Ford teases the new Bronco

[85_Ranger4x4]

The mileage/power are the 460s only good points, both od mine have been nightmares for reliabilty.

Id prefer a coyote over an ecoboost, but eh. Neither engine is better enough over a 460 for me to put up with all the other shit about modern trucks that drives me nuts..

 

[wildbill23c]

Everyone bitches about the 460s mileage, the 2 ive had (one currently) always got 13 or so. Towing my 32 ft travel trailer i get 8 or so. But really, ive never had a fullsize ford get more then 13 or 14, from a low of 7 empty (78 F350 dually with a slightly massaged 400, a T18 4sp, and a 4.30 rear) to 14 (79 F100 with a 351W/C6/and some stupid high 2.xx gear)

Really, even the modern gas 3/4tons are averaging 15 or so.

As far as the crumple zones, you nailed it. Its like a 2x4 smashing into a roll of toilet paper, the TP is smashed into oblivion, while cushioning both itself and the 2x4, leaving the 2x4 to support another day.

Now, if you plow a tree, then yes crumple zones are nice.

No bitching at all just saying the mileage they get...they were built to work all day long every day not to be a mall crawler.

I laugh when they talk about the fuel economy in new trucks...sure they may get in the high teens and low 20's when not loaded but they get worse fuel economy than my 460 did when they try actually tow anything...why? Because they are asking 1/2 an engine to do the work of a full size engine...once those turbos kick in the fuel gauge starts racing the speedometer.

I'll keep my older stuff that may or may not be impacted in a wreck, over buying a new plastic car that will disintegrate in a wreck, or the steering wheel falls off, gas tank falls off, brakes don't work, can't figure out a simple automatic transmission shifter and cause their vehicle to roll out of their driveway and over the top of them...there's a reason Darwin exists...he's just not working fast enough.

As for 4x4's in the ditch, I pulled a few people out over the years but usually especially now I just keep going that's what they pay all that insurance money for they can call a wrecker...too much liability in recovering vehicles especially on many of the roads where I live where people seem to think driving the posted speed limit on ice is a great idea. Usually I just use the 4WD to get going from icy intersections, but this past winter I never used the 4WD at all with the new tires, previous winter I just had the all season tires on the Bronco 2 and it didn't have quite the grip to get moving so with the new tires I got them siped and thought about having them studded but don't feel like buying 2 sets of tires especially if the next several winters are going to be like this one, not enough snow to need them. I got the Blizacks this winter, didn't even need them . This winter was way too boring for lack of snow. Last winter we had 2 feet of snow, talk about fun .

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

So, I talked to my colleagues in Campinas, Brazil about the Troller:

As luck would have it he is off roader with Toyota J4, and knows the competition (he could also translate the Portuguese website to English for me). Very popular in Brazil as it is a domestic design.

While the original T4 had a removable hardtop; the current version just has a moon roof. But of interest; the rear door (hatch) can be ordered either side opening or top opening. And the rear seating changes slightly depending which option you order.

Rear seating is said to be for 3 but you better be really friendly for that.

He gave the manual good marks (1st is 5.44:1) but differentials have 3.31 gears, so gear swaps to run better rubber are common - stock Pirelli ATR aren't much for off road.

Troller T4 has 2,400kg (almost 5,300lbs) towing capacity down there!

Troller also teased a Troller 4 door - think Wrangler Unlimited.

The Troller pickup was a dud...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troller_Pantanal

77 made, I can see why it flopped even without the frame breaking.

The T4 thing is sure intriguing. Has a D44 which is what the US Ranger is rumored to have. BW1352 t-case which oddly fits in the middle of the previous BW1350 and BW1354 tcases

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Whats confusing about it?

Both my 460s spent more time in the shop then on the road.

The EB/Coyote engines would dont offer enough benifit over my old 460 for me to want to put up with the general stupidity of any F150 built after 2011.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Whats confusing about it?

Both my 460s spent more time in the shop then on the road.

The EB/Coyote engines would dont offer enough benifit over my old 460 for me to want to put up with the general stupidity of any F150 built after 2011.

Aside from the possibility of increased reliability?

And an '11 is basically the same truck as an '09 but with a better engine.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Aside from the possibility of increased reliability?

And an '11 is basically the same truck as an '09 but with a better engine.

Shit, i forgot that 09 was the first year of that style.

Either way, i usually have good luck with older stuff as far as reliabilty. My 97 being the exception, but that was my fault, i figured at 62k miles the last thing id have to worry about would be engine parts.

But, usually when i buy something old, i spend about 2 months feeling it out, replace what needs to be replaced, anf keep on truckin.

