In the interest of actually talking about the car and not covering familiar ground, let’s get the elephant out of the way: O.J Simpson drove one. There. Now the reason this camo’d example, which was shot and uploaded by Teddy 89, caught my attention is because of one seemingly inconsequential thing. Someone went through the effort of taking the roof off.
By the time these Broncos started showing up on dealer lots, the writing was on the wall. No, it wasn’t because it didn’t sell. It did, quite well, actually. And it wasn’t because it was a guzzling body-on-frame SUV. It was literally the middle of the SUV boom and the American masses consumed them as fast as Ford could build them. Being based on the most successful pickup truck line of all time certainly helped them as well. No, the reason its days were numbered because all of a sudden SUVs were becoming very fancy.
They didn’t just have to do well in the countryside, off-roading or towing something. SUVs were now supposed to work just as well or even better doing the school run, taken the significant other for a night on the town and generally doing everything that a minivan would but without the embarrasment of actually driving a minivan. They needed four doors, cushy suspension and a smaller footprint. The Explorer and the Cherokee were the future, leaving cars like the Ramcharger, the K5 Blazer (canceled in 1991) and this as dinosaurs.
For its final outing, the Bronco received similar updates to the facelifted F-150 that debuted that year. These included a more aerodynamic front end, crumple zones, new dashboard and seats: a thorough redesign to bring it closer to the demands of the new SUV demographic. That brings me neatly to the roof that I mentioned a while back. Ford decided that the sort of people who would buy a Bronco would not be terribly interested in going through all the trouble of taking the roof off, so the easy-to-undo screws were made Torx tamper-proof and hidden behind trim pieces. The rear seatbelts were now affixed to the roof, as was the federally mandated centre high mount stoplight. To anyone that didn’t want or care that the roof in their Bronco could be taken off it meant nothing apart from some trim pieces over screws. But to the enthusiasts that actually wanted roofless motoring, doing so became a nightmare of delicately removing trim pieces, finding the appropriate set of of tools, and removing seatbelts and wiring harnesses.
That didn’t stop the owner of our featured model to go the distance so he and whomever he carries can enjoy alfresco motoring, it also gives us an insight on the original color of the car. Unfortunately it doesn’t give us any clue to pinpoint an actual year. It’s not an XLT so no overhead console and the blue interior was always an option. I wrote ’94 because it’s the middle of the run.
Two years later the Bronco would be replaced by the Expedition with four doors and more creature comforts. Give the people what they want, as they say. Still, for off-road enthusiasts the Bronco holds a very high place in the hierarchy of off-roaders so imagine their reaction when word spread out that Ford is actually working on a new one, probably based on the new Ranger that’s also coming stateside. The chances of the roof coming off of that one are rather slim though.
For some reason, the image of Charlton Heston’s semi-roofless Blazer in the movie “Earthquake” come to mind after seeing and reading this!
I actually never knew until recently that all Bronco roofs were removable — for some reason I always assumed the removable roof was some sort of option.
But from what I understand, Ford made the roof “tamper-proof” mostly due to the rear-mounted shoulder-belts & the third brake light. It was quite an effort to remove the fiberglass roof to begin with, so Ford probably (correctly) assumed that newer breed of upscale Bronco owner would likely never miss ability to do so.
Starting in 1994 the Bronco had a driver’s side airbag. It doesn’t look like this one has an airbag so I say it’s a 1992-1993.
My thoughts exactly. The airbag-equipped wheel looked a lot boxier than this one does, so I’d say 1992 or 1993 as well.
I don’t remember ever seeing a full-size Bronco or Blazer with the top removed. If I recall correctly, Dodge stopped putting removable tops on the Ramcharger even though it wasn’t part of a new-generation update (which would only arrive south of the US border as it turned out). I may have seen a few IH Scouts without tops, unless those were pickup trucks I was confusing for Scouts. The only removable-top SUV I recall frequently seeing with the top removed (other than Jeeps) was the first-gen Toyota 4Runner. Were the tops on those particularly easy to remove?
Once upon a time, sport utility vehicles were really deserving of that name. Now they’re just tall station wagons.
They’re tall station wagons because that’s what everyone was using them for. The shift from BOF SUV to unibody CUV is a very good thing IMO, because not only does it mean better MPG for those who use their former SUVs as family haulers, but those few “real” SUVs that are left are much better for it. Without having to compete with softroaders in creature comforts, they can devote more attention to off-road abilities. The full-size “wagon” SUVS (Expedition, Tahoe, Sequoia, etc.) have their own niche, but I’m thinking mostly the 4Runner–the current 4Runner is a “purer” off-roader than the one that came before, because now the Highlander does errand duty. There’s even talk (and more than just baseless rumors) that Ford will be bringing a new Bronco and the Ranger on which it would be based to an American plant within the next 5 years. The future’s looking bright.
