Had Rangers in the past. Thinking about getting a Bronco II. Got questions

[Anthony]

What year Baby Broncos are good/bad and why?
I have read that on 84-85 BII's the tailgate glass opens seperate from the tailgate. I do not want a carb. I also read that 86-87 was the only year for EGR. I would rather not have the EGR system unless someone can tell me something positive for MPG or the fact that it will run better with it.
Do any of these engines have smog pumps, and if so what years? That's another thing I would rather do without unless once again someone can give me a good argument for having one. I also do not want to disable any of the computer or vacuum controlled emission componants.
I have also read that in 1988 the EFI system on the 2.9L got better, and I like the oldschool body style, so it would seem that 1988 would be the best year for me.
The truck would be an every day driver. I have 50mile round trip commute to work 5 days a week when I am working, but I also frequently get sent 300+ miles away from home for work as well. I put over 20k miles on my car in the last 10 months. It would also be used for family trips for me, my girlfriend, and 2 dogs, camping gear and 2 bicycles.
I've used many 4cylinder 4x2 1st Generation Rangers as work trucks, and absolutely loved the EFI trucks with manual everything. I also had a 2000 Ranger 4.0 4x4 which in my opinion was not as good as the old ones as far as reliablility and cheapness to fix. My last Ranger was 1987 2.3L EFI 4x2 no frills truck. Best truck I ever had with over 300k miles ran good and got 21.5mpg. It had good enough power and cruising speed for me.

What is a comfortable cruising speed that doesn't feel like the slightest bump will flip you over, and is not straining the engine too much, and what speed can the engine comfortable go into the wind?
My 2.3L Ranger easily ran 75mph all day long through the wind, and even faster without the wind.

What kind of MPG can expect from a stock truck with a manual transmission?
I saw a window sticker for a 1987 Bronco II automatic and it said 17-22mpg. Is that typical? Without going into detail about my driving habits I will say I always get the higher number, or a little better than what the window sticker advertise. At least on the vehicles that I have seen window stickers for anyways.
Do the chips I have seen advertised on this website actually work? the one's that advertise up to 7mpg better and better power?
Do they just make the engine think the ambient temperature is colder than it actually is?

I have never driven a Ranger with a 2.9L but my dad had a early 90's supercab 4x4 auto with a camper shell and the only real problem he had was the cat untill he hollowed it out, and the automatic transmission went out a few times.

What is the maximum towing weight on a Bronco II?

Did they make Bronco II's with a front bench seat, and if not can one from a supercab ranger be put in?
Did they make BII's with vinyl seats and rubber floors?
I don't want carpet, or cloth interior. I prefer a metal ceiling, or a vinyl headliner.

How good are the Air Conditioners in these trucks and are they good enough to keep the truck cool enough for 2 dogs with all the glass in the back?

Is the power steering noisey like all other Fords on these trucks? If so can a manual steering box from a ranger go right in, and can you do away with the pump and still have AC, or do you have to fabricate some sort of idler pulley?
I actually prefer MS/MB.
What year did they switch to a serpentine belt?

Can the tailgates with the glass that opens be put on the newer BII's?
Does anyone make after market windows for the side that open, or pop out?

Do all these trucks have auto locking hubs?
Is it dificult or expensive to convert to manual locking hubs?

 

[Twister]

Wow, where to start.

Depending on who you ask, all years of the Bronco II's were good trucks. the 84-85 model had the carbed 2.8L, hated by some loved by other for its durability. The rest of the years 86 to 90 all had the Fuel injected 2.9L. In 88 i believe they switched to not having an egr, i could not comment on that further weather it improves the engine or not because i own a 2.8. On the 2.9, if the cooling system is not kept up on, the heads are known to crack, but with a proper cooling system you can avoid this. In 89 with the style change, came an updated set of heads which were less prone to head cracking.

