By on August 26, 2015

Classic 1966 Bronco Body Shell Available Soon

Ford may bring back the Bronco name as a Ranger-based SUV if production returns to the U.S. in 2018, Bloomberg is reporting.

The Bronco would be based on a mid-sized pickup frame, unlike the current Explorer. A Bronco could be targeted at Jeep, either Grand Cherokee — or Wrangler.

Ford ended production of its Bronco in 1996.

According to the Bloomberg report, both Ranger and Bronco could be built at Ford’s plant in Wayne, Michigan, which will lose production of the C-Max and Focus to Mexico in 2018. Adding the production of those trucks to that plant would replace production to appease the United Auto Workers during contract negotiations.

It’s unclear how the addition of a Bronco would fit into the Ford lineup, but I’m guessing Mark Stevenson has a good idea.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

27 Comments on “Add Bronco To Today’s Ranger Return Rumor...”


  • avatar
    another_VW_fanboy

    Would love to see the Bronco again. Not sure if I like the midsize idea. Wish the Bronco would be a two door full size BOF version but they got the Expedition for that, still happy that it might come back.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      The original Bronco was a smaller SUV, it didnt become full sized until the 70s. Besides, if it were to be full size, it would be more likely to be built in the same plant as either the Expedtion or F-150.

      I would like it to be smaller than the midsize Ranger, more like the size (and capability) of the Wrangler.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Although Id rather see news of a Fullsize Bronco, at this point I would take BOF SUV news from VW.

    At least there’s a 90% chance it would have a live rear axle if Ranger based, It seems like ages since Ford made a decent SUV.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’ll take mine in white.

  • avatar
    derekson

    Won’t this likely just be a version of the Everest SUV they already sell in many markets? It’s basically just a modern version of the late 90s Explorer.

    http://www.ford.com.au/suv/new-everest

    • 0 avatar
      caltemus

      That would be ideal. There is a huge hole in the market for a smaller BOF SUV, with the only one smaller than a tahoe being the 4Runner; and they’re selling like hotcakes.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    The old Bronco and IH Scout are just so charming. I bet there’s a wicker picnic basket back there next to Johnny.

    Look at this lil brown convertible one. http://www.blueovaltrucks.com/articles/images/bronco/gen1_bronco.JPG

    And multi-yellow IH. http://www.scoutandtrapper.com/uploads/2/3/1/0/23102012/6159726_orig.jpg

    Quick! Old people: It’s 1966 and both the IH and the Bronco are available. Which is the better car?

    • 0 avatar
      Mike

      Easy. The Jeepster Commando!

    • 0 avatar
      tylermattikow

      It’s pretty close.. International had just updated the Scout from the 80 to the 800, but the Ford was brand new in 1966 and had better engine choices. Scout’s were a bit more durable, but the small yet very heavy 266ci International Motor is trounced by Ford’s light and powerful 302. Fast forward to 1972 with the Scout II, this model has better styling and many more creature comforts than the bronco, in addition the 304 and 345 had closed the gap with the Ford 302. I currently have a restored 1972 Scout, and I think it is a better vehicle than early Bronco. Currently a Bronco is probably worth about 30% more than a comparable Scout. During the 60’s and 70’s the more expensive Scout sold better than Bronco especially during the late 70’s, despite the a lousy dealer network compared to Ford..

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Thanks! This is what I wanted to hear about.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        Those old Broncos and Scouts exhibited less sheet metal quality than a contemporary $39.95 lawn mower. They came standard with rust, and body designs calculated to hold water. Why pine for old rubbish? After 3 or 4 years round these parts you had a rolling skeleton with the doors hanging off and fenders flapping in the breeze.

        At least the new ones would use galvanized sheet tin to last the 7 year payment cycle.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        I’m not a big Scout 80/800 fan (and their scarcity compared to IIs would indicate that more people thought like me back in the day) but I love the Scout II. It just has that John Wayne-esque toughness and honesty that doesn’t exist in any modern American truck.

  • avatar
    slance66

    I’d love a Bronco based on the new Ranger. Basically a shorter version of the Ranger, something like what the 4Runner is to the Tacoma without the bloat. Toyota can’t keep 4Runners on the lot around here.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I just don’t see this happening given other vehicles of this ilk are being killed off.

    IIRC the only real vehicle left in this space is the 4Runner – correct?

