Ford Bronco 2

[tomstractormag]

Has anyone had or have a Bronco2? I am looking at one, V6, 5spd, Great shape. Not sure of year yet. It belongs to my neighbors son (who is camping this weekend so I won't see him til mon). Price is $600.
I was wondering about dependability, mileage, etc.
Thanks. Tom

[HermitJohn]

If I can manage to stay logged in long enough to post.....

Anyway I've owned the Ranger pickup version with same drivetrain for few years now. I am assuming this is 4wd as they did make some 2wd versions of Bronco II.

You dont mention a year and I cant remember when Bronco II changed to slightly bigger Explorer.

Anyway the V6 came in 4 versions during the years this drivetrain was used. The 2.8 in first three or so years. Its what I had up to now (I am at present in the process of shoehorning a 300 straight six into my Ranger). All the power of a 4 cyl, all the fuel economy of a V8. In other words I have time even maintaining 55 to 60 going up slight incline out on hiway. I am usually down in 3rd gear with engine screaming. The 5th gear overdrive is for looks only unless you live in a very flat area. There isnt enough power to ever use 5th gear. Best fuel mileage I ever got was 17 on a long drive. 15 is about par for the course in mixed driving. A full size V8 F150 or full size Bronco will get that and be lot more pleasant to drive in the process.

The 2.9 was Americanized version of the 2.8 with fuel injection. It has more power and you might get 19 or 20mpg tops. These had head problems I believe. Anyway not known as a durable engine. The 2.8 in the early Bronco/Ranger was more durable.

Then they offered the 3.0L out of the Taurus of that period. Unrelated to the 2.8/2.9. Its supposed to be fairly good engine, not hugely powerful but better than the earlier engines.

And finally the 4.0L though I think they only offered it in Explorer and later Rangers not the Bronco II. Its related to the 2.8 and 2.9, but quite a bit more power. Good enough engine and proof you can make a silk purse out of a sows ear with enough money and time, but it is computerized up the wazoo. Again get 21 or 22mpg tops in the heavier weight Explorer with an automatic. But its big enough you can even pull a tandem axle trailer on hiway if you dont let the tail wag the dog.

Would I recommend a Bronco II, not unless you want to re-engineer it with bigger engine like I am doing. Get yourself a small Jeep Wagoneer/Cherokee, same size vehicle but that straight six in it puts the tiny Ford and GM V6s of that era to shame.

[seedspreader]

I've owned a couple of them... great vehicles. A typical 2.9 will have a lifter "tick"... don't worry about it, there is nothing you can do about it and it doesn't shorten the life of the engine. If it's fuel injected it will be the 2.9, I believe 85 was the last year for the 2.8 and carburetor. (Around these parts, they rust away, far before the engines give out). I got 25+ on the highway with my 5 speed.

Typical areas to watch are the rocker panels (for rust) and the area around the rear door just inside the back hatch. The rear doors are fiberglass (due to the rust problems on the big Bronco's). The 4x4 I had, had lockout hubs and was a real nice vehicle off road and in deep snow.

I've owned a couple of them. In fact, if I could buy one in great shape (like you are talking about) I would jump on it in a heartbeat for 600.00

[Beeman]

For $600 you can't really go wrong. I'm not a big fan of them but they're pretty good vehicles. I'm guessing it's a 4wd as most were.

[tomstractormag]

Originally Posted by seedspreader

I've owned a couple of them... great vehicles. A typical 2.9 will have a lifter "tick"... don't worry about it, there is nothing you can do about it and it doesn't shorten the life of the engine. If it's fuel injected it will be the 2.9, I believe 85 was the last year for the 2.8 and carburetor. (Around these parts, they rust away, far before the engines give out). I got 25+ on the highway with my 5 speed.

Typical areas to watch are the rocker panels (for rust) and the area around the rear door just inside the back hatch. The rear doors are fiberglass (due to the rust problems on the big Bronco's). The 4x4 I had, had lockout hubs and was a real nice vehicle off road and in deep snow.

