Today as I kept sliding down my icy driveway in my 94 ranger I finally decided to get an old SUV and put larger tires on it. So, I am having trouble deciding between the Bronco and the Bronco II. I am looking at 80s models, mostly 83-89 of either model. I am wondering the pros and cons of each. The way I see it the Bronco is better in just about every way except gas mileage. I like the BRonco II looks, but isn't a 2.9 pretty weak for a vehicle of that size? I am looking for something with a bit of power but not a slug to drive. About how fast is each? One last question, would a bronco have considerably more room than a bronco II? I am 6'5. I fit in my ranger now only because it is extended cab and I can slide the seat back. Thanks for any and all information in helping me make this decision.

 

i have both a 84 bronco2 and 88 bronco i just got the 88 bronco and love it! i still like my bronco2 but the power is just not there in the little 2.8, i am 6'1 and the bronco2 has enough room for me and one more adult and thats it but my big bronco has tons! and speed the big one will blow my little one out the water. but i gotta love the gas mileage compared to the big bronco.

88 bronco
84 bronco2

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-Dec-02 AT 11:22 PM (EST)]I would go with the Full size i cant think of anything that the 2 has thats better than the full size also i think the 2s are prone to rollovers as ive heard and its small.

ohh wait thought of something MPG but thats made up in power


96 Bronco, Eddie Bauer, 351w

 

The full-size is better in every way I can think of except milage. The full-size also has enough room to bring a giraffe home in the front seat. I'm 6'6" and the IIs just don't cut it for me. I can barely squeeze in there. In my old '86, i have plenty of room to do anything I could possibly want to do. The full-size also has enough power to do anything you could want to do. A lot of people say that the 302 is a dog, but I disagree. Mine can do as much if not more than the old '83 with a 351w that I just traded . Just watch out for the AOD transmission. I've had nothing but problems with mine since the day I bought it.
Good luck and have fun with whichever you choose.

 

All the Bronco IIs I've seen had continual maintenance problems and were uncomfortably small. They don't convert; they're not necessarily 4WD; it's a pain & an expen$e to put a fullsize engine in it; parts are harder to find & swap; they're not nearly as sturdy; and they just lack the STYYYYYYLE of a FS Bronco!

 

No Comparison, the full-size hands down! (that is of course GAS MILEAGE is a major concern) Especially being 6'5" I'm only 5'10" and I don't think I'd be comfortable driving a Bronco II. I owned a S10 once and that was a crunch.

 

The answer lies within your preferences. You already know about size and performance issues with the Bronco II. You are driving its pick-up truck counterpart right now. So do you want the power and performance of an F series or a Ranger? 300's and 302's are a nice fuel economy concession if thats a major issue. But nothing compares to the power and "giddyup" of the 351 and bigger engines. Personally, I would never want to deal with the Dana 28 front IFS and the odd component inventory required for maintaining a B2. The full size components are easy to come by and aftermarket upgrade parts are readily available.

 

Amen steve83, the B2's have a horrible Service Record. A High School buddy of mine had one and it was always in the shop. I have to say the B2's are nice looking, but I always looked at them as Ford Rangers with a camper top on the back. There is a Blue 89 Bronco 2 down the street from me that has been sitting near the highway with a For Sale sign on it for the past 5 months. There is a price on the back window for $2700. However, quite a few Full Size Bronco's have been displayed for sale on a used car lot a couple of miles from me. None of them stay on the lot for more than 2 weeks...need I say more?

 

>All the Bronco IIs I've seen had continual maintenance
>problems...

Steve83 said it best. My neighbor has 2 of the little BroncoII's and I see his hoods up on both atleast 3-5 times a month. And I know for a fact that he's not modifying it. One of them has not moved on over 3 months! I think the engine blew. My opinion is definitely the full size Bronco...hands down! We both live on the side of a sandy mountain and he rarely takes the broncII up because of roll-factor. My bronc and I go regularly without fear of rolling, or getting stuck.

Just my opinion...:-X12

Jim

 

It is true that Bronco 2's roll easily. My friend roled his just turning into his driveway.

 

I would definitely go with a full sized. Bronco II's just don't have a good reputation - and I've found that reputations about cars are usually founded somewhere in the realm of truth. BII's are smaller, narrower wheel base and still tall. Good setup for a roll. Not nearly as solid as the full sized in terms of wreckability. Can't take the top off. Much easier to work on / repair the full sized, too. Plus, the full sized broncos are a lot sexier.

 

Ive never seen the inside of a BRonco. Im assuming it has a back seat and then the rest of the back cargo space?

 

Yes, the full size Bronco's have a back seat big enough for 3 "normal" size people. If you get one with the bench seat in front, you can haul around 6 people just fine. I'm guessing, but I would say there's about 3 feet of space behind the back seat, or if you fold the back seat up, you've got a good 5 feet of room. Plenty of room for a SERIOUS speaker system.

The position of the spare tire is pretty much a personal preference issue. My Dad had an '85 with the outside spare tire. He liked it because he thought it gave him more room inside. My '85 had the inside spare. I liked it because when I had to carry something that was too big to close the tailgate, no problem, I didn't have to worry about securing the tire carrier.

Oh, if you can't tell, I would definately suggest going with the full size.

 

Thanks a lot guys. Now, just how bad is the gas mileage? The government rated the 302 at 13 or 14 city and 16 or 17 highway, but these numbers sound a little high to me... ok one more question is there much of a difference between the V6 4.9 and the V8 4.9?

 

The 4.9L isn't a V-6 ! ! ! ! !


It's a STRAIGHT 6.
There is no 8-cylinder 4.9L ; at least not from Ford.

13mpg is probably pretty close for an EFI engine - carbs run closer to 11mpg.