1972-73 owners-mind your P's and Q's

[toddz69]

Not sure if he is on here. But it was a guy named Chad outside of Duluth, MN. He's had 4 or 5 Broncos on ebay the last few months.

Different guy. Mono's first name is John.

Todd Z.

 

[toddz69]

Todd,

Very interesting read, thanks for posting up the link. Do you know if the article is in the print version? Would love to know the breakdowns of the numbers on the other ‘72 Ranger colors if that info is available. My ‘72 is Limestone Green, like Brandy’s.

I learned today that the Bronco article should be in the January issue of Hemmings Motor News. Vern says it will be on the cover!

Todd Z.

 

[LUBr LuvR]

I learned today that the Bronco article should be in the January issue of Hemmings Motor News. Vern says it will be on the cover!

Todd Z.

Thanks for the info Todd, Even better with a Bronco on the cover......I’ll be sure to order one!

 

[surfer-b]

A new article in Hemmings on a "P and Q" truck:

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/unrestored-1972-ford-bronco-ranger/

I'm surmising it is anyway, based on the production date, etc.

Todd Z.

that is one i will chk out

 

[toddz69]

Current BaT truck with Q22106 and build sticker of 8/72. Viper's initial docs in this thread indicated this should've been built in 9/72 (just barely).

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1973-ford-bronco-144/

Todd Z.

 

[Jww]

I've been working on an accurate VIN chart (VIN vs month/year built) for some time. One problem area that I've seen on all published charts is late '72 and early '73. This is the P and Q zone. Every now and then I'll see a VIN pop up that doesn't seem to fit in these charts. I have collected some data points to prove these other charts are wrong but I don't have enough data to populate an accurate chart.

This is where you can help. I need just 3 or 4 characters from the VIN starting with the P or Q. You don't need to post your entire VIN. For example, for VIN U15GLP12345, I need the characters "P123" and the build month. The build month can be from the tag on the driver's door post, Marti report, or Ford build sheet. It needs to be from a documented source not your aging memory of when your think your uncle bought it off the dealer lot.

Thanks for the help.

I've been working on an accurate VIN chart (VIN vs month/year built) for some time. One problem area that I've seen on all published charts is late '72 and early '73. This is the P and Q zone. Every now and then I'll see a VIN pop up that doesn't seem to fit in these charts. I have collected some data points to prove these other charts are wrong but I don't have enough data to populate an accurate chart.

This is where you can help. I need just 3 or 4 characters from the VIN starting with the P or Q. You don't need to post your entire VIN. For example, for VIN U15GLP12345, I need the characters "P123" and the build month. The build month can be from the tag on the driver's door post, Marti report, or Ford build sheet. It needs to be from a documented source not your aging memory of when your think your uncle bought it off the dealer lot.

Thanks for the help.

6/1972. P375. Sport explorer

 

[crawln68]

I don't know if mine will help any or not as mine is an early 72 build a "N" VIN #. Here is my Marti Report.

 

[sprdv1]

I don't know if mine will help any or not as mine is an early 72 build a "N" VIN #. Here is my Marti Report.

cool. Thanks for sharing

 

[BrettKoenecke]

R51610 built March of 73, with a J shift

 

[jamesroney]

Bringing this thread back to the top. It has been 10 years, 31 pages, and 609 posts...and we still don't have resolution on the p's and q's. Mostly because we have some very credible resources making some definitive statements, and there is minimal data to refute those claims.

But I have evaluated the data compiled by @Viperwolf1 and I am ready to make an unpopular assertion.

For the production period of August to December of 1972, here are some observations:
1. If you received a Bronco with an automatic transmission, it had VIN Q.
2. If you received a Bronco with a VIN Q, it was equipped with EGR.
3. If you received a Bronco with a VIN Q, it was certified to meet 1973 Emissions, and the Certificate of Origin, Registration Year Model, and Marti Report indicate that it is a 1973 year model.
4. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was equipped with a manual transmission.
5. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was not equipped with EGR, and would not meet 1973 emissions standards.
6. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was certified to meet 1972 emissions and the Certificate of Origin, Registration Year Model, and Marti Report indicate that it is a 1972 year model.

If we can agree to the previous 6 observations, then it is reasonable to conclude the following:

Production of the 1972 year model Ford Bronco began in August of 1971, and ended December of 1972.
Production of the 1973 year model Ford Bronco began in August of 1972, and ended July of 1973.

For three months, from September of 1972 to December of 1972, there was concurrent production of TWO different year models of Bronco. This was not an accident, not an anomaly, not a production error.

Generally speaking, the year model change coincides with the plant re-tooling shutdown in July. But it is not absolute, and as stated by @DirtDonk many years ago...not a regulatory requirement. You could buy a 1999 F350 in March of 1998. And you could buy a 1965 Ford Mustang in April of 64. They were making 1965 Sunbeam Tigers all the way thru December of 65. And Shelby tried to build 1967 Cobra's 40 years after the factory shut down.

