Vintage Car Life Review: 1966 Ford Bronco – Ford Joins The Compact 4X4 Market With A “West Of The Pecos Rodeo Aura”

 

In the mid-’60s, Ford Motor Company studied the Jeep CJ-5 and International Scout and declared, “We can do that!” The result: the 1966 Ford Bronco, a boxy little SUV with part-time 4WD, rudimentary styling, and VW Beetle performance. Car Life tested the Bronco in April 1966 and concluded that despite its considerable on-road deficiencies, it was a vehicle that “awakens the latent Wild West in a driver’s personality.”

 

I’m going to say upfront that the Ford Bronco is one of those “iconic” models that I just don’t get. The first-generation Bronco looks unnervingly like an upscaled children’s pedal car, especially in bright pastel colors, lacking the Marlboro Man machismo of the International Scout or early Toyota Land Cruiser (whose appeal I recognize, even though they do nothing for me). I can see the Bronco’s utility for park rangers, rural utility workers, or poachers, but it’s about as comfortable as a blister, and in my world, ending up off-road means something has gone very, very wrong. Voluntarily driving a vehicle like this in any situation where more civilized alternatives are available strikes me as needless self-flagellation, which is not my idea of fun.

By contrast, the editors of Car Life seemed to regard the Bronco with guarded but genuine enthusiasm. This was the era when the Western Bonanza was still the most popular show on television (not that one would bring that up in connection with a Ford — Bonanza was sponsored by Chevrolet), and the Bronco’s modern cowboy vibe went over well even in Southern California, where CL was based.

 

They said:

One look at this palomino’s stocky metallic copper lower body and sturdy squared-off, cream-colored steel top and CL’s test crewman, previously blasé about both quarter horses and off-the-road vehicles, immediately thought about acquiring an LBJ hat, saddle pants, high-heeled boots and a pair of Mexican spurs. Ford might well add these items in the Bronco option catalog—along with instructions for calling people “Podner,” because the Bronco makes its driver feel that(a)way. It may be the idea of 4-wheel drive and where it will take the hunter, fisherman, rockhound, camping buff or working cattleman, or perhaps it is the trail-ready name, shape and feel of this small vehicle—something awakens the latent Wild West in a driver’s personality.

However, it didn’t take long for the editors to realize the Bronco’s severe limitations in on-road travel:

A tour of Southern California freeways immediately demonstrated the low-geared Bronco should best be given its head in back country. A comfortable highway cruise for this particular Bronco was 55 mph—slow by the majority of freeway standards. A speed of 60 mph created tight winding of the smallish engine and audible workings of transmission and transfer cases; 74 mph, absolutely the upper limit of Bronco progress, was difficult to maintain, wearying and probably battered the engine unnecessarily.

Thus it was that the Bronco was taken to an area more suitable for assessment of its capabilities—the mountainous spine of California, a land of steep canyons and draws, boulders, brush and pine, wet and splattered with patches of melting snow and ice along the sun-scarce northern sides of sharp hogback ridges.

From paved roadway the Bronco meandered easily along ever steeper switchbacks of U.S. Forest Service fire trails, through muddy creek beds and a bog or two. Slush, frozen mud, stiff sagebrush and broken rock were taken in stride with the Bronco’s range of gearing.

The photo captions say, “THIS PALOMINO was built to go anywhere, but, shod with conventional tires, a jaunt through the boondocks was a horse of a different color. WIDE open spaces are clearly visible through ample glass.”

 

The Bronco used a wide-ratio all-synchro three-speed manual transmission, shifted from the column and backed by a two-speed transfer case. A 4.11 axle was standard, but the CL tester had the optional 4.57 gears, giving 17.5 mph/1,000 rpm in 3rd-High. The editors thought these gears “seem much too low, even for off-road travel,” and they definitely contributed to the Bronco’s unsuitability for freeway travel.

 

At launch, the Bronco’s sole engine was Ford’s 170 cu. in. six, borrowed from the Falcon. This was rated at 105 gross hp, although the brochure also reveals net ratings of 89 hp and 146 lb-ft of torque. In a Falcon, this was adequate, but the Bronco was burdened with the extra weight and drag of the 4WD equipment. Curb weight of the test truck, a wagon with a full-length roof, was 3,277 lb.

 

The early Bronco was available in three forms. The basic Bronco Roadster (U-13) had neither doors, roof, nor heater, although a folding vinyl top and vinyl doors were optional to complement the folding windshield. The Bronco Sports Utility (U-14), which cost $143.11 more, had a heater, proper doors, a short pickup-style steel roof, roll-up side windows, and a pickup-style tailgate. The Bronco Wagon (U-15) also had doors, but with a full-length bolt-on steel roof, glass rear quarter windows, and a lockable tailgate.

 

The price of proper weather protection for both occupants and cargo, compared to the Roadster, was $214.37, 275 lb, and the very real danger of being outrun by clapped-out 1960 Falcons. Here are the disheartening results of Car Life‘s acceleration runs:

• 0 to 30 mph: 5.8 sec.
• 0 to 40 mph: 8.8 sec.
• 0 to 50 mph: 14.9 sec.
• 0 to 60 mph: 22.6 sec.
• 0 to 70 mph: 40.5 sec.
• Standing quarter mile: 21.9 sec. at 59 mph
• Passing, 30 to 70 mph: 34.7 sec.

These figures made the Bronco a little quicker than a VW 1300, but only a little.

 

Performance and fuel economy weren’t helped by the Bronco’s high stance and a frontal area only slightly smaller than the United Nations building. (Car Life quoted 27.3 sq. ft., at least 15 percent more than a typical domestic sedan.)

 

The overall height, just 0.6 inches under 6 feet, probably also contributed to the Bronco’s awful braking performance. As CL noted apologetically:

Panic stops—braking from top speed of 70 mph—produced severe nosedive and a very distinct pull to the right. In the second of two such runs, the Bronco displayed moderate fade and a spongy pedal. In uses for which the Bronco was manufactured, however, it is not likely the vehicle will be driven at 70 mph or often be required to decelerate violently from that speed. Low gearing, used with engine compression, provides excellent braking in downhill situations.

This was with conventional Goodyear on-road tires, which the editors warned “just weren’t designed as horseshoes”:

The Bronco buyer who plans both highway and brush use for his vehicle might well consider ownership of two sets of tires and wheels—one set for one job, one set for the other, with quick changes made on the lubrication rack at a friendly local service station. The owner who mistakenly believes his Bronco will produce best off-road performance with street tires should carry at all times a No. 2 shovel—he’ll need it, just as did a hapless test driver who attempted to negotiate a particularly marshy piece of ground. Four wheels spinning in soupy muck is a sorry sight.

The photo captions read, “FOUR-WHEEL drive and low-range gearing invite the driver to go where there are no roads, but if Ford were to offer optional overdrive and larger engines, the Bronco would become a more tractable beast for some citified folk,” and “HUBS lock for 4wd, unlock for 2-wheel paved roadway travel.”

 

Ford gave the Bronco a Mustang-like lengthy options list, which included front bucket seats and a Custom Equipment Package with various chrome bits, armrests, sun visors, wheel covers, a cigarette lighter, and gauges for oil pressure and amperage. A rear seat was also optional, as were free-running front hubs and skid plates. Car Life added:

From there on, as with cigarettes from a Bull Durham sack, Broncos are strictly “roll your own.” … Among Ford-supplied options are a power takeoff, citizens’ band radio transceiver, snowplow, trailer hitch, winch, tachometer and tow hooks. Auxiliary devices available are a mower, power broom, posthole digger, sprayer and trencher. The Bronco can be supplied equipped as a diminutive fire truck or as an auto wrecker.

They were puzzled by the lack of engine options, wondering why Ford didn’t offer its bigger six-cylinder engines or the 289 V-8. The 289-2V engine became available in March 1966, giving a healthier net output of 150 hp and 242 lb-ft of torque. With more power and a 3.50 axle, the V-8 gave the Bronco more composure in freeway driving, and made towing a more realistic prospect. (The brochure claimed the Bronco had “plenty of power for towing a moderate-size trailer,” but the six was hard-pressed even with just two passengers.)

 

CL would still have liked overdrive for on-road use, and thought a 2WD Bronco “could handle with enthusiasm the pickup truck functions for an acre-or-so-sized suburban ranch.”

 

The Bronco used what Ford called Mono-Beam front suspension, with a solid axle on coil springs, located by radius rods and a track bar. Rear springs were progressive-rate semi-elliptical leaf springs, which Ford claimed offered “unusual stability, durability, and sturdiness.” Car Life called the on-road ride “stiff, to say the least, but not objectionably harsh.” The short wheelbase (just 92 inches), beneficial for maneuverability, did nothing for the ride, promoting hobby-horsing on some surfaces.

