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

[jamesroney]

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.

Yeah, I knew that we agreed far more than we disagreed. So I didn't want to get tripped up on the nuances.

Oh, and I wasn't looking for a win against you. I was looking for a "win" for the Bronco community in general.

And again semantics. (because we agree fundamentally, just a different way to look at it...) To say that "it was done to sell them without having to comply to 73 standards" is a factually accurate statement. But it is not truth. And if we leave off the rest of the relevant facts...then we lose the truth. Because implicit in that statement is the notion that the 72 Bronco SHOULD comply with the future requirements of an inapplicable 73 standard. Thus the logical flaw:

1. It was done to sell them without having to comply to 1973 standards.
2. The 1973 standard had an effective date of 1-Jan-1973. (with lots of caveats...)
3. The 1973 standard was not in effect at the time of production. (also, lots of caveats...)
4. The 1972 standard was the controlling requirement at the time of production.
5. The vehicle conforms to all applicable motor vehicle standards in effect on the date of manufacture.
6 The 1973 standard excludes prior year standards.
7. The 1972 Bronco is in compliance with the 73 standard.

Once we agree that these are indeed 1972 year model Broncos, then we can have an interesting and relevant discussion regarding changes for the model year 73. Because it breaks the model year vs running change paradigm. The J-shift transfer case is already a running change. Power steering becomes a running change. Dash lights become running change. Many of the features that we conveniently associate with a particular year model get broken.

Telling people that Power Steering was available in a 1972 Bronco hurts their feelings.

And totally agree with you that Ford would have preferred to build these as 1973's. And the reason for why they couldn't is still interesting to guys like @toddz69

 

[Viperwolf1]

I think a simple reason for all this confusion is the most plausible one. Let me throw this theory out there.

By early '72, Broncos were pretty basic 4x4s. Manual steering, manual drum brakes and a 3 speed on the column were the way to get them unless you could afford a Stroppe. Approaching seven years of production and none of the nice features that some of the other manufacturers were already offering. Perhaps this caused a dip in the demand and orders for the factory. Of course Ford saw this and had plans to offer power steering and an automatic transmission around the release of the '73 models. Surely they would have advertised these coming options prior to production of the '73s. Maybe they got a lot of interest and a lot of orders based on the power steering option. According to the data, PS was first installed starting in July 1972, close to the changeover to '73 models. Perhaps Ford saw this spike in demand and wanted to capitalize on the PS release by running out the '72 VIN sequence numbers as much as possible. Build a bunch with power steering and manual transmissions then hit the public with the automatic transmission a few months later to try and build the interest some more. But something may have thrown a wrench in the plan.

Nearly all the '73 P's show PS except for 4 on the list and I think those 4 could possibly be errors on my part. Apparently Ford made no annotation to the warranty tag axle code regarding PS until at least the end of Oct '72, after all the P's were "built" and released. I noticed this recently by looking at some Marti reports. So with nothing indicating PS on the tag it may have been assumed to have been added after production. It's difficult to look back 10 years and try to figure exactly where every piece of data came from.

I think all the '73 P's began production in July '72 and were set aside for some reason. I know they were set aside because its shown on the Marti reports. There's the build date and the released date. Just look at some random reports and you'll see these dates normally coincide. On the P's, there is a significant period of time between those dates. Perhaps they were originally planning to use old style dashes in all the P's they had stockpiled and ran into issues. Maybe the execs decided to use the new dash in them and call them '73s which required a harness change. Maybe it was a power steering problem. It could have been any one of a dozen things but they all had late '72 sequence numbers, all ended up with a '73 dash, most had PS, and all were delayed.

Ford started making the first Q's in Aug '72 but in about one month they started pushing P's along with the Q's out until the P's were all gone. It took Sept till Oct to get them all gone.

Geeze, this post is so long, people are gonna think Paul wrote it.

 

[Viperwolf1]

Here's the latest.

 

[Blitzen72]

Interesting discussion. I'll toss mine in for another data point: According to the Marti, mine (P31029) was built May 24th, '72, and has the T transfer case, manual 3 on the column, and power steering - which I've always assumed a former owner had put on 'back in the day'. No dash light bars. Build date and release date same day.

Not sure what the fuel line / no return column is looking for...

 

[jamesroney]

I think a simple reason for all this confusion is the most plausible one. Let me throw this theory out there.