    The xTerra is dead and no one else is in the game.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      A big part of the reason I didn’t buy a new compact pickup truck in 2006 (when I’d just put my Ranger through the ringer and was looking for an upgrade) and again in 2011 (when my 2-door Ranger was just not cutting it) was that everyone was selling the same generation of truck I already had.

      So, I kept my Ranger until it didn’t work anymore — and then I got something that did work. A modernized 4-door Ranger with an electronically controlled AWD system would have fit my needs well enough that i would have bought it in both 2006 and 2011.

      Now I drive a minivan, which is a surprisingly good 3/4 ton truck. Now that I’ve admitted to myself that I’m a minivan dad, I have two fantastic classes of vehicle to choose from.

      P.S. I also owned an Escape and an F-150. I hated driving the F-150 – docking that barge in parking spots and lifting cargo up over my sternum to get it into the bed just pissed me off every time I drove it, and the tractor-style 4WD was a poor match for the conditions in which I actually drive (electronic AWD is *way* better forwmy purposes). The Escape solved the problem I bought it to solve and I respect it for that, even though I didn’t particularly like it’s attempts to emulate the F-150’s truckish styling, truckish ride, and truckish NVH. My Ranger was more pleasant than any of them.

  • avatar
    Luke42

    I miss the 1998 Ranger that got me through my 20s.

    I got rid of it because it was deeply obsolet my the time I sold it in the winter of 2011. I replace it winh a new Ranger, because a new one would still have been obsolete, and also bacause my needs changed when I became a dad.

    I’ll take a good long look at the new Ranger. My next car purchase is likely to be an electric ca. EVs will take care of my driving on most days, but there’s room in my driveway for a vehicle that will do everything the EV can’t. If that EV ends up being as capable a family car as Model X is rumored to be, then my 2nd very well be a Ranger or a diesel GMC Canyon. If the EV is less capable (like the Leaf), then I’d better keep my old minivan.

    These are interesting times indeed!

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      What exactly is so “obsolete” about it? What reason could it not be driven any longer? My daily driver isnt even OBD-II compliant, yet somehow it still gets me where I want to go. Weird, huh?

      I could see it if you had a 1960s truck with an Inline 6 and a low-geared 4 speed, as it tops out at about 60-65 mph (I forced a 1965 F-100 to go 70 once. Only once because it felt like it wouldve exploded into a million pieces at that speed had I tried it again). It gets poor mpg, it can be hard to find parts for, it may have trouble using ethenol fuel as it tends to destroy carbs, it also could be difficult to start in cold weather. That would be “obsolete” and not practical for driving on modern freeways, but so long as the Ranger was reliable (and they usually were), I dont see why it would be too obsolete to drive today.

      Parts are easily and cheaply on hand at any auto parts store (hell, they probably still have Rangers in their fleets, I know my local O’Rilies does), it can keep up with traffic, it isnt especially bad on fuel, its fuel injected so it starts easily in cold weather and ethenol-containing fuel wouldnt degrade the system (if it had the 3.0L V-6, its an FFV anyway), I can think of no reason why a 2011 or 1998 Ranger couldnt be driven for many years to come.

      Perhaps it wasnt flashy enough for you? Everyone driving around in their new body style CRVs and Fusions made you feel inadequate? I think thats more of a personal problem than a vehicle problem. If it was your vanity that made you get rid of it, that’s not the truck’s fault.

      Getting rid of it because it isnt a pratical family vehicle is logical, but you made a point of saying the reason you didnt buy a new one was because it was “still obsolete”.

  • avatar
    skor

    If I had the cash, I’d buy a ‘new’ old Bronco. Google ‘Icon BR Series’ and see for yourselves.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree, the older Rangers are still good trucks and are fairly easy and inexpensive to maintain. The same is true with my 99 S-10 even though it was discontinued over a decade ago. The mpgs are not too bad with the I-4 and a 5 speed manual.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • threeer: I actually rather liked the 318ti and seriously considered one back in the day. Even then, it was apparent...
  • ToddAtlasF1: There are several times as many guns in the US as there are cars, but guns kill a fraction as many...
  • The_real_JB: Is there a link anywhere showing all 140 concepts?
  • cdrmike: 2002 Z3 2002 M3 Continue to rewrite misspent youth…leftover cash towards “two girls at the same...
  • cdrmike: Damn, that’s TESLA money.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff