Bronco II vs Bronco Sport off-road

[tristanm228]

Would be interested to see someone do a comparison of the Bronco II vs the Bronco Sport off road both the Badlands and Non-Badlands trims

Sponsored

 

[MJE]

https://www.motortrend.com/features/ford-bronco-ii-history-epic-disaster/
I was hoping to google up something, but came up empty. I must be the only person who thinks they could’ve really relived the retro era calling the Sport the Bronco II. Apparently according to this article at least, this is why they didn’t do that. I still want one though.

 

[Adam06]

https://www.motortrend.com/features/ford-bronco-ii-history-epic-disaster/
I was hoping to google up something, but came up empty. I must be the only person who thinks they could’ve really relived the retro era calling the Sport the Bronco II. Apparently according to this article at least, this is why they didn’t do that. I still want one though.

 

[Adam06]

I had a bronco ll it would out climb any bronco sport just because it has a transfer case with low gear. My bronco ll would climb where most jeeps would. These were built to off road

 

[Flash3x]

I owned a 1984 Bronco II and a 1987 Ranger STX, complete with factory push bar, rollbar, rear tube bumper, and Marchal off-road lights. 31’s fit with the factory 2 inch lift. I actually rolled the Ranger playing around in a field one night. Regardless of that, I loved both of those vehicles. I off roaded a lot back then and definitely put both of them through the paces, both were tons of fun. Never had problems with either on road but I suppose if you tried to drive them like a sports car, yeah, you would roll them.

It’s a shame because both were really pretty darn competent off road and durable if you drove them right. Lots of fun to drive and could fit on the quad trails if you wanted. Funny they mentioned the Samurai in that article too, another off road legend. Never owned one but friends did and they were such cool trucks.

I’d say the BL would win against the Bronco II in everything but clearance and articulation. The 4WD system in the BL gives so much control of traction that a novice driver could go just about everywhere a seasoned vet could in a BII.

 

[JerryC]

Modern traction control is the big deal between them with regard to off-road capability.

The BII only had antilock rear brakes. It can't brake lock for traction like the BS can.

You could get a BII with a rear limited slip. I'm not sure if you could get a BII with a limited slip up front from the factory like you could with a Ranger.

The BII has a transfer case with a real 4 low where the BS doesn't have 4 low and uses a clutch to lock in 4wd that can overheat.

I think the BS technically has more ground clearance than a stock B2 if you measure the B2 at the pumpkins. If you measure at the frame rails of the B2 it will have much more.

I have both in my garage. The BS is of course the far better vehicle, it is about thirty five years newer in design. But the old BII has a soul and when you drive it you feel it.

 

[AllTerrain]

I owned a 1983 Bronco II and a 1987 Ranger STX, complete with factory push bar, rollbar, rear tube bumper, and Marchal off-road lights. 31’s fit with the factory 2 inch lift. I actually rolled the Ranger playing around in a field one night. Regardless of that, I loved both of those vehicles. I off roaded a lot back then and definitely put both of them through the paces, both were tons of fun. Never had problems with either on road but I suppose if you tried to drive them like a sports car, yeah, you would roll them.

It’s a shame because both were really pretty darn competent off road and durable if you drove them right. Lots of fun to drive and could fit on the quad trails if you wanted. Funny they mentioned the Samurai in that article too, another off road legend. Never owned one but friends did and they were such cool trucks.

I’d say the BL would win against the Bronco II in everything but clearance and articulation. The 4WD system in the BL gives so much control of traction that a novice driver could go just about everywhere a seasoned vet could in a BII.

Really liked and enjoyed the Samurais I had and built up. That is one of the reasons why I'm looking forward to my Bronco sport Badlands. The size and the off-road ability are functional

 

[MaxVelocity]

The Bronco II had to have low range because it didn't have enough power to do any serious 'wheeling without it.

I had an '84 Ranger for comparison. The Bronco Sport is much better in every way.

 

[760Bronco]

I would buy this if I had a spare 15k lying around. It’s like showroom condition. https://offerup.co/OtxFKPojMnb

 

[RSH]

I wish Ford would have made a more utilitarian version of the Bronco Ii instead of the Bronco Sport. Something you could beat on and at the end of the day it could be hosed off inside and out..

