Bronco 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, 6G -- Generations Compared

[Yeti-X]

They should've changed the name after the 1st gens, when going to the truck like SUVs.

What he said

Sponsored

 

[BroncoAZ]

I have owned 3G, 4G, 5G, and now a 6G.

 

[Squatch]

They should've changed the name after the 1st gens, when going to the truck like SUVs.

Wow, I thought I was a pretty staunch gatekeeper with the two-door vs Mordor debates, haha. I see your point, though. It's like if Ford called the Expedition the Explorer and made it the successor to it. The flip side is that both of those are largely identical except for size. There was no other vehicle like the Bronco ever made by Ford and it was always a truck. Merging the style, some dimensions, and components with the F-series can be viewed as killing off a wholly separate vehicle construction that was virtually a different brand of its own or as the unification of Ford vehicles and incorporating common Ford elements into the Bronco's construction thereby integrating this wild vehicle into the brand.

This is a rare instance where I can see it either way and it doesn't bother me. I support your choice of view.

 

[Beachin 74]

as well as the Bronco II mine ended life with a roller 5.0 and c4 which was quite the adventure in that vehicle.

I'll bet that was fun! How did you make that 7.5" rear end survive?

 

[Yeti-X]

I'll bet that was fun! How did you make that 7.5" rear end survive?

Well you see I also had a 68 bronco that the frame collapsed on so I had a ford 9" laying around I also put the 4sp transfer case out of the 68 in there

 

[Yeti-X]

That being said the 7.5" would have held up for a little while the roller 5.0 was only 225 hp stock mine was about 300 hp I converted to 4 barrel cammed it and ran a unified hei style 1 wire ignition.

 

[Beachin 74]

Well you see I also had a 68 bronco that the frame collapsed on so I had a ford 9" laying around I also put the 4sp transfer case out of the 68 in there

That'll work.
It's kind of funny, I first bought my 1974 for the drivetrain to put in my 1986 Bronco II because I kept tearing the rear up (7.5" w/4.56 gears and a lunchbox locker). That tiny rear didn't like the 33" Swampers.
I finally woke up from being stupid and built the 1974 with a fiberglass body!

 

[Yeti-X]

If someone wanted to do a project like this you could also source a ford 8" from say a ford maverick or mustang II with v6 or v8 upgrade it to five stud 31 spline axles and it will hold about 500 hp and it was quick change gears like the ford 9"

 

[Beachin 74]

That being said the 7.5" would have held up for a little while the roller 5.0 was only 225 hp stock mine was about 300 hp I converted to 4 barrel cammed it and ran a unified hei style 1 wire ignition.

Maybe if you babied it. That would be tough with a nice sounding V-8 under the hood.
I must be an over-achiever; I could tear up that 7.5" rear with a 140hp V-6.

 

[Yeti-X]

That'll work.
It's kind of funny, I first bought my 1974 for the drivetrain to put in my 1986 Bronco II because I kept tearing the rear up (7.5" w/4.56 gears and a lunchbox locker). That tiny rear didn't like the 33" Swampers.
I finally woke up from being stupid and built the 1974 with a fiberglass body!

Yeah thats pretty steep gearing and tires for a 7.5" i was running near stock tires and gearing LOL

 

[Yeti-X]

I didn't have a ton of money back then so I did alot of scrapyard builds with the exception of my engines and trannies

 

[Beachin 74]

If someone wanted to do a project like this you could also source a ford 8" from say a ford maverick or mustang II with v6 or v8 upgrade it to five stud 31 spline axles and it will hold about 500 hp and it was quick change gears like the ford 9"

My wheeling buddy back then had a I think 1991 Ranger pick-up that came with a 8.8" rear and Dana 35 TTB front. It would handle alot more power and 35" tires.

 

[Yeti-X]

That'll work.
It's kind of funny, I first bought my 1974 for the drivetrain to put in my 1986 Bronco II because I kept tearing the rear up (7.5" w/4.56 gears and a lunchbox locker). That tiny rear didn't like the 33" Swampers.
I finally woke up from being stupid and built the 1974 with a fiberglass body!

That had to be a tiny pinion with 4.56 gearing in a 7.5"

 

[Beachin 74]

I didn't have a ton of money back then so I did alot of scrapyard builds with the exception of my engines and trannies

That's the way to do it. You feel a lot better wheeling when your wallet isn't on the line.

 

[OX1]

The article lists front disc rear drums and it is possible that the 351m400 had equal or more horsepower in the truck engine due to changes in the compression and timing the 400M in the trucks were a low performance engine but they did have more torque than the 351m400.

Says disc/disc right here (No bronco before the 6G had rear disk)

They were officially close, but the 400 still had a bit more official HP. What Ford never detailed was the larger difference between 78 and 79 (both engines), when 79 had a cat, smog pump, etc... You can see it here in the 80, 351M specs, which is closer to the true 79 number with all the smog equipment (and closer to the true difference in 351m/400 performance).
https://web.archive.org/web/20050524011415/http://home.earthlink.net/~bubbaf250/specs/specs02.html

I've owned upwards of 25, 78/79 Broncos, F150-F350's (had my first 78 Bronc in 87). The 400 was pretty easy to wake up over the 351M. 50 cubes was/is still 50 cubes. The 400 also had higher compr @ 8.4:1 vs 8:1 for 351M

https://web.archive.org/web/20050524011415/http://home.earthlink.net/~bubbaf250/specs/specs02.html

I'll stand by my statement that article sucks (weak, at best with all the Bronco first's the 78/79's had, they don't mention). And one more I just noticed, the top was ONE color " bi-color hardtop"?? LOL!

Sponsored