As much as Ford seems to downplay the possibility of a new Ranger in NA, the reality is that Ford got caught with its pants down when they killed off the Ranger in favor of offering the F150 with more fuel efficient engines. They thought everybody that needed a truck would flock to them to get a new F150 and that the new improved F150 would appeal to Ranger owners due to Ford’s faulty thinking that most folks with Rangers really wanted an F150 but they were balking at the gas prices.
Well what happened was that the Ranger was still selling well enough when it was killed off and there was still a market for a small pickup(though smaller then before) and that they actually lost those former Ranger customers to Toyota for the Tacoma or Chevy/GMC for the Colorado/Canyon.
Because Ford failed to grasp that gas MPG was not the only thing that kept folks away from a F150 and steered them to a Ranger, it was maneuverability and where to park it.
The F150 could get 100 miles per gal and I would not be interested in it because I could not park the dumb thing in my parking spot that is assigned to me at my house complex(would stick too far out)and if I can’t park it then I don’t want it.
GM wisely brought the Colorado/Canyon back and they can’t keep them in stock as people keep buying them.
Sales were continuing to drop for the Ranger with every redesign/upgrade. Every year the buyers shifted more and more to fleets and cheapskates and away from the more profitable trucks in higher trim levels and with more options. Fact is Ford is correct that many of the fleet buyers would be better served by the Transit Connect saving them the need of buying a Canopy and giving them far better access to their cargo.
The Colorado was not a wise move by GM, their sales have already reached their peak, are starting to drop off and dealer inventories are growing.
Ford Australia has just added the Everest, an SUV based off the Ranger chassis. Ford has the product out there, they just don’t sell it to you. So much for One Ford!
http://www.ford.com.au/suv/everest
The Ranger and a new Bronco, probably based off the current Everest, are coming to North America by 2020. One Ford strikes again!
I had a 94 Ranger that I bought when it was less than 2 years old. It was a 4 cylinder/manual transmissioned XLT regular cab, and one very tough truck. I liked the “manageable” size….most of the time, and the gas mileage was probably the best of any non-diesel engined pickup out there. I might have bought another but for the steering wheel that always felt too close to my chest and the need to special order the exact truck I wanted (a 4 cylinder, manual transmission, Supercab, with A/C and cruise control). Dealers could put me into a truck that had most of what I wanted, but not all.
I’m not sure how great an idea the newer Colorado/Canyon are. Most of the ones I see on dealer websites for my area are fully loaded or nearly fully loaded trucks approaching $40,000. At those kind of prices I can see why buyers go for a full sized truck.
And the small truck market IS shrinking.
I would consider a small Ford if it was available and have even “built and priced” a Transit Connect on Ford’s website a few times.
I have also looked at the “small” Chevy/GMC and am disappointed that the “price leader” models are only available in 3 colors….just like most cheaper new cars.
Thank you for mentioning the 4Runner and the Highlander.
4Runner – truck-based chassis – better for off-road capabilities
Highlander – Camry-based chassis – better for ride comfort in everyday use
While it is correct to say that the K5 Blazer was cancelled after ’91, it implies that there was no 2-door full-size SUV from GM after 1991, and there certainly was. In ’92 the new GMT400 2-door was called just the Blazer, taking the Tahoe name (as well as the more well-known 4-door variant) in 1995. Both the 2-door Tahoe and 2-door Yukon were discontinued in 2000–the last of their kind.
I always thought they were sharp, traditional two door layout with modern styling.
I’ve always thought (re)painting these large SUVs in camouflage paint schemes was about as pointless as….well, the idea seems a bit silly.
While these big Broncos, and the smaller Bronco IIs, are disappearing from most areas I’m surprised to see they can still be found on Craigslist and at affordable prices. (Unfortunately, 99% have appropriately high mileages for the year, with “creampuffs” very few and far between.)
About 1 in 10 Broncos I see on Craigslist has had the top removed, but those “open air” models are always badly trashed “mud trucks”, at least in this area.
Most self-applied camo jobs are hideous and poseur-iffic but that one is quite attractive.
I always liked that last iteration of Bronco, thought that front-end was a very nice application of aero-styling. The Eddie Bauers were quite nice, a pity the OJ/Al Cowlings associations did them in.