 

[JerryC]

The Bronco II had to have low range because it didn't have enough power to do any serious 'wheeling without it.

I had an '84 Ranger for comparison. The Bronco Sport is much better in every way.

First the B2, was not built for serious wheeling.

Second is that's it's all perspective, today people put LS and Hemi motors in Wranglers because that's what is needed for "serious wheeling"

Military jeeps in WWII had around fifty HP, they got it done with light weight and gears. But they can't do what we now call serious wheeling.

My recollection is that Ford went away from the single speed transfer case long before the B2 went into production.

The B2 had about 140 advertised horsepower, I don't remember ever seeing any body putting one on a dyno. For perspective Mustangs and Camaros had only about eighty or so more say that time.

The real reason the B2 , Ranger and just about every other 4wd of that time had a two speed transfer transfer case was primarily due to gearing of the transmissions. Three and four speed autos of day had first gears in the two or three to one range. Even with a 4:10 rear gear you might have a twelve to one crawl ratio.

The BS crawl ratio is around twenty to one due to the lower first gear in the eight speed trans.

Some manual transmissions had crawler gears like what Ford has brought back with the Bronco.

 

[JerryC]

I wish Ford would have made a more utilitarian version of the Bronco Ii instead of the Bronco Sport. Something you could beat on and at the end of the day it could be hosed off inside and out..

Agree, a Base BS with a washout interior, 2.0 L and a rear locker would be fantastic.

 

[Flash3x]

First the B2, was not built for serious wheeling.

Second is that's it's all perspective, today people put LS and Hemi motors in Wranglers because that's what is needed for "serious wheeling"

Military jeeps in WWII had around fifty HP, they got it done with light weight and gears. But they can't do what we now call serious wheeling.

My recollection is that Ford went away from the single speed transfer case long before the B2 went into production.

The B2 had about 140 advertised horsepower, I don't remember ever seeing any body putting one on a dyno. For perspective Mustangs and Camaros had only about eighty or so more say that time.

The real reason the B2 , Ranger and just about every other 4wd of that time had a two speed transfer transfer case was primarily due to gearing of the transmissions. Three and four speed autos of day had first gears in the two or three to one range. Even with a 4:10 rear gear you might have a twelve to one crawl ratio.

The BS crawl ratio is around twenty to one due to the lower first gear in the eight speed trans.

Some manual transmissions had crawler gears like what Ford has brought back with the Bronco.

You are correct, the 2.9 V6 was a 140HP engine, the earlier 2.8 carburetor engine was 115HP, and then there was the 2.3 I4 in the Ranger with about 90HP if I remember correctly.

Even with those anemic (compared to today) HP numbers, I personally rarely used the low range in those vehicles. Oh sure on occasion there was no other way but I always felt I had better control of traction in high range held in 1st gear. It’s a lot easier to feather the throttle and not spin the tires like that. With the extra gearing the tires would break loose easily with very light throttle input.

It’s kinda like today with the big diesel pickups, it’s actually hard to gain momentum from a stop in slick situations because of all the torque. Traction control helps immensely.

YMMV, always more than one way to do things, this is the way I did it. I’m in SWPA so not much hardcore rock crawling going on. Perhaps if I was out west I would’ve found much more use of the low range.

 

[MJE]

Agree, a Base BS with a washout interior, 2.0 L and a rear locker would be fantastic.

Isn’t that largely what the base BL is? Or are my perceptions just that because of the rubber floor? I mean they’re not making a base model with vinyl seats & crank windows as a 2022. To have something that simple nowadays I’d think you’re either building your own vintage rig or trailering a side by side.

 

[JerryC]

Isn’t that largely what the base BL is? Or are my perceptions just that because of the rubber floor? I mean they’re not making a base model with vinyl seats & crank windows as a 2022. To have something that simple nowadays I’d think you’re either building your own vintage rig or trailering a side by side.

Just going off memory from a test drive over a year ago. The base BL was nicer than just driveline hardware upgrades to a base model.

Front camera, wheels and tires, seats and interior trim, something about the grill and headlights. I think back then there was no tow option for the Base (for a good recovery point). But then again, it was over a year ago.

Sponsored