Besides rusty #1, my 77 has been by far the most reliable vehicle ive ever owned, including the 08 colorado i bought new. My wifes 2010 escape (bought in 12 at 48,000mi) has also been a problem child.

I have no idea why, but it seems like everytime i get something recent it treats me badly. Its just been my findings, maybe im more forgiving of the older ones, i dont know.

But the 400 or 500 bucks i save a month in payments, go a long ways towards repairs if so needed, not to mention rolling around in something i actually like.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

What about that new Bronco they say is coming ?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

What about that new Bronco they say is coming ?

It should be pretty cool as long as they keep it somewhat true to the bronco tradition and not make it some Escapeish cute ute with full independent suspension that they slap low range into and try to pass it off as wrangler competition.

And yes, i caught the sarcasm that seems to ooze from all your posts, but i chose to ignore it.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

It should be pretty cool as long as they keep it somewhat true to the bronco tradition and not make it some Escapeish cute ute with full independent suspension that they slap low range into and try to pass it off as wrangler competition.

And yes, i caught the sarcasm that seems to ooze from all your posts, but i chose to ignore it.

Isn't sarcasm what keeps most of these dreamy type threads going ? It's mostly just fantasy, whining, and just a lil schizophrenia.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Isn't sarcasm what keeps most of these dreamy type threads going ? It's mostly just fantasy, whining, and just a lil schizophrenia.

I....cant even argue with that one.

 

[bobbywalter]

Over and out.

i could not tell you how many deer i have hit with my ranger....still have the oem fenders...well whats left of them

1st gens are tough as nails



you realize we have all the crash test data.....like a 100 years worth right?

Find me crash test data on a 1918 Stanley Steemer, ill be waiting

a 70's ford pickup.....well the driver of a 70 whatever ford pickup dont stand a chance in a head on wreck with a 2018 pickup..depending on the hit....the 09 impala would likely kill the driver in the pickup as well...

Likely at any speed of over 45 between two pickups, neither guy is walking away. Against an impala, the trucks higher ride height will hit above its "crumple zones" into the butter soft body, the impala driver more then likely takes a I beam to the head and the driver of the dentside is at the bar that night


a 1 ton pickup from 79 dont stand a chance in outdoing anything from a 1/2 ton today.
except it weighs less then one of these new units.

A 79 F350 came in GVWR ratings of up to 10,000 lbs, with new 1/2 tons being considerably lower on rating, and a good 1000 lbs or so heavier, its not happening. Not to mention its a royal bitch trying to get enough to even overload a courier in a 5.5 ft bed. Towing wise, a properly equipped 79 F350 was capable of 13k IIRC, on a 5th wheel, so close 150s, but no cigar.

my 460's tended to get 10 or less. and they could tow better then anything for that time....13 mpg with a 460 that makes ok power is awesome and i would keep that around myself vs spending coin on something that is harder to repair. hell town cruisin a 302 ranger could result in 10 or less driving hard.

The mileage/power are the 460s only good points, both od mine have been nightmares for reliabilty

but if it is truck replacement time.... i would take a ecoboost 150 over a big block anything for a daily driver and tow rig.

Id prefer a coyote over an ecoboost, but eh. Neither engine is better enough over a 460 for me to put up with all the other shit about modern trucks that drives me nuts.

all that said....my ideal pickup would be a 79 ford crew cab 4x4 with a cummins p pump 24 valve and a hand shaker with killer ac for summer cruising... when/if i end up with a old ford like that...it will have a modern powerplant gas or diesel...

To each their own. Modern engines are way to over engineered for what little benifit they come up with. I gurantee there isnt a load out there an ecoboost would handle that a old 400/460 wouldnt. It might not do it as fast, or get as good of MPGs, but time is the one thing youll never miss when its gone, and gas is cheap. Besides, if youre moving that kind of weight, theres no need to get in a hurry
.

how about a crosely or a duesenburg? not too familiar with the stanely steamer. when i say crash test data...i mean manufacturer reported data.....barrier testing with what is left of the companies...big 3 anyway started in the 30's. and the formal stuff we have now i dont thing came about till the late 50's... guess its a google item



dont agree about the impala...it would flip the truck. 45 mph is fairly survivable these days. unless your in a vehicle like mine....then your fawked.




your sure about the 350 from 79 being a stronger truck...its max is rated 100 pounds more i guess on gcvw. so technically....your right. the gvw is only 7850... but it rides like a couch.

for payload, the 350 is a monster....they could be 5500 pounds some years where the current 150 is 3300. that is a big win. regardless of the chassis on the 150 being stronger..it wont have the buck board springs.. win for the 79.