 

CL offered little comment on the Bronco’s handling except to wish that Ford would find a better compromise between steering effort (which was quite low) and flailing elbows (5.3 turns lock-to-lock were required). Ford claimed the Bronco’s 57.4 inch track “reduces side sway on the highway and provides trail-hugging stability when traversing steep hills,” but the Bronco was taller than it was wide, so sharp turns at faster than a walking pace weren’t prudent.

 

The editors appreciated the fully synchronized gearbox, but found that the transfer case lever was hard to engage. Their tester had front buckets, which were comfortable enough, but lacked lateral support, another reason to keep cornering speeds low. As for the cabin, they judged it “Spartan—truck-like, as it should be for hard use.”

The photo captions read, “A WAGON was tested, but the Bronco may be ordered as a steel-topped pickup, or as an open sports vehicle with cloth top and plastic doors. RANGERS will find high, low, 2- and 4-wheel drive handy.”

 

Given its weight, shape, and gearing, it was no surprise that fuel economy was not a Bronco strong suit. Car Life measured a so-so 14.15 mpg overall, although they called it “economical enough when a 4-wheel drive climb to a 5000-ft. mountain top is taken into consideration.” Curiously, they found the six needed premium fuel, although its 9.1 compression ratio wasn’t terribly high for the time. (I’m not sure if this was a Ford recommendation or if the testers found their test car would ping on regular.) Also, with a fuel capacity of only 14.5 gallons, the Bronco’s range was limited, which seems like a bad problem to have in a vehicle intended to be driven far off the beaten track. A 12-gallon auxiliary fuel tank became optional in May 1966.

The photo captions read, “THE FALCON Six handles off-the-road chores easily but takes a high rpm beating in highway cruising. COIL SPRINGS, forged steel radius rods and a 1-in. dia. track bar locate the Bronco’s front drive axle.”

 

The editors concluded:

The Bronco is fine for hombres who don’t care for horses, but who want to hit the horse trails. The Bronco can tote grub from the general store or pack the young’uns off to the schoolhouse. In a pinch the Bronco can help with the spring plowing.

But best of all about the Bronco is that West of the Pecos rodeo aura that makes a driver shout, “Eeeee-aaaaayyhhooo!” as he plows 4-wheel full tilt through a mountain stream or breaks airborne over a mountain top.

For all the enthusiasm about the Bronco’s supposed do-anything versatility, it strikes me as a lifestyle vehicle of profoundly narrow capability. Ford boasted that the Bronco was “the vehicle of 1,001 uses … designed to go anywhere,” but its dismal on-road performance and grim standard of comfort sharply limited the scope of “anywhere,” and you had to accept many severe compromises for 4WD, including higher prices.

Even a basic U-13 Bronco Roadster started at $2,336.82, over $250 more than a RWD Ford F-100 pickup and $37.55 more than a Custom Ranchero, which didn’t require you to pay extra for doors, windows, or a roof. The Bronco U-15 wagon started at $2,551.19, and the Car Life tester was optioned up to $3,149. If 4WD wasn’t an absolute must, that money would buy various alternatives of greater all-around ability — a Ranchero, a compact Datsun or Toyota pickup, an Econoline van, or even (if your ego could stand it) a Falcon Futura station wagon. The Futura wagon was unlikely to make you shout “Eeeee-aaaaayyhhooo,” but it was more versatile, more economical, vastly more comfortable, and more practical 90 percent of the time.

 

I grasp that for fans of older trucks like the Bronco, the starkness and narrow focus are central to their appeal: There’s no pretense that they’re anything other than rugged working vehicles. Their lack of civility and limited suitability for general passenger car duties also serve to limit their audience to people who really need their truck-like attributes (or who are willing to make big sacrifices for authenticity in their lifestyle accessories). The Bronco was a specialized, low-volume niche product for many years — first-year production totaled 23,776 units, with sales averaging about 20,000 a year after that. In a market now almost totally dominated by luxury trucks, soft-roaders, trucklets, and pseudo-trucks, we might all have been better off if it had stayed that way.

Related Reading

Curbside Classic: 1969 Ford Bronco – The Mustang’s Bucking Sidekick (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1970 Ford Bronco – The Dick Clark Of SUVs? (by J P Cavanaugh)
Curbside Newsstand: 2021 Ford Bronco and 2021 Bronco Sport – Ford Revives an Icon, Launches a Sub-brand, and Officially Pivots to Utilities by Declaring War on Jeep (by Edward Snitkoff)