6 Generations of Bronco Evolution: Styling, Performance, Size, Price

[Daytona_Bronco]

Sponsored

 

[GToddC5]

This is awesome!

 

[Nobody]

They left out the Bronco II.

 

[Haustkraft]

Generation years are incorrect; 66-77, 78-79, 80-86, 87-91, 92-96.
92-96 had a 5.0 as an option
78-79 had a 400 as an option

 

[Squatch]

But they told me the 2.3L is weak!

 

[Squatch]

Generation years are incorrect; 66-77, 78-79, 80-86, 87-91, 92-96.
92-96 had a 5.0 as an option
78-79 had a 400 as an option

6.6L is 400

 

[Daytona_Bronco]

Generation years are incorrect; 66-77, 78-79, 80-86, 87-91, 92-96.
92-96 had a 5.0 as an option
78-79 had a 400 as an option

Imagine the power of 5.0 in a 2door with the top and doors off ... Reminds me of my foxbody Mustang ... weighed nothing all power !!

 

[ZackDanger]

People normally consider me a pretty bright guy... but I can't for the *life* of me figure out what the hell the bar graphs are representing or how they are supposed to relate to one another.

The more I study the data and the way it's being presented, the more confused and angry I get.

 

[Squatch]

People normally consider me a pretty bright guy... but I can't for the *life* of me figure out what the hell the bar graphs are representing or how they are supposed to relate to one another.

The more I study the data and the way it's being presented, the more confused and angry I get.

First bars are prices adjusted for inflation, then power, then ground clearance

 

[ZackDanger]

First bars are prices adjusted for inflation, then power, then ground clearance

Okay, so, let me see if I’ve got this right:

For a particular generation, for the metric that is stated in the bar* **, whichever generation has the highest maximum value, that is considered 100%, and the other generations are depicted as a percentage of that based on their maximum values.

*except for Cost, since the bars are representing the cost adjusted for inflation (printed in light gray below the bar to the right), and not the value in the bar.

**except for where more than one metric is written inside the bar.

So also because the scales are relative to the highest value, they are widely different between charts, so one can't learn how the first chart is representing data and easily intuit how the next chart represents it. (For instance, 50% on one chart might represent a huge difference between generations and a very small difference on another.)

But the bars do *not* represent the lowest value for generations with a spread of values, just 0% to whatever the maximum value is, depicted at 100%... so you can not use the bars to say represent minimum ground clearance... only maximum, or the variety of ground clearances available...

But also, greater isn't always better (like price).... So you can't just look for whichever bar is maxed out to figure out which was "best" amongst the generations for a particular data set.

...and there is no comparative associations being made (like HP/$ ratios), so even though the price graph (for instance) shows a 0-60 time immediately on top of the bar, it doesn't actually have anything to do with the bar... that's just an extra piece of data thrown in irrespective of the graphical representations of that chart.

 

[Squatch]

Okay, so for a particular generation, for the metric that is stated in the bar*, whichever generation has the highest maximum value, that is considered 100%, and the other generations are depicted as a percentage of that based on their maximum values.

*except for Cost, since the bars are representing the cost adjusted for inflation (printed in light gray below the bar to the right), and not the value in the bar.

But the bars do *not* represent the lowest value for generations with a spread of values, just zero to whatever the maximum is... so you can not use the bars to say represent minimum ground clearance... only maximum, or the variety of ground clearances available...

But also, greater isn't always better (like price).... So you can't just look for whichever bar is maxed out to figure out which was "best."

...and there is no comparative associations being made (like HP/$ ratios), so even though the price graph (for instance) shows a 0-60 time immediately on top of the bar, it doesn't actually have anything to do with the bar.

You sure took a lot of words to say that I was right and you didn't get it.

Have some caffeine, lol

 

[mjohnso3]

Generation years are incorrect; 66-77, 78-79, 80-86, 87-91, 92-96.
92-96 had a 5.0 as an option
78-79 had a 400 as an option

The 2.3 l 4-cylinder offered in the sixth Gen puts out more horsepower and torque than any of the v8s that ever came in the previous Broncos. An interesting perspective.

 

[Haustkraft]

6.6L is 400

You are correct sir, my mistake!

 

[lowmpg]

That's a cool graphic.

 

[Panzer948]

Graphs make sense to me. I think what is most telling is how the horsepower from the late 70s through 1996 were relatively unchanged. Actually they were the same with only differences in torque. I grew up during a pretty boring time of engine performance/tech gains...

We are definitely in the golden years of the internal combustion engine! The next 10 or so years will be very unique as we mix ICE with electric technology and self driving with manual driving. Within 20 years we will not recognize it.

I like to compare it to the end of WWII thru the late 1940s when prop driven aircraft were maxed to their technical and performance limit during a time where Jet engines were just showing there potential but were too new to be fully adapted. WIthin 5 years it was all over.

Sponsored