If anyone with a VIN P88xxx or higher could post a pic of their Emissions decal that states "For 1972 model year" That would put this to bed. And I can stop arguing with @JGbronc

 

[DirtDonk]

I also mentioned in the past, that it was very possible that they were unable to meet certain emissions requirements during the latter months, so kept registering them at 72s.
At the time I thought it could perhaps be the availability of EGR parts, or certain other components.
But another possibility is that they had not achieved certification with manual transmissions yet.
If you remember a lot of vehicles back then, let’s use the Pontiac Trans Am as an example, in certain areas like California you could only get an automatic transmission and it only came with the Oldsmobile 401 (or was that a 403?) whereas in other states you could get the manual transmission with the Pontiac 400.
So that’s just another possibility in the emissions category.

Lots of vehicles back then had different horsepower ratings between automatic and manual, and other differences.

 

[toddz69]

Bringing this thread back to the top. It has been 10 years, 31 pages, and 609 posts...and we still don't have resolution on the p's and q's. Mostly because we have some very credible resources making some definitive statements, and there is minimal data to refute those claims.

But I have evaluated the data compiled by @Viperwolf1 and I am ready to make an unpopular assertion.

For the production period of August to December of 1972, here are some observations:
1. If you received a Bronco with an automatic transmission, it had VIN Q.
2. If you received a Bronco with a VIN Q, it was equipped with EGR.
3. If you received a Bronco with a VIN Q, it was certified to meet 1973 Emissions, and the Certificate of Origin, Registration Year Model, and Marti Report indicate that it is a 1973 year model.
4. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was equipped with a manual transmission.
5. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was not equipped with EGR, and would not meet 1973 emissions standards.
6. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was certified to meet 1972 emissions and the Certificate of Origin, Registration Year Model, and Marti Report indicate that it is a 1972 year model.

If we can agree to the previous 6 observations, then it is reasonable to conclude the following:

Production of the 1972 year model Ford Bronco began in August of 1971, and ended December of 1972.
Production of the 1973 year model Ford Bronco began in August of 1972, and ended July of 1973.

For three months, from September of 1972 to December of 1972, there was concurrent production of TWO different year models of Bronco. This was not an accident, not an anomaly, not a production error.

Generally speaking, the year model change coincides with the plant re-tooling shutdown in July. But it is not absolute, and as stated by @DirtDonk many years ago...not a regulatory requirement. You could buy a 1999 F350 in March of 1998. And you could buy a 1965 Ford Mustang in April of 64. They were making 1965 Sunbeam Tigers all the way thru December of 65. And Shelby tried to build 1967 Cobra's 40 years after the factory shut down.

If anyone with a VIN P88xxx or higher could post a pic of their Emissions decal that states "For 1972 model year" That would put this to bed. And I can stop arguing with @JGbronc

Very nice, concise summary - after I read the exchange on FB, I figured this might be coming .

I will take one exception with your conclusion though, where you state "This was not an accident, not an anomaly, not a production error." I'll counter and say it is an anomaly since it only happened once in the first 30 years of Bronco production (1966-1996) - with the definition of anomaly per the internets being: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. Since it only happened once in those 30 years, I'd say it's not standard, normal, or expected.

We all know it happened - that's been very well vetted and documented in the past 31 pages. As a history geek, I'm curious why it happened and as an engineer, I'm curious if, as we suspect, it was related to either a parts shortage issue or perhaps a calibration/certification issue for manual transmission trucks. I'm guessing most anyone that would know such things is long gone and there probably wasn't any documentation that survived that provides any clues either. I don't think it can be put to bed until we know exactly what happened and why it happened.

Todd Z.

 

[jamesroney]

I also mentioned in the past, that it was very possible that they were unable to meet certain emissions requirements during the latter months, so kept registering them at 72s.
At the time I thought it could perhaps be the availability of EGR parts, or certain other components.
But another possibility is that they had not achieved certification with manual transmissions yet.
If you remember a lot of vehicles back then, let’s use the Pontiac Trans Am as an example, in certain areas like California you could only get an automatic transmission and it only came with the Oldsmobile 401 (or was that a 403?) whereas in other states you could get the manual transmission with the Pontiac 400.
So that’s just another possibility in the emissions category.

Lots of vehicles back then had different horsepower ratings between automatic and manual, and other differences.

There are examples in the database of August, September, and October built Q VIN manual transmission Broncos. So the Cert existed.

There is every reason to believe that there was an availability issue. The fact that the @toddz69 "anomaly" happened in multiple DSO's tells me that it originated at the Factory. I expect that orders were sent in from the District without regard to year model. Someone in the production planning group would have had to acknowledge the order, and in that process, they would confirm the order based on availability. Some clever Product Manager figured out that they could continue to produce prior year model configurations and avoid the constraint. Obviously there was no Automatic certified for 1972, so they would have to prioritize allocation of whatever was scarce to those orders. But now I'm guessing...

 

[DirtDonk]

There are examples in the database of August, September, and October built Q VIN manual transmission Broncos. So the Cert existed.

Do we already know from the data whether any of them were sent to CA?