I've owned a couple of them. In fact, if I could buy one in great shape (like you are talking about) I would jump on it in a heartbeat for 600.00

I'm not sure of year or engine yet. Let you know mon evening. I did look underneath and its very clean with really no rust.
It is a 5spd with 4wd and lockout hubs.
Very clean inside. Has A/C and cruise control.
I believe it does have fuel injection (neigbor said his son had to fix a fuel line).
Aluminum wheels, good tires.
Tinted windows.

Tom

[GrannyG]

I had one and it was very dependable. It needed some minor work, so I just drove it up in the driveway and let it sit, bought me a Ford truck. Some guy wanted to buy it but at that time, I would not let it go. Another year went by, the truck sat, and the guy again came to the door, really wanting my Bronco...offered me $2500 for it, so I let him take it. He came by with a loader, I told him it would start, and he kind of looked at me funny, I got in, started it, he laughed, and drove it up on the carrier. He told me he was going to restore it. I sure miss it now. It was so good on gas. I used the 4-wheel drive when I was doing nursing and driving alot out in the boonies to patient's in the country.

[seedspreader]

Very cool, Tom. Like I said, if it were me, I would be all over it.

As far as the "no power" thing, I guess I never really noticed much. But I've never been one to need gobs of power... just enough to get the job done when you need it.

I owned one when we got married, if i get a chance I will scan some pics. I hauled an apache pop-up (all tin/fiberglass, none of that "tent stuff") on our honeymoon. We went from Ohio to Maine, drove through all kinds of mountains (off the highways) and I never really worried about power. BRAKING power was another issue in the mountains... but I used the 5 speed to help with that. If I owned one again, I would probably have electronic trailer brakes in the hills.

On another discussion, I am going to start a new thread... I want to hear from you on it...

[HermitJohn]

As I said I have heard that the 2.9 with fuel injection had noticably more power than the 2.8 carb engines though not lot more. However I really have hard time believing you got 25mpg in a 4wd version. You are first person I've ever run across that claimed such. Dont believe go look at Ranger Station forum. Even the 2wd Rangers with 4cyl of that era didnt really get any better than 25mpg. Matter of fact I have driven friends '91 2wd Ranger with 4cyl-5spd and I swear it has more power than that miserable 2.8 and best it got was 25mpg.

I am not some hotrodder, I just expect a vehicle to at least maintain 55mph on hiway without lot hassle. Struggling on little hills and forcing me down to second on big hills is rediculous. Thats only reason I am replacing the 2.8 in my Ranger with a big six, not looking for drag racing or to haul big load or anything, just dont want to get run over out on hiway. Its dangerous when others are going 80mph and I am having trouble maintaining 55.

Will add that the Ranger brakes are some of best I've ever experienced on a small truck. I've driven S10s and much worse brakes.

[seedspreader]

Don't know what to tell you about the fuel mileage except that the updated .gov site (with all standards changed to 2008 standards) says it can get 21 MPG on the highway.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/noframes/5179.shtml

Those new standards also say that the the Prius only gets 48, and yet I see and read all kinds of folks (even here) who get far better.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/noframes/24882.shtml

I ain't arguing a bit about the 2.8. It was a horrible engine. The 2.9 is really a totally different (and better) engine though.

I also get (regularly) 25 MPG in my aerostar... which is rated at 22 HWY. I actually get about 21.5 for all around miles (around here, because there are long stretches of road with no stopping) and around 19 in the city. It's an automatic though.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/12347.shtml

[seedspreader]

Here's another guy who isn't getting that kind of mileage also:

Many one litre sport bikes will only return about 25 MPG and that's if you don't crank them. And how many sport bikes are used for sober, laid-back cruising? 25 MPG for an engine that only has to propel two wheels and one person down a highway is inexcusable. My rusty old Bronco II SUV has a 2.9L V6 and I'm getting exactly 27.5 miles per US gallon of unleaded regular. There's enough metal in my Bronco to make at least a dozen motorcycles. So why are bikes such gas-hogs?

