirrely" towing a 24 foot trailer. I would equate that to it's short wheelbase.
Ended up trading it in the next year for a full size F-350 pickup.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Heres my reasoning for asking this question...

Come spring im going to seriously consider selling my massive ass camper i never use....so if i do that ill no longer need a tow rig so my 97 F250 will pry go to.

For some reason ive always had an admiration for FSBs, and seeing as how 78-86s and 92-96s seem to be worth their weight in gold (id rather have a 78/79 with a 400, but good luck finding a driver quality one under10 k). But if i shop outside the rust belt the 87-91s seem to be the redheaded stepchild and can be had in nice shape for 5-6k.

Id still like/need to tow a couple quads on a 16 ft or so car trailer...a bronco should be fine with that id think correct?

I also think the wife would enjoy (i know i would) yanking the top and cruiseing the road or riding the jeep trails up north.

Its not set in stone yet...just an idea ive been kicking around

 

[Grumpaw]

16 foot trailer with your quads will be no problem for a full size Bronco. It's when you get into towing a long/heavy trailer that you run into problems towing with a short wheelbase tow vehicle. It's almost like the tail wagging the dog.
Never had the top off on ours, but I do remember there were soft top conversions for those who removed the hard top. Don't know if there still available.
Just googled em....apparently there still available.

 

[racsan]

Dad always ran a hitch arrangement with spring bars (I forget what they are called) and a sway control on each side, think he would of been better off with a 3/4 ton but he liked the maneuverability of a short wheebase. The 302 did ok but at 90,000 it dropped a valve & lunched the engine, manifolds were cracked from all the hard towing. He had been thinking about a automatic anyhow since his joints couldn’t handle a manual like they used to, Thought the 351 would be a better engine as well. It did do better but at the sacrifice of mpg. With no trailer the 89 302 would do 16, the 96 351 did about 13 at best. Towing neither one was a advantage, the 302 was overworked and the 351 could of used deeper gears, both had 3.55’s The 89 had 235/75/15’s and the 96 ran 31/10.50/15’s. The 96 sat more than it got drove & when he did need it there was always something wrong, brake line here, holes in rear diff cover there- always something. He sold it ‘06 it only had 60,000 miles on it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Im not to worried about any mechanical probltms that might arise seeing as how these years of F series are very familiar.

I was mostly concerned with the short wheelbase towing...as that would be new to me. It would only need to tow the quads a handful of times a year.

Most of my other towing/hauling duties are more then capable of being handled by rusty...so a doing them with an FSB would be nothinh

 

[Grumpaw]

16 foot flatbed with a couple of quads weighs what, maybe 2500 lbs....go for it !!!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

16 foot flatbed with a couple of quads weighs what, maybe 2500 lbs....go for it !!!

Probably closer to 3500-4...either way i think itll be fine, i just didnt know about the length stuff lol.

 

[snoranger]

It will pull the weight no problem. It may even stop the weight, just no where near as good as that F250. But that short wheelbase always feels bouncy when youre towing. Especially when you load the Bronco up with the gear and people who will be riding those quads.

 

[MikeG]

I agree with short wheel base not being a good thing. CJ5s were nearly 'square' and had terrible rollover rates. The BII's were much better, but people evidently didn't know to not drive like idiots. I've had both an Explorer and BII, and the Explorer was much more stable at highway speeds.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

It will pull the weight no problem. It may even stop the weight, just no where near as good as that F250. But that short wheelbase always feels bouncy when youre towing. Especially when you load the Bronco up with the gear and people who will be riding those quads.

I dont expect it to tow anywhere near like my F250. It never has a concern with anything ive hitched behind it. The shortest wheelbase id ever towed with was probably my expedition....and that was even considerably longer then a bronco. Why i asked lol.

I agree with short wheel base not being a good thing. CJ5s were nearly 'square' and had terrible rollover rates. The BII's were much better, but people evidently didn't know to not drive like idiots. I've had both an Explorer and BII, and the Explorer was much more stable at highway speeds.

Im not worried about rollovers. I wont drive it like a foxbody lol

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Selling a camper... removing the roof... you would be 2/3 of the way to being really really cool.