Ford vs The Competition Technical discussion and comparison ONLY. Trolls will not be tolerated.

78 bronco vs 78 blazer

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #16  
Old 04-19-2008, 09:15 PM
78_f800crewcab4x4's Avatar
78_f800crewcab4x4
78_f800crewcab4x4 is offline
Cargo Master
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 0
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Originally Posted by scottman70
You gotta be kidding me??? 1978? They both sucked big time! Was any vehicle in 1978 any good! They were both junk in my opinion as well as any 1978 Dodge Ram charger. 1978 were dark crappy days in car history! 1972-1983 were horrible years for vehicles! In 1975 the CAT was added and hp levels took a crap from there until well into the 80's. If I had to pick one I'd take the Blazer cuz of it's 7 inches of ground clearance and that small block 350 & 400 4 barrel with the turbo 400 trans was bullet proof!!! But the engines in 1978 were de-tuned pathetic weak dogs for their cubic inches!

1978 Blazer Specs:

http://www.coloradok5.com/brochures/1978/blazer8.jpg

1978 Bronco Specs:

1978 Bronco Dealer Brochure | bronco.com
wow, what an ***hole, you must be real smart.
 
  #17  
Old 04-19-2008, 10:38 PM
scottman70's Avatar
scottman70
scottman70 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 78_f800crewcab4x4
wow, what an ***hole, you must be real smart.
Well at least I can stay on topic and offer up some valid info regarding the thread. Cheer up ya grump!
 
  #18  
Old 04-19-2008, 10:43 PM
Krochus's Avatar
Krochus
Krochus is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma Arkansas
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I gotta agree that excluding a really nice jeep that there isn't a Domestic vehicle made between 1974 and 1985 that I would walk much farther than across the street for if free. They don't refer to this automotive era as "the malaise' for nothing. Wasn't 1978 the infamous year that Ford recalled more vehicles than they made.

Well at least I can stay on topic and offer up some valid info regarding the thread. Cheer up ya grump!
I think the OP was hoping for a couple pages worth of mindless pat on the back generic Ford good Chevy bad responses.
 
  #19  
Old 04-19-2008, 10:53 PM
scottman70's Avatar
scottman70
scottman70 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agreed.....
 
  #20  
Old 04-19-2008, 11:28 PM
78_f800crewcab4x4's Avatar
78_f800crewcab4x4
78_f800crewcab4x4 is offline
Cargo Master
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 0
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
you think there is a forum on here for 73-79 ford trucks because they are crap? they are very popular, and to come on here talking trash like you actually know anything about the old trucks is very inconsiderate. there are sponcers on here that make alot of money selling restoration parts for these. i wasn't asking excursion owners what they think pal, i was asking ppl who actually own the topic of conversation. everyone in here is now dumber for having read your comment. have a nice day, no hard feelings. lol
 
  #21  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:04 AM
scottman70's Avatar
scottman70
scottman70 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
  #22  
Old 04-20-2008, 09:40 AM
Krochus's Avatar
Krochus
Krochus is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma Arkansas
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
you think there is a forum on here for 73-79 ford trucks because they are crap?
Whoppidey doo! They have a forum good for them, I bet I can find an online forum for 80's chrysler corp K cars does that mean they are really great autos.


Here I'll give it a shot in my best 93RangerXL4x2 voice

AHEM!

Ford superduty 96,000 lbs job site crap tundra teh broken axle ugly on week frames blazer crap bronco awesome backing up a snowy hill.

There feel better?
 
  #23  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:06 PM
sglaine's Avatar
sglaine
sglaine is offline
Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Where Critters Are Free
Posts: 32,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Krochus
Whoppidey doo! They have a forum good for them, I bet I can find an online forum for 80's chrysler corp K cars does that mean they are really great autos.


Here I'll give it a shot in my best 93RangerXL4x2 voice

AHEM!

Ford superduty 96,000 lbs job site crap tundra teh broken axle ugly on week frames blazer crap bronco awesome backing up a snowy hill.

There feel better?








[IMG]http://i300
 
  #24  
Old 04-20-2008, 04:10 PM
tjc transport's Avatar
tjc transport
tjc transport is offline
i ain't rite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Marlboro Mental Hospital.
Posts: 60,942
Received 3,090 Likes on 2,154 Posts
Originally Posted by thorseshoeing
In here there is no such thing as stupid questions...Only stupid people ...

Tim
ya mean like you???






















tag!!!
your it!
 
  #25  
Old 04-20-2008, 07:18 PM
thorseshoeing's Avatar
thorseshoeing
thorseshoeing is offline
decadent and depraved

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Right Behind You
Posts: 6,703
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by tjc transport
ya mean like you???













tag!!!
your it!