http://hubpages.com/hub/_Could_MPG_A..._A_250_Cruiser

Here is another...

dozerama (February 29 2008 10:37 AM)

The problem is that people want big powerful engines, great fuel economy, and yet a small price tag. If only we the people(in general) would allow for small engines and small amounts of power, we could see great fuel mileage. My old 1986 Ford Bronco II(SUV) with a V6,five-speed, fuel injected, overdrive, I got 25mpg for 5.5 years! Granted, it had only 90 horsepower, but I never minded it. We the people need to get our heads screwed on straight, as do the manufacturers.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6231386/...tdi/index.html

I dunno, maybe I just had a good one...

[Cheribelle]

I loved mine, pulled a trailer load of 36 pallets most days. It was also a 5 speed, if I remember right about 20 mpg. Also pulled a boat regularly.

[Quint]

I've owned two of them. The first one had a 2.9 in it. Engine was anemic but got pretty good mileage. Mid 20s if I remember right. I didn't have it too long though. I had to maneuver on the highway to avoid an accident and the wheels caught on the pavement at the shoulder. I was sliding sideways at a pretty good speed and over she went. Rolled across the highway and into the ditch.

The other bronco II had a 5.0 swapped into it. It was lifted and had different axles in it. The engine had been worked over a bit so mileage wasn't all that great. Scary fast though and had oodles and gobs of power. Excellent off road too since it had lockers front and rear.

They were both awfully small for a person my size. Not enough head or leg room. I liked my fullsize Bronco much better.

[Cheribelle]

So, Quint, you're a big dude, huh? I'm 5' nuthin.....
No leg room troubles here.

[ddrake_pgh]

had an 84 (86?) ranger with the 2.8. It's the only vehicle I ever got rid of with only 85000 miles on it. lously mileage (17), always breaking down. The transmission and the engine were the weak points. three clutches, never changed the oil because it burned so much you just added more. Never expected to get where I wanted to go, just tried to get as close as possible before it broke down again. Did a lot of walking those three years.

2wd was horrible as epected in snow.

I'd definitely pass.

[HermitJohn]

Originally Posted by seedspreader

Here's another guy who isn't getting that kind of mileage also:

http://hubpages.com/hub/_Could_MPG_A..._A_250_Cruiser

Here is another...


http://blogs.motortrend.com/6231386/...tdi/index.html

I dunno, maybe I just had a good one...

i got an 89 ranger with a 2.9l v6 engine in it and im getting like 9-10mpg if im lucky 11mpg. i looked up what its supposed to be getting and it supposed to get around 16-18, i got a k&n air filter on it dual exahaust and just put it in a new map sensor. could someone please tell me what could be wrong with my truck... please!

http://www.fordforums.com/f279/89-ra...e-help-147784/

Thats more of what I've read and at best I've read the 2.9 in perfect conditions driven rationally gets 21mpg or so in a 4wd. It may do better in a 2wd.

The only 4wd vehicles getting real world 25mpg are the minis like Geo Tracker/ Suzuki Sidekick and the toyota RAV4. To get 30mpg in a 4wd, you can get kit to put a turbo VW diesel engine in Suzuki Samurai....... Real 4wds (not talking cars with AWD) just dont get great real world fuel mileage. Though I am not sure why not. I had like a 78 full size Jeep Wagoneer with full time 4wd and 360 V8 with carburetor and automatic (no overdrive) that got real world 16mpg. That vehicle amazed me (wish I still had it) as I'd heard horror stories of full time 4wd gas mileage from that era. My Ranger as I said with 5spd, part time 4wd, little V6, and lot less vehicle weight was doing good to get overall 15mpg and I've had more than a few fillups with 12 to 13mpg.

Ah here is lowdown on the 2.9L:

2.9L Cologne V6 engine

The 2.9L engine replaced the 2.8L in North America for the 1986 model year for the Ford Bronco II and Ford Ranger. Horsepower was increased to 140 HP @ 4600 RPM and 170 ft. lbs torque @ 2600 RPM. Also this was the first fuel injected V6 engine for the Ranger and Bronco II............