Many will tell you to find a B2 with a manual transmission, the a4ld (which is the auto) has been known to not be the most reliable. Some have had good luck with them and other have had fresh rebuilt ones go out on them. With a manual transmission, and good running 2.9L and the right tires and gearing i have seen people post fuel mileage up to 22-23 mpg.

I do not know the max towing, i have never towed with my Bronco II.

Some bronco II came with a front split 60/40 bench that only sat 2. I do not know if you can swap on a bench from a ranger, someone else would be able to comment on that one.

I have not personally seen a Bronco II with a rubber floor but i think they are available from aftermarket companies. I also do not think they ever came with vinyl seat, all i have seen are cloth. Personally i cant stand anything but cloth seat. Leather and vinyl get hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

I cannot comment on the a/c, my trucks a/c does not work and i have only been in one other bronco II and that trucks a/c did not work either.

I do not believe that all the ps on these trucks is noisy, the other one i have driven did not have noisy steering, neither does the 2 other fords my family owns.

I am pretty sure you can swap tail gates from all years and mix and match. I could be wrong with the 2nd gens fitting on the first but i think they will. I do not believe any company has made and after market back windows for our trucks.

Not all truck came with automatic hubs. The automatic hubs are not bad for a daily driver that only uses them 3-4 times a year. It is not expensive to switch to the manual hubs, all you have to do is find a donor in a junk yard and take all the hardware from that truck. There is a write up about swapping to manual hubs int he tech section.

I hope this helps

 

[Anthony]

Yes, that was very helpful.
My old 87 Ranger had 3.45 gears and originally had 14" wheels, but I put 15"x7" wheels with 3.5" back spacing, and used 215/60R15 which brought the edge of the tires right to the edge of the fenders and made the truck corner alot better. That is probably what I would do with a Bronco II as well, but I think Bronco II's have 3.73 gears? So I may have to go with a little bit bigger tires to get the same ratio.

I have driven myself and 2 others in my old Ranger many times, and I pretty much hope to be able sit 3 people in the front, and my dogs in the back.

I also had an 88 Ranger 2.0 5speed with a carb, and I think the the 88 Ranger had the same, or very simaler ratios as my 2000 Ranger which I know had a Mazda transmission. My 87 Ranger had a Toyo Koygo transmission, and I thought the shift from 1st to 2nd was more smoother and felt more natural than the newer trucks. I have read that an 88 Bronco II could come with one of 3 different 5 speeds, but they are cheap and plentiful enough in junkyards to swap it if I don't like the transmission in the truck.

I think I will eventually buy a Bronco II to replace my 2003 Honda Element.
When it's paid off I figure I could buy a cheap truck, and spend the money to turn it into what I want.

If anyone else has any comments or 2cents to add, or answer any other questions I had please respond. I am just reasearching right now.
Thanks

 

[adsm08]

To address the EGR issue:

EGR is good for emissions and for MPG. It recirculates a small quantity of exhaust gas to keep combustion chamber temps lower than 2500* and to displace a part of the fresh air charge while at cruising speeds so that not as much fuel is needed to maintain speed. The 1st gen Ranger EGR systems were pretty robust and I have never had an issue with mine.

Starting in 88 these functions were achieved by new computer software and a better cat. If you really hate EGR but can find a good deal on an 86 or 87 B2, the EGR system can effectively be deleted by replacing the computer with one from an 88.

 

[Anthony]

To address the EGR issue:

EGR is good for emissions and for MPG. It recirculates a small quantity of exhaust gas to keep combustion chamber temps lower than 2500* and to displace a part of the fresh air charge while at cruising speeds so that not as much fuel is needed to maintain speed. The 1st gen Ranger EGR systems were pretty robust and I have never had an issue with mine.

Starting in 88 these functions were achieved by new computer software and a better cat. If you really hate EGR but can find a good deal on an 86 or 87 B2, the EGR system can effectively be deleted by replacing the computer with one from an 88.