getting to the 13200 plus towing is a trick just like the old trucks though. i was looking at some literature at jbg during a bronco deal and the max gcvw was actually lower then the 150 that towed the eb out. but that was 4wd to 4wd...i would not own a 2wd unless it was a sunday cruiser. that was a couple years ago.

the old 79 according to the book from the time it was built ...in 2wd auto was 15k to 18.5k...so i guess as equipped i would need to get the truck weight actual on that package....all i remember is the 15 and 18.5 max numbers... and i think the 4x4 150 was 15,s not quite 16 k.

so yeah....stock to stock, i will take the 150 and put bags on it. maybe a full float axle if i were planning to tow often.




i agree, the 5.0 coyote is the engine to get if a guy was gonna keep the truck past 4 years or 200k miles. fawk all the gdi turbo shit if your planning on keeping it 20 years.






you are a walking paradox. i base reliability as the top priority.


obviously unless the shop is your garage and the reason the ol 460 is in there all the time is your thinking your hearing a miss and it is bugging you...

a new 150 would serve you better.....these bronco's....might want to wait a few years and let these guys find out.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

This 97 460 i got has just been bad because at some point, some overheated the piss out of it, prolly numerous times, and traded it off once they realized they screwed it up, and me, losing my mind over a super clean OBS low mileage big block (im not a diesel guy), didnt check it over like i should have. Now that the whole thing is more less rebuilt its a damn good truck.

The 89 i had had a 78 460 from a lincoln (i believe), it burned oil/coolant at an alarming rate and i just offed it because i was sick of it.

I could get by with a New 150, yes, but it wouldnt be as nice on my wallet. Plus, like i said, there are way to many things about them i cant stand. I guess what im saying is why would i spend that much on a truck that, to me, is uglier, less comfortable, harder to work on, etc then my 97 is juat to have roughly the same capabilities (on paper anyways, i think real world the 97 would do more, but thats just an opinion). Just so i can get 18-20 mpg instead of 10-13? So i can run 80 on the freeway towing my camper without worrying about RPM? (A 460 in 3rd with 4.10s screams at 65+), its not worth it to me.

If i live long enough to replace my 97, the only "modern" trucks id look at would be superduties, Just because its eaiser to find a 8ft bed and they have a real front end under them. You live in MI, you know how big the holes can get, how crappy the dirt roads can be, this is another reason i have stuck with I beam/solid axle stuff. The expys i had were in constant need of ball joints, tie rods, alingment, etc.

I had a 78 F350 dually. That thing would carry so much it was ridiculious. IIRC it had 13springs+2 overloads, but yes if you hit RR tracks to hard youd be shittin your kidneys out at the next gas station that you had to stop at cause it got 6mpg. But, i like my trucks to ride rough and handle vauge. Its just me.

I know the older trucks (spicially in the 70s) had low tow ratings, but i often wonder how much of that was because trailer brakes/brake controllers were so primitive or non existiant.

My camper is 32ftlong and 7000-7200lbs andnhas the aero of cabover semi. My 77 with its wheezing 400 and crazy 3,07 gear handled it pretty decent, had i put a 3.73 in it like i was planning it would done great. But ford reccomended no more then 3000--3500lbs with a 400/3.07. However, without trailer brakes, it wont stop it. But the truck itself could of handled much, much more.

As far as priorites go, im much more likely to keep a vehicle i like that is less then reliable (My 97) then one thats reliab,e that i cant stand (my wifes escape), and every now and again i get one i like that is also reliable (my 77).

When i buy a vehicle i buy based on price, and what i like. Everything else can be fixed.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

8' bed F150's are easy to find as are 8' bed Superduties. If you don't find the one you want, you can order it. You can still get pretty plain jane XL trucks with crank windows and am/fm radios. 6 speed tranny with 6.2 gas and 4.30:1 rearend if that's what you want. Even plain steel wheels.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

8' bed F150's are easy to find as are 8' bed Superduties. If you don't find the one you want, you can order it. You can still get pretty plain jane XL trucks with crank windows and am/fm radios. 6 speed tranny with 6.2 gas and 4.30:1 rearend if that's what you want. Even plain steel wheels.

Yes, but thats if you buy new. Im not spending 40k on a truck. Ill pinch a penny till it shits a dime. I was talking in the 2-5yr old used market.

If i bought brand new thru special order, as much as im not a diesel fan, itd be a stripper ram aith a cummins/6sp

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yes, but thats if you buy new. Im not spending 40k on a truck. Ill pinch a penny till it shits a dime. I was talking in the 2-5yr old used market.

If i bought brand new thru special order, as much as im not a diesel fan, itd be a stripper ram aith a cummins/6sp

Piles of well maintained 5yo 100k mile fleet trucks out there.