Major problems arose with the new block design:

- Cylinder heads were prone to cracking between the valves and the exhaust ports, mostly due to a thinner casting and some confusion on how to purge the cooling system of air. Worst heads were the 1986 and 1987 year of engine. Engines made after 1987 received the 2nd generation heads (1st update) and the castings were considerably thicker, reducing the cracking problem, but not eliminating it completely.

- After 100,000 km's of use, the lifter bores in the engine block wore to the point that they leaked more oil than the lifters could get, especially at low RPM's. This caused the infamous "lifter clatter" that plagued the 2.9L and the later 4.0L OHV engines. The main cause of this was the design of the oiling system for the lifters. They are fed by 2 very small passages notched into the 2nd and 3rd camshaft bearings, and they were designed to supply all the lifters with oil. The passages are only about 2.5mm (1/8" aprox.) in diameter, and not capable of alot of oil flow to the lifters. After so many km's or hours on the engine, even with meticulous oil maintenance, the lifter bores started to leak due to normal wear and tear, and they start to leak. Increasing the oil pressure by modifying the pressure regulator on the pump helps, but only delays the problem. Unfortunately there is no high flow oilpumps availiable for any of the cologne series engines. ......

Much more info but dont want to upset MD with too much quoting.

http://pedia.rangerresource.net/inde...njected_Engine

[Meg Z]

We bought an '88 Bronco II new. 2WD, Power steering. We took that truck everywhere...literally. We took it when we moved to Panama, drove it in heavy mud. Brought it back, drove it in heavy snow. Pulled trailers. My son rolled it on it's side once. I hit another car with it while in Panama, which bent the brush guard in a bit...her trunk was destroyed. (Yes, my fault.) My son got rear-ended in it on the way to school in a heavy storm. Bent the back (pipe) bumper...totalled the camero that hit him. We put well over 200K on that truck.

In all that time, aside from routine maintenance, we had to replace the power steering cable twice, which my husband would still consider routine.

That red Bronco II was recognized far and wide. When my husband hit black ice in it three years ago, and parked it in a tree, we sent out death notices.

Best vehicle we've ever had.

And my dad bought a 1988 Ranger same year. He's still driving it.

Meg

[seedspreader]

Sorry Meg, not possible, the experts say it was a horrible vehicle with a bad engine that got 11 or 12 MPG's.

My parents had a new '88, we went to Florida in that Bronco at least 2 times that I can remember. I was a 6' 5" teenager and rode in the back seat the whole way. My mom (who is short) had her side pulled up and I had all the room I needed. Even got to drive it back up from Florida when I was 17. Loved that Bronco. My sister drove it into a wall at the school where my mom worked. Buckled the brick wall... pushed the bumper just a bit on the bronco. Great vehicle... but like I said, perhaps I've been lucky.

[Honorine]

I've had three of them, two with the 2.8, one with the 2.9. The 2.9 was definitely peppy, it was a stick shift, and yes the heads did crack. I also nearly rolled it more than once, Bronco II's were one of those short wheelbase vehicles that you could roll fairly easily. Out of the 2.8's one was an auto, one a stick, and the engine kept running far longer than the 2.9 did. I preferred a stick, better mileage, more gumption, over 20 mpg with the 2.9. Four wheel drive was fair, heavy snow was a problem, it was a fairly light vehicle for its size. Think the last year they made them was 1990, believe I had a 85, a 86 and an 89. Wouldn't buy one even for $600, had to replace an engine in one once, it wasn't cheap.

[fixer1958]

One of Fords better ideas. It's what the rollover Explorer chassis was based on.
I think I would rather have an STD.

[Junkman]

Buy it, buy it, buy it! I have had 3 Broncos and loved them all. And have been looking for an early one to restore. Now I drive a Subaru Baja and they quit making them. It has served us well, too. I can load the back end with feed, groceries, etc and still have 4 doors for passengers. I had brake trouble with my first one that made me nervous so I traded it in. On my last one the computer was acting up. Jklady