I'm all about cleaner emissions, but is it at the expense of mpg, performance or reliablility? I am not anti EGR, I just know with older vehicles with carbs that I have owned the EGR system was pretty much junk.
So would you say an 87 BII would get better mpg than the same 88 BII?
I did not have a problem with the EGR on my 87 2.3L Ranger after I replaced it and got the rest of the emission equipment working right.
Do you know what a window sticker for an 88 BII claims the mpg is?
An 87 BII with an automatic claims 17-22 on the window sticker.

 

[disciplerocks]

Wow, where to start.

Depending on who you ask, all years of the Bronco II's were good trucks. the 84-85 model had the carbed 2.8L, hated by some loved by other for its durability. The rest of the years 86 to 90 all had the Fuel injected 2.9L. In 88 i believe they switched to not having an egr, i could not comment on that further weather it improves the engine or not because i own a 2.8. On the 2.9, if the cooling system is not kept up on, the heads are known to crack, but with a proper cooling system you can avoid this. In 89 with the style change, came an updated set of heads which were less prone to head cracking.

Many will tell you to find a B2 with a manual transmission, the a4ld (which is the auto) has been known to not be the most reliable. Some have had good luck with them and other have had fresh rebuilt ones go out on them. With a manual transmission, and good running 2.9L and the right tires and gearing i have seen people post fuel mileage up to 22-23 mpg.

I do not know the max towing, i have never towed with my Bronco II.

Some bronco II came with a front split 60/40 bench that only sat 2. I do not know if you can swap on a bench from a ranger, someone else would be able to comment on that one.

I have not personally seen a Bronco II with a rubber floor but i think they are available from aftermarket companies. I also do not think they ever came with vinyl seat, all i have seen are cloth. Personally i cant stand anything but cloth seat. Leather and vinyl get hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

I cannot comment on the a/c, my trucks a/c does not work and i have only been in one other bronco II and that trucks a/c did not work either.

I do not believe that all the ps on these trucks is noisy, the other one i have driven did not have noisy steering, neither does the 2 other fords my family owns.

I am pretty sure you can swap tail gates from all years and mix and match. I could be wrong with the 2nd gens fitting on the first but i think they will. I do not believe any company has made and after market back windows for our trucks.

Not all truck came with automatic hubs. The automatic hubs are not bad for a daily driver that only uses them 3-4 times a year. It is not expensive to switch to the manual hubs, all you have to do is find a donor in a junk yard and take all the hardware from that truck. There is a write up about swapping to manual hubs int he tech section.

I hope this helps

Repped. Glad someone read all of the post. Sorry, but I get distracted easily.

My opinion, buy an 89-90 and swap in a 4.0. And yes the all the hatches swap out. I have one with opening glass on my 89.

 

[Anthony]

Repped. Glad someone read all of the post. Sorry, but I get distracted easily.

My opinion, buy an 89-90 and swap in a 4.0. And yes the all the hatches swap out. I have one with opening glass on my 89.

Why would I want a 4.0? my 2000 Ranger had a 4.0 and got 17.5mpg at best.
Why wouldn't I just get an Exploder or a full sized truck and do nothing to get 17.5mpg?

 

[disciplerocks]

I actually get better gas mileage with my 4.0 than I ever did with the 2.9, as long as I stay off the throttle.

 

[Twister]

Thanks

Putting a 4L in a B2 could yield favorable fuel mileage. With a 4L you do gain the added weight of the engine but it has more power, more power equals less throttle needed to move the truck.

On another forum i visit just about every day, a guy reported 18 mpg in a second gen B2 with a FI 5.0.

 

[Anthony]

I actually get better gas mileage with my 4.0 than I ever did with the 2.9, as long as I stay off the throttle.

I will never do this conversion.
But out of curiosity what is an actual mpg number for both, and what was your set up? Trans, gears, tires?

Thanks

Putting a 4L in a B2 could yield favorable fuel mileage. With a 4L you do gain the added weight of the engine but it has more power, more power equals less throttle needed to move the truck.