By early '72, Broncos were pretty basic 4x4s. Manual steering, manual drum brakes and a 3 speed on the column were the way to get them unless you could afford a Stroppe. Approaching seven years of production and none of the nice features that some of the other manufacturers were already offering. Perhaps this caused a dip in the demand and orders for the factory. Of course Ford saw this and had plans to offer power steering and an automatic transmission around the release of the '73 models. Surely they would have advertised these coming options prior to production of the '73s. Maybe they got a lot of interest and a lot of orders based on the power steering option. According to the data, PS was first installed starting in July 1972, close to the changeover to '73 models. Perhaps Ford saw this spike in demand and wanted to capitalize on the PS release by running out the '72 VIN sequence numbers as much as possible. Build a bunch with power steering and manual transmissions then hit the public with the automatic transmission a few months later to try and build the interest some more. But something may have thrown a wrench in the plan.

Nearly all the '73 P's show PS except for 4 on the list and I think those 4 could possibly be errors on my part. Apparently Ford made no annotation to the warranty tag axle code regarding PS until at least the end of Oct '72, after all the P's were "built" and released. I noticed this recently by looking at some Marti reports. So with nothing indicating PS on the tag it may have been assumed to have been added after production. It's difficult to look back 10 years and try to figure exactly where every piece of data came from.

I think all the '73 P's began production in July '72 and were set aside for some reason. I know they were set aside because its shown on the Marti reports. There's the build date and the released date. Just look at some random reports and you'll see these dates normally coincide. On the P's, there is a significant period of time between those dates. Perhaps they were originally planning to use old style dashes in all the P's they had stockpiled and ran into issues. Maybe the execs decided to use the new dash in them and call them '73s which required a harness change. Maybe it was a power steering problem. It could have been any one of a dozen things but they all had late '72 sequence numbers, all ended up with a '73 dash, most had PS, and all were delayed.

Ford started making the first Q's in Aug '72 but in about one month they started pushing P's along with the Q's out until the P's were all gone. It took Sept till Oct to get them all gone.

Geeze, this post is so long, people are gonna think Paul wrote it.

Wow, are you taking notes from @DirtDonk?

There is a fault in your reasoning. Consider that the power steering option is not a bolt on option. Power steering must be known when the Body is Bucked. There are several features that must be molded into the sheet metal long before anything could have been "put aside." Think about the inner apron indentation. That comes on a part with a different part number than was made on a tool that did not exist in production prior to MY 1973 changeover. Logistically, it would be impossible to begin a vehicle in July, and then set it aside, and complete in in October. That just doesn't happen. Anything that looks like that would be contracted to KarKraft, or Stroppe, or some other third party.

A July stamped Bronco would be equipped with a 72 non-indented core support. All of that has to be stamped, welded, painted and assembled before the end of July. Because the plant only re-tooled ONCE, and it happened in July, and any sheet metal that gets stamped after that would be using MY73 tooling. Moreover, sequence numbers are issued sequentially. So the last 5 of the vin would get issued when the vehicle is scheduled for production. Your database show this clearly. series numbers are time sequenced. Once the series number exists, it becomes part of the VIN, and it has to be stamped on the frame prior to frame to body assembly. The frame of ALL P's was stamped AFTER the vin was created, and the tub was installed AFTER that. So there is no possible scenario that creates a partial Bronco that gets "pushed to the side." The sequence of operations does not work that way.

The order was entered, the BOM was created, the build was scheduled, the sequence number was issued, the VIN was created. When the Scheduled Build Date arrived, production began. 72 hours later, a completed Bronco was driven off the assembly line. The P vs Q was determined when the BOM was created.

 

[DirtDonk]

Hey, I resemble those remarks!

 

[Viperwolf1]

Wow, are you taking notes from @DirtDonk?

There is a fault in your reasoning. Consider that the power steering option is not a bolt on option. Power steering must be known when the Body is Bucked. There are several features that must be molded into the sheet metal long before anything could have been "put aside." Think about the inner apron indentation. That comes on a part with a different part number than was made on a tool that did not exist in production prior to MY 1973 changeover. Logistically, it would be impossible to begin a vehicle in July, and then set it aside, and complete in in October. That just doesn't happen. Anything that looks like that would be contracted to KarKraft, or Stroppe, or some other third party.

A July stamped Bronco would be equipped with a 72 non-indented core support. All of that has to be stamped, welded, painted and assembled before the end of July. Because the plant only re-tooled ONCE, and it happened in July, and any sheet metal that gets stamped after that would be using MY73 tooling. Moreover, sequence numbers are issued sequentially. So the last 5 of the vin would get issued when the vehicle is scheduled for production. Your database show this clearly. series numbers are time sequenced. Once the series number exists, it becomes part of the VIN, and it has to be stamped on the frame prior to frame to body assembly. The frame of ALL P's was stamped AFTER the vin was created, and the tub was installed AFTER that. So there is no possible scenario that creates a partial Bronco that gets "pushed to the side." The sequence of operations does not work that way.