.
"your it" ?????


Richard, don't you mean you're it............moron.


Tim
 
  #26  
Old 04-20-2008, 07:33 PM
sglaine's Avatar
sglaine
sglaine is offline
Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Where Critters Are Free
Posts: 32,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So much for this meaningful thread...Down the drian like the rest of them..And I did not even help on this one....LMAO
 
  #27  
Old 04-21-2008, 05:43 PM
monckywrench's Avatar
monckywrench
monckywrench is offline
Cargo Master
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,211
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
" Originally Posted by scottman70
You gotta be kidding me??? 1978? They both sucked big time! Was any vehicle in 1978 any good! They were both junk in my opinion as well as any 1978 Dodge Ram charger. 1978 were dark crappy days in car history! 1972-1983 were horrible years for vehicles! In 1975 the CAT was added and hp levels took a crap from there until well into the 80's. If I had to pick one I'd take the Blazer cuz of it's 7 inches of ground clearance and that small block 350 & 400 4 barrel with the turbo 400 trans was bullet proof!!!"

I strongly agree! They are SO awful that the only moral thing the owners of such junk can do to clear their consciences is to sign their titles, then deliver the vehicles to ME for proper disposal.

"But the engines in 1978 were de-tuned pathetic weak dogs for their cubic inches!"

Tragic indeed. No one should have to suffer with that. Uh, for extra karma points, please wash the trucks, change all fluids, and top off the fuel tanks. Remember, I'm here to HELP.
 
  #28  
Old 04-21-2008, 08:33 PM
kermmydog's Avatar
kermmydog
kermmydog is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Western Central NV
Posts: 9,177
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Smile

Originally Posted by scottman70
You gotta be kidding me??? 1978? They both sucked big time! Was any vehicle in 1978 any good! They were both junk in my opinion as well as any 1978 Dodge Ram charger. 1978 were dark crappy days in car history! 1972-1983 were horrible years for vehicles! In 1975 the CAT was added and hp levels took a crap from there until well into the 80's. If I had to pick one I'd take the Blazer cuz of it's 7 inches of ground clearance and that small block 350 & 400 4 barrel with the turbo 400 trans was bullet proof!!! But the engines in 1978 were de-tuned pathetic weak dogs for their cubic inches!

1978 Blazer Specs:

http://www.coloradok5.com/brochures/1978/blazer8.jpg

1978 Bronco Specs:

1978 Bronco Dealer Brochure | bronco.com
Man, I don't know where you get your info from. But 1972-74 were the years where the smog was an add-on. By 1975 GM & Ford had started engineered there engines for smog. By 1978 the 350 Chevy, 351-400M Fords which were a new design for Ford had the change over to smog engines pretty refined. I use to get 15 MPG highway with a CK20 Chevy 4x4. The Fords got around 13+ MPG. Under horse powered? my 350 put out 250 HP. As for the Blazer in 78-79 NO 400 & NO TURBO 400 in any 4x4. 400 small block was not that good of engine compared to the 350. Lots of head problems due to the steam holes. thin cylinder walls also. That is why Ford had an edge in the 4x4 truck & Bronco because the 400M was available in both in 4x4 versions. 400M was a much better engine for torque & pulling trailers. Not as fast but in stock form but would out pull the 350.
I owned a 1979 as I said earlier & a couple of my hunting buddies owned Fords one a 1979 F250 4x4 400M & the other had a 1978 Bronco 4x4 with a 400. So I believe I witnessed these trucks first hand. Not to mention I was a Factory trained Ford Tech & I also was a factory trained GM Tech in the 70s & 80s.
 
  #29  
Old 04-22-2008, 08:42 AM
dkf's Avatar
dkf
dkf is offline
Hotshot
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pa
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 17 Posts
My 74' F-100 doesn't have any emmisions crap on it. Well it has a carbon canister, but it isn't in use any more. Despite what some may say the 70's Ford F-series and Broncos were good reliable vehicles and built solid to boot. As far as the post 75' models go, most guys got rid of the converters and emissions crap after they were driven off the dealer lot.
 
  #30  
Old 04-22-2008, 10:33 PM
92f150I6's Avatar
92f150I6
92f150I6 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,719
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just for your information, cats were required on cars in '75, not trucks. That came later as one internet source says 1981, and I have seen 86 F350's and GM C30's without cats from the factory.

Anyway, the 73-79 ford trucks and the 78-79 bronco's are my favorite Ford trucks of all time. with a little tweaking they can run real strong.
 


Quick Reply: 78 bronco vs 78 blazer



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 AM.