I don’t think that’s any recognised camo pattern, but it sure looks good.
I think it’s the light colors that keep it from looking like a survivalist nutjob poseur-ride. Looks similar to the Three Color Desert the US Army used as a uniform camo in the 90s but it’s not a perfect match.
I always thought Saab should have made a 900 in the same splinter pattern as the Swedes used on their Viggens but I’m sure the masking would have cost a fortune, LOL.
Always kind of liked the full-size Broncos, especially in its last iteration. My brother-in-law, who was a big duck hunter at the time, had a ’93 and then a ’96 (last year of production) Bronco. I came close to buying a new ’96 but opted for a 4-door Tahoe instead, what with two little kids at the time. Plus I hated that awful Twin Traction Beam (aka swing axle) front suspension…NOT one of Ford’s better ideas.
Had problems getting in to edit my post…meant to say that I liked the earlier iteration (not later) best…the solid front axle full size Bronco up thru ’79, before Ford switched to the TTB front suspension. I’m no engineer, but whatever informed that poor decision is a mystery to me. The TTB was just a terrible design.
Well it appears you were trying to edit Dave’s comment as GearheadDave so yeah that isn’t going to happen.
The TTB was a great design, nothing could touch it in its early years for the combination of the strength and durability of a straight axle and many of the benefits of an independent suspension. Yes it could have been put out to pasture a little earlier but the TTB and TIB front suspensions were a feature that many preferred to the other offerings in the full size trucks and SUV’s of the era. The TIB was a deciding factor for many in choosing an Econoline over a GM van. In the Ranger is was also preferred to the wimpy car suspension used in the S-10.
+1. The TTB was far superior to a normal IFS for any kind of offroading. Having the diff on a swingarm means that these dont sacrifice ground clearance on compression…that HUGE. On these f/s broncs, it didnt effect handling too much since you werent carving corners in them anyway. On the smaller Furds though…it was atrocious. Going to a normal IFS on something that was going to be mostly jockeyed around by suburbanites was probably the right move, all things considered.
TTB is awesome. As long as the coil springs are not sagging (ie one side to another) and aligned by someone who knows what they are doing, they don’t do anything weird like wear tires funny like all the Ford bashers like to say. Poly bushings help too, which I have. My ’83 Ranger 4×4 drives like a dream, even with the 31-10.50-15 tires. And while we are on the subject, to give you an idea of how tough the Ranger is, all of the suspension bushings in the truck are the same as the full size Ford trucks.
OJ was driven in a Bronco, Al Cowlings owned and drove the infamous white Bronco used in the low speed chase.
If you type the license plate into Carfax it will spit out a model year for you.
First vehicle I ever drove was our tutone dark blue and white 351 powered ’85 Bronco. Later, it was traded for a 302 powered Eddie Bauer ’88. While Ive never liked Fords too much, Ive always had a soft spot for Broncos…especially the old school ’66-’77 models. These fullsize models were still not bad. Great looking rigs up til ’86 but they got uglier each time they were ‘freshened’. That said, ANY Bronco is a masterpiece compared to the Explorer and Expedition turds. My parents had one each of those. One, a cramped underpowered soccer mom mobile, the other a bloated and dumpy sow. Neither could hold a candle to even the ’88 with its wimpy 302.
Im curious to see what the ‘next’ Bronco will be like. If Ford plays it conservative with an XTerra or FJ Cruiser type approach, Jeep will have little to worry about but if they go with a 2 or 4 door model with serious offroad capability and the all important open roof…then Im all for a little competition for my beloved Wrangler. Without a serious adversary, theyre getting too soft.
I remember reading one of the buff magazines when they announced the Ramcharger roof would no longer be available–turns out most folks didn’t even know it came off. I helped a friend take off the roof of his Ramcharger and what a work out. He left the top off all summer because it was easier–after it was reinstalled non of the gaskets worked as good as before–wind and water got through. The older Blazers could be had with a soft top–what happened to that option?
I’ve also always liked these final Broncos, OJ association or not. Attractive, modern-looking for the era but still tough and rugged. The previous model wasn’t quite as attractive with its blocky headlamps, but still wasn’t bad. A neighbor in my college apartment complex had an ’88 Bronco 4×4 with a 351 that a previous owner had added a supercharger to–now that thing had some power. He kept it immaculate as well (so much so, that when I once asked him to let me know if he ever planned to sell it, he told me he’d never sell it to me because I didn’t take good enough care of my car. LOL.)