On another forum i visit just about about every day, a guy reported 18 mpg in a second gen B2 with a FI 5.0.

I believe that logic to an extent, but more displacement requires more fuel just to do nothing as well.
I don't want to over do it just to have a conversation piece.

 

[adsm08]

So would you say an 87 BII would get better mpg than the same 88 BII?

Well my 88 B2 gets about the same as my 87 Ranger did when it was stock.

Also, I swapped an 88 computer into my 87 after the original got wet. I didn't notice any changes in MPG.

As I said before, the functions of the EGR system were replaced with software calibration upgrades and the better cats.


Also, a lot of improvement can be see in the 2.9's economy by getting a better gear and tire combo. One member here says he got ~26 MPG highway out of his 2.9 Ranger with 4.10 gears and 265/75/15 tires.

 

[Anthony]

Well my 88 B2 gets about the same as my 87 Ranger did when it was stock.

Also, I swapped an 88 computer into my 87 after the original got wet. I didn't notice any changes in MPG.

As I said before, the functions of the EGR system were replaced with software calibration upgrades and the better cats.

Isn't the fuel injection different between 87 and 88? did you switch that as well? Will the 88 computer run the 87 engine just by eliminating the EGR, or will the 87 computer run the 88 engine by adding the EGR?
I am thinking I would probably need an engine with EGR being I would probably have a hollow cat and still need to pass emissions.

Also you said your MPG was about the same. Do you know any actual numbers? Just wondering what you consider "about the same" 20mpg and 21.5mpg about the same?

Also, a lot of improvement can be see in the 2.9's economy by getting a better gear and tire combo. One member here says he got ~26 MPG highway out of his 2.9 Ranger with 4.10 gears and 265/75/15 tires.

Anything better than 25mpg would be great! My Element gets between 21mpg and 24mpg under normal every day circumstances driving 70-90 on the highway with the AC on. I have gotten over 27 on a long highway trips using cruise control, AC and keeping my speed 65mph or less.

I will need to look up the tire and rear ratio on a calculator and see how that compares to my old tires and gears on my 87 Ranger. I was told the set up I had was very economical. I know my 2000 4.0 Ranger had 4.10 gears, but I do not recall the tire size. I know they were 16" wheels and probably around 30"-31" diameter, and like I said earlier that truck got about 17.5 at best.
I can not live with anything worse than 20mpg and don't care to have anything less than 21.5mpg

 

[adsm08]

Isn't the fuel injection different between 87 and 88? did you switch that as well? Will the 88 computer run the 87 engine just by eliminating the EGR, or will the 87 computer run the 88 engine by adding the EGR?
I am thinking I would probably need an engine with EGR being I would probably have a hollow cat and still need to pass emissions.

Also you said your MPG was about the same. Do you know any actual numbers? Just wondering what you consider "about the same" 20mpg and 21.5mpg about the same?

I was regularly seeing 19 MPG in the Ranger when it was "stock" (few minor upgrades and a good tune up). The B2 on the two tanks I've run through it so far pull 18.6 and 18.4 respectively.

An 87 computer can't "run the engine by adding EGR" because the psychical components aren't present. The 88's computer will just ignore the same physical components because it isn't programmed to use them.


Also, and I speak from personal experience, don't hollow your cat. It won't help you with MPG. I went from seeing 20 regularly, occasionally 21 on my Ranger to topping out at 18 after I hollowed the cat. I got that back after I replaced the cat when a large backfire blew the empty shell to pieces. Backfire was caused by a failed O2 sensor. Cats help on FI systems.

The reason that things like EGR and cats hurt the old carb systems is because the engine wasn't designed to run with them in place, they were grafted on later as an after-though. The FI engines, like the 2.9, were designed with these things in mind and so they aren't a hinderance anymore.