The order was entered, the BOM was created, the build was scheduled, the sequence number was issued, the VIN was created. When the Scheduled Build Date arrived, production began. 72 hours later, a completed Bronco was driven off the assembly line. The P vs Q was determined when the BOM was created.

Consider this. Power steering is a bolt-on if the sheet metal was already changed. We don't know exactly when the retooling happened and we only know the exact date that a few of these were built, per the Marti. Maybe the 73MY started sometime during the early P's and the PS option was supposed to have coincided with it. Could have been a problem getting PS boxes ready on time and manual parts were available. This seems a little far-fetched to have such a major component holding up assembly but it sure doesn't require a 2nd retooling of the factory.

As for not being able to set aside mostly completed vehicles while waiting for parts, didn't this happen several times in recent times? I'm referring to Bronco hardtops and semiconductor chips.

Also, you don't address the gap between build date and release date. Those Broncos were somewhere for some reason during that time.

 

[DirtDonk]

I have seen several 72s over the years that had the power steering bump-out in the core support, with no power steering.
But I don’t know how early or late their build date was. One friend just sold his, but I think I added it here originally as a P model.

 

[toddz69]

As for not being able to set aside mostly completed vehicles while waiting for parts, didn't this happen several times in recent times? I'm referring to Bronco hardtops and semiconductor chips.

Also, you don't address the gap between build date and release date. Those Broncos were somewhere for some reason during that time.

Maybe there was a "Dirt Mountain" equivalent back in '72? They had 6G trucks parked there for 3-4 months (maybe longer) waiting for MIC hardtops a year or two ago.

Todd Z.

 

[jamesroney]

Maybe there was a "Dirt Mountain" equivalent back in '72? They had 6G trucks parked there for 3-4 months (maybe longer) waiting for MIC hardtops a year or two ago.

Todd Z.

There wasn’t, they didn’t, and they couldn’t. It is one thing to inventory a 99% completed vehicle waiting for an accessory component. It is an entirely different thing to store a basket of unwelded, un assembled, unpainted sheet metal, and a partial chassis, without a valid BOM and somehow park it in a location somewhere with a sequence number created 3 months AFTER the body was bucked.

The identity of the 6G Broncos was established and consistent with production. Nobody went back after they were built and re-labeled them with new VIN numbers when the hardtops showed up. Nobody retroactively certified them to the previous model year, and applied new decals with the prior year info. And when Ford did have those 6G Broncos delayed…EVERYBODY, including shareholders knew about it. It was only done to prevent a line-down situation. No such thing happened in 1972.

I will never understand how people think things get built in a just-in-time factory. I wish everyone could visit an assembly line and watch how it works. It isn’t a bunch of artisans doing things willy-nilly. It is high school educated UAW assembly workers following written instructions and following standard work with comprehensive BOM’s and established Kanbans, and poke-yoke process that prevent errors. And Takt times of about 90 seconds. If the part you need isn’t in the place it needs to be, the andon gets pulled, and the defecation impacts the ventilator. It’s a BIG DEAL. I guess this is how legends are born.

edit. credentials deleted. Following the data...

 

[toddz69]

There wasn’t, they didn’t, and they couldn’t. It is one thing to inventory a 99% completed vehicle waiting for an accessory component. It is an entirely different thing to store a basket of unwelded, un assembled, unpainted sheet metal, and a partial chassis, without a valid BOM and somehow park it in a location somewhere with a sequence number created 3 months AFTER the body was bucked.

The identity of the 6G Broncos was established and consistent with production. Nobody went back after they were built and re-labeled them with new VIN numbers when the hardtops showed up. Nobody retroactively certified them to the previous model year, and applied new decals with the prior year info. And when Ford did have those 6G Broncos delayed…EVERYBODY, including shareholders knew about it. It was only done to prevent a line-down situation. No such thing happened in 1972.

I will never understand how people think things get built in a just-in-time factory. I wish everyone could visit an assembly line and watch how it works. It isn’t a bunch of artisans doing things willy-nilly. It is high school educated UAW assembly workers following written instructions and following standard work with comprehensive BOM’s and established Kanbans, and poke-yoke process that prevent errors. And Takt times of about 90 seconds. If the part you need isn’t in the place it needs to be, the andon gets pulled, and the defecation impacts the ventilator. It’s a BIG DEAL. I guess this is how legends are born.