 

[jamesroney]

Very nice, concise summary - after I read the exchange on FB, I figured this might be coming .

I will take one exception with your conclusion though, where you state "This was not an accident, not an anomaly, not a production error." I'll counter and say it is an anomaly since it only happened once in the first 30 years of Bronco production (1966-1996) - with the definition of anomaly per the internets being: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. Since it only happened once in those 30 years, I'd say it's not standard, normal, or expected.

We all know it happened - that's been very well vetted and documented in the past 31 pages. As a history geek, I'm curious why it happened and as an engineer, I'm curious if, as we suspect, it was related to either a parts shortage issue or perhaps a calibration/certification issue for manual transmission trucks. I'm guessing most anyone that would know such things is long gone and there probably wasn't any documentation that survived that provides any clues either. I don't think it can be put to bed until we know exactly what happened and why it happened.

Todd Z.

OK, you are right. It's an anomaly.
Turns out that I don't care why. As an engineer, (and a Six Sigma Black Belt...) when my decision tree leads to the same action regardless of the answer...I ignore the question.

But as long as I can get Viperwolf to concede that they were building 1972 year model Broncos after July of 1972, I'm still the winner.

 

[jamesroney]

Do we already know from the data whether any of them were sent to CA?

The data are inadequate. There is only one CA DSO and it is an October production 1972 Bronco. There are zero CA DSO 1973 Broncos in the database.

 

[4WHLFUN]

Bringing this thread back to the top. It has been 10 years, 31 pages, and 609 posts...and we still don't have resolution on the p's and q's. Mostly because we have some very credible resources making some definitive statements, and there is minimal data to refute those claims.

But I have evaluated the data compiled by @Viperwolf1 and I am ready to make an unpopular assertion.

For the production period of August to December of 1972, here are some observations:
1. If you received a Bronco with an automatic transmission, it had VIN Q.

In reference to Item 1 are you suggesting all Q are automatic? My Q VIN is Trans Code C, J shift, Built 12/72 for 73 model year per Marti

 

[JGbronc]

Bringing this thread back to the top. It has been 10 years, 31 pages, and 609 posts...and we still don't have resolution on the p's and q's. Mostly because we have some very credible resources making some definitive statements, and there is minimal data to refute those claims.

But I have evaluated the data compiled by @Viperwolf1 and I am ready to make an unpopular assertion.

For the production period of August to December of 1972, here are some observations:
1. If you received a Bronco with an automatic transmission, it had VIN Q.
2. If you received a Bronco with a VIN Q, it was equipped with EGR.
3. If you received a Bronco with a VIN Q, it was certified to meet 1973 Emissions, and the Certificate of Origin, Registration Year Model, and Marti Report indicate that it is a 1973 year model.
4. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was equipped with a manual transmission.
5. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was not equipped with EGR, and would not meet 1973 emissions standards.
6. If you received a Bronco with VIN P, (after P88xxx) it was certified to meet 1972 emissions and the Certificate of Origin, Registration Year Model, and Marti Report indicate that it is a 1972 year model.

If we can agree to the previous 6 observations, then it is reasonable to conclude the following:

Production of the 1972 year model Ford Bronco began in August of 1971, and ended December of 1972.
Production of the 1973 year model Ford Bronco began in August of 1972, and ended July of 1973.

For three months, from September of 1972 to December of 1972, there was concurrent production of TWO different year models of Bronco. This was not an accident, not an anomaly, not a production error.

Generally speaking, the year model change coincides with the plant re-tooling shutdown in July. But it is not absolute, and as stated by @DirtDonk many years ago...not a regulatory requirement. You could buy a 1999 F350 in March of 1998. And you could buy a 1965 Ford Mustang in April of 64. They were making 1965 Sunbeam Tigers all the way thru December of 65. And Shelby tried to build 1967 Cobra's 40 years after the factory shut down.

If anyone with a VIN P88xxx or higher could post a pic of their Emissions decal that states "For 1972 model year" That would put this to bed. And I can stop arguing with @JGbronc

What’s funny is, I agree with everything you said. But I still firmly believe those late built “72s” would be 73s if they had met emissions standards for 73.

Dirtdonk said basically what I’ve believed for years and said on FB. It was done to sell them without having to comply to 73 standards. And for the record I’m not saying they are legally 73s, obviously they were titled from day one as a 72 and all Ford records support such.

I care nothing about getting a “win”. You can have it. We basically believe the same thing but you think my way of looking at it is “funny” which is fine, I’ll agree to disagree.

 

[jamesroney]

In reference to Item 1 are you suggesting all Q are automatic? My Q VIN is Trans Code C, J shift, Built 12/72 for 73 model year per Marti

No, you are stating the converse.

If you had an Automatic, it was a Q.

That does not mean that if it is a Q, it is an automatic. Plenty of examples in the database of manual transmission Q's.

 

[4WHLFUN]

No, you are stating the converse.

If you had an Automatic, it was a Q.

That does not mean that if it is a Q, it is an automatic. Plenty of examples in the database of manual transmission Q's.

Got it thanks, that's what I suspected.