If you can't live with anything less than 20, get ready to spend some cash on upgrades. The best I've gotten out of a 2.9 so far is 21.2 MPG. That was one tank, 6.5 years ago, before all this E10 crap, and I drove that tank all highway, a lot of down hill, and with a featherweight foot. Never got above 55.



Now, if you have the budget to go a lot newer, I have a 2010 Escape, 3.0 AWD, that we have put about 13,500 on it. It has yet to get less than 23 MPG, regularly sees 26, and I have gotten 33 instantaneous out of it a few times. And this is with me driving, not my wife. I sometimes think that I'm Mario Andretti. A 2001 to 2007 would probably do the same or better as it is less brick-shaped.

 

[Anthony]

I was regularly seeing 19 MPG in the Ranger when it was stock. The B2 on the two tanks I've run through it so far pull 18.6 and 18.4 respectively.

An 87 computer can't "run the engine by adding EGR" because the psychical components aren't present. The 88's computer will just ignore the same physical components because it isn't programmed to use them.


Also, and I speak from personal experience, don't hollow your cat. It won't help you with MPG. I went from seeing 20 regularly, occasionally 21 on my Ranger to topping out at 18 after I hollowed the cat. I got that back after I replaced the cat when a large backfire blew the empty shell to pieces. Backfire was caused by a failed O2 sensor. Cats help on FI systems.

The reason that things like EGR and cats hurt the old carb systems is because the engine wasn't designed to run with them in place, they were grafted on later as an after-though. The FI engines, like the 2.9, were designed with these things in mind and so they aren't a hinderance anymore.


If you can't live with anything less than 20, get ready to spend some cash on upgrades. The best I've gotten out of a 2.9 so far is 21.2 MPG. That was one tank, 6.5 years ago, before all this E10 crap, and I drove that tank all highway, a lot of down hill, and with a featherweight foot. Never got above 55.

I am a big supporter of technology and not adding straight pipes or over sized exhaust diameter, I just never had any practical applications of my own to prove it. Only my own understanding of things I have learned.
My 87 2.3L Ranger had stock exhaust with a hollow cat, and a glasspack that was the same length and diameter of the OEM muffler. So I probably could have gotten better MPG out of that truck then?

 

[Anthony]

Also, a lot of improvement can be see in the 2.9's economy by getting a better gear and tire combo. One member here says he got ~26 MPG highway out of his 2.9 Ranger with 4.10 gears and 265/75/15 tires.

I just compared this ratio to what I had on my 87 Ranger using this
http://www.rocky-road.com/calculator.html
That is probably a pretty good set up. It is close, just a slightly lower RPM than what I had, which is probably no problem being the 2.9L has more power.

Those tires are about 1/4" taller than the stock tires on my 2000 Ranger (245/75R16) that had 4.10's so once again it is slightly lower RPM.

Actually I could be wrong because I am assuming all of these trucks have the same high gear ratio.

Do you know what stock tire size and stock rear gearing is on a B2?

Now, if you have the budget to go a lot newer, I have a 2010 Escape, 3.0 AWD, that we have put about 13,500 on it. It has yet to get less than 23 MPG, regularly sees 26, and I have gotten 33 instantaneous out of it a few times. And this is with me driving, not my wife. I sometimes think that I'm Mario Andretti. A 2001 to 2007 would probably do the same or better as it is less brick-shaped.

This won't work for me for several reasons.
I don't want a car payment.
Only the el cheapo is availible with a manual trans, which is 4 cylinder 4x2.
I don't want strut suspension. It's ruined too easily and costs too much to replace. That's why I am looking for an older economical truck that is more durable.

As far as driving I don't trust the gauges for MPG I reset my trip counter and check my mileage everytime I get gas. I am very on top of stuff when it comes to finding out something stupid is going on ie; I need an oil change, I need an alignment (even though it doesn't pull) my air filter is dirty. I am very anal about keeping my vehicle running optimumly.
My driving style is about 50/50 Oldman/Nascar