Rare Rides: The Beloved Ford Bronco II, From 1988

Corey Lewis
by Corey Lewis

The Bronco II was a compact SUV marketed on the long-term brand recognition of the Bronco. But only a few years into its production run, the Bronco II had established an infamous reputation all its own — and eventually proved one of the most costly models Ford ever created.

The Bronco II was an all-new entrant into the hot compact SUV market in 1984, arriving a year after the debut of its platform mate, the Ranger. Ford developed both vehicles together from the start, with the Bronco II’s main competition coming from General Motors via the S-10 Blazer and S-15 Jimmy.

Like its competition, the Bronco II was available only in three-door configuration, with rear- and four-wheel drive powertrains. Worth noting, all Bronco IIs were four-wheel drive through 1985, at which point the lower-priced rear-wheel drive version became the standard offering. Shared power from the Ranger included two displacements of the Cologne V6: 2.8- and 2.9-liters, as well as a 2.3-liter Mitsubishi-sourced turbodiesel. The 2.8 used a carburetor and was available only in ’84 and ’85; replaced by the 2.9 for 1986.

Through its run, a total of seven different transmissions were used — a list that included four- and five-speed units from Mazda, two five-speeds from Mitsubishi, and three- and four-speed automatics made by Ford.

But the fly in the ointment of Bronco II was its stability issues. Even during testing in 1981, Ford’s engineers noticed just how unstable the Bronco II was in various handling conditions. Problems were so severe that Ford cancelled its standard J-turn test on the Bronco, for fear of killing one of its employees. Engineers suggested changes to increase stability, but execs declined. They decided delays to Bronco II’s launch were unacceptable. Suddenly, most of the information (53 reports) collected by Ford’s legal department (which documented the stability issues) vanished, with the automaker blaming it on “an unusual document handling procedure.”

The Bronco II was investigated by the NHTSA in 1989, and that same year Consumer Reports conducted its own tests. The Bronco failed, and the magazine told consumers to stay far away. By then, however, there were many Bronco IIs on the road, as all told Ford sold 764,488 examples.

By 1995 Ford shelled out $113 million to settle a total of 334 injury and wrongful death lawsuits. At least one auto insurer refused to cover the Bronco II. Eventually there was a class action, and Ford gave Bronco II owners new safety warnings and an allowance of $200 for repairs and modifications. Even after the model’s history of stability issues, Ford blamed user error, and said the majority of incidents were down to bad drivers or unsafe vehicle modification. Time reported in 2001 that the Bronco II cost Ford around $2.4 billion in settlements.

Bronco II remained on sale and mostly unchanged through its life. Right at the end, it was restyled to match its updated Ranger sibling. 1989 brought revised exterior styling and a reworked dashboard. Additional structural supports were added to the body, but no changes were made for the sake of stability. But by then the much-needed, PR-boosting Explorer was ready to go, and production on the Bronco II stopped early in 1990.

If you want to pilot such an ill-reputed vehicle, today’s Bronco II is for sale in Portland for $4,950.

[Images: seller]

Corey Lewis
Corey Lewis

Interested in lots of cars and their various historical contexts. Started writing articles for TTAC in late 2016, when my first posts were QOTDs. From there I started a few new series like Rare Rides, Buy/Drive/Burn, Abandoned History, and most recently Rare Rides Icons. Operating from a home base in Cincinnati, Ohio, a relative auto journalist dead zone. Many of my articles are prompted by something I'll see on social media that sparks my interest and causes me to research. Finding articles and information from the early days of the internet and beyond that covers the little details lost to time: trim packages, color and wheel choices, interior fabrics. Beyond those, I'm fascinated by automotive industry experiments, both failures and successes. Lately I've taken an interest in AI, and generating "what if" type images for car models long dead. Reincarnating a modern Toyota Paseo, Lincoln Mark IX, or Isuzu Trooper through a text prompt is fun. Fun to post them on Twitter too, and watch people overreact. To that end, the social media I use most is Twitter, @CoreyLewis86. I also contribute pieces for Forbes Wheels and Forbes Home.

More by Corey Lewis

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 30 comments
  • La834 La834 on Jul 03, 2020

    > "the Bronco II’s main competition coming from General Motors via the S-10 Blazer and S-15 Jimmy. Like its competition, the Bronco II was available only in three-door configuration" I'd argue the Bronco II's main competition turned out to be the also new-for-1984 Jeep Cherokee, which had better off AND on-road chops, plus the option of four doors. Ford, GM, and the Japanese didn't get around to building four-door small SUVs until the '90s, by which Jeep had the definitive models with the Cherokee and new Grand Cherokee.

  • Snakebit Snakebit on Jul 03, 2020

    I have similar reservations about the Explorer and Mazda Tribute two-door. I know the ones that flipped over(according to Ford)because of improper tire inflation were mostly the 4DR models, but the shorter wheelbase 2Dr model seems like it would be even more prone to stability issues.

    • See 3 previous
    • Lie2me Lie2me on Jul 04, 2020

      @PrincipalDan " Mazda Navajo (talk about names that would never get past the legal department today.)" The Jeep Cherokee would like a word with you :)

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next