"Carl Saiyed" > wrote in message >...
> Is it a full-size Bronco or a Bronco II? If it is a Bronco II, RUN. A
> full size Bronco is good for light trail riding, Mud no deeper than
> about 12", basically light, responsible off roading. If you go somewhere
> that other's like to ride at and get stuck, someone will USUALLY be
> willing to help you out. Bronco II's have either a 4cyl (sucky) or even
> worse, the 2.8L 6cyl. Both motors are junk. Full size Broncos had
> different, and better motors.
>
> Also, note that if it is a v8 Bronco, you will be spending quite the
> bundle on your daily-drive.
>
> Where are you located? In some places it is hard to find trails suitible
> for full-size SUVs such as the Bronco (Full size), Blazer(K-5), and
> RamCharger.
>
> Carl
>
> "Anoni Mouse" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Rick Colombo wrote:
> > > With such precious little info, this looks like a troll to me,
> but...
> > >
> > > You don't buy a 20yr vehicle for a daily commuter. Surely (don't
> call
> > > me Shirley ;-) something catastrophic (i.e.; immobilizing it) will
> > > happen by next week tuesday. I've owned a '80, '87 and (currently)
> a
> > > '93 and Ford ever put a 5-spd in a Bronco. Wait a minute... now I
> get
> > > it, you're talking about a Bronco-II (which shared parts with Mazda
> and
> > > they did make a 5-spd), this is NOT a Bronco. If that's the case,
> then
> > > I can't help you at all, because I own a Bronco. Guess I just fell
> for
> > > another troll (or poorly worded subject line), oh well, good night.
> > > -PapaRick
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Anoni Mouse wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking at a 1984 Bronco 5spd. I don't know what size the
> engine
> > >> is yet, and everything else looks stock. I would like to know if
> this
> > >> is a good vehicle for offroading or not. I would be using it for a
> > >> short work commute and winter driving but wish to be able to do
> some
> > >> trails too even some of the lighter stuff in Moab over in Utah. Can
> > >> anybody give me some insight on this? Also, are later years (88-91)
> > >> better?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Anoni
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm not a troll. I can't afford two vehicles, but I also want
> something
> > to offroad with. This bronco looks like a good deal though I won't
> know
> > for sure for a couple of days when I go test drive it. I am able to
> fix
> > my vehicle if it breaks down and can ride a bike until I do get it
> > fixed. According to this:
> > http://www.off-road.com/ford/bigbroncos/faq.html , the larger 78+
> bronco
> > did indeed come with a 4spd standard with a 3spd auto as an option.
> The
> > 5spd was later offered and I believe available until they stopped
> > production. I have seen more than a few 5spd broncos and am suprised
> > that you have not.
> >
> > I would still like someone's opinion on the stock bronco as a weekend
> > recreactional vehicle. Obviously, if I can't afford a more expensive
> > car, I won't be putting much money into upgrading it anytime soon so
> > does anybody have anything to say?
> >
> > Thanks
Hi,
I wish that I had something more encouraging to say about a
Bronco II from that era, but I don't. I am from Utah and I don't
think that would be a very good Moab cruiser. Secondly I have had at
least two different friends that had Bronco II's of the same
approximate vintage, both suffered from chronic mechanical problems.
This just seemed to be a transition phase for Ford, and the Bronco II
was eventually overtaken by the much more reliable Explorer. The
problem that I find people run into with this particular vehicle, is
as you said many of them still look to be in very good shape. But you
will find that most have suffered major mechanical problems, and
several have even sat for long periods, (thats why they still look
good). I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but If you could only
afford to buy one car, I would definitely warn against this model.