I was compelled to be the Deming management champion for our business unit in 1987. Then I got to implement TQM in a Fortune 100 consumer electronics OEM. Then Six Sigma Black Belt for Tyco Electronics, and finally Senior Director of Manufacturing Engineering for Areospace and Energetics for Fortive, and lastly a DBS champion for Danaher Biomedical. If that makes me an expert, so be it.

Yes, you're the expert - you've established that here numerous times before and your credentials are impeccable and impressive! There are those of us that don't have quite that pedigree (I did win Employee of the Month 6-7 months ago though), but we do have mfg engineering experience and knowledge (3 decades in the workforce for me now) and things you mention like BOMs, Kanbans, poke-yoke, takt times, etc. are all part of the language I know and deal with in my job every day. I would never expect Ford to "store a basket of unwelded, unassembled, unpainted sheet met, and a partial chassis, without a valid BOM and somehow park it in a location somewhere with a sequence number created 3 months AFTER the body was bucked". The implication in my comment about a "Dirt Mountain" was these vehicles were 99% completed like the 6G trucks, i.e. they had their build date per their Marti Report but their Release Date was a lot later, as @Viperwolf1 mentioned in his post. That gap between the two dates is what I'm curious about.

Todd Z.

 

[jamesroney]

Yes, you're the expert - you've established that here numerous times before and your credentials are impeccable and impressive! There are those of us that don't have quite that pedigree (I did win Employee of the Month 6-7 months ago though), but we do have mfg engineering experience and knowledge (3 decades in the workforce for me now) and things you mention like BOMs, Kanbans, poke-yoke, takt times, etc. are all part of the language I know and deal with in my job every day. I would never expect Ford to "store a basket of unwelded, unassembled, unpainted sheet met, and a partial chassis, without a valid BOM and somehow park it in a location somewhere with a sequence number created 3 months AFTER the body was bucked". The implication in my comment about a "Dirt Mountain" was these vehicles were 99% completed like the 6G trucks, i.e. they had their build date per their Marti Report but their Release Date was a lot later, as @Viperwolf1 mentioned in his post. That gap between the two dates is what I'm curious about.

Todd Z.

I’ll start looking at marti SPD vs release dates… might be something there…thx!

 

[jamesroney]

@toddz69 really appreciate your effort to define scope and keep me on track. (I have no issue with you whatsoever...)

The beauty, of making data driven conclusions is that there is minimal emotion in the analysis. I find it is usually difficult to prove that something didn't happen. But in this case, I did find something interesting. (and yeah, i searched this entire thread for every Marti, and parsed that info here...) along with the fantastic database that Viperwolf1 published. Unfortunately, if you order the standard Marti, you don't get the SPD info. Just the production date. But i think it's enough.

I conclude that P series VINS were created, assigned, and attached to BOM's concurrent with Q's. Don't know why. I'll leave that to you.
Thanks a ton!

James.

Consider this. Power steering is a bolt-on if the sheet metal was already changed. We don't know exactly when the retooling happened...

Also, you don't address the gap between build date and release date. Those Broncos were somewhere for some reason during that time.

We can surmise that the tooling change occurred in July/August like it always has, based on your database of changes (thank you!!!) which validates the cut over. And Power steering is not a "bolt on" after the body has been married to the Chassis. Somebody has to rework the engine for the pump installation too.

Moreover, P90190 breaks the "gap" hypothesis. It has has no production date vs release date offset, and it was serialized well after the Q's were in flow.

There is no data to suggest that Model Year 1972 Broncos were NOT bucked and assembled after August of 72. There is compelling data to prove that Model Year 1972 Broncos were serialized, bucked, built, released, and sold AFTER August of 72. There is compelling data to prove that Model Year 1973 Broncos were built concurrently.

Consider that once a unit is bucked and occupies a fixture on the assembly line, it is constrained to leave the factory. You could bolt a clipboard with a picture of a Bronco to the fixture, and 3 days later it's coming out the end.

I conclude that all P serial number Broncos were scheduled, built, and certified as 1972 Models.
I assert that there is no such thing as a "leftover" 72 Bronco serial number, or a leftover chassis, or a leftover sub-assembly. In all cases, when a body was bucked...it left the assembly line as a completed unit within 72 hours...as it is constrained to do in single piece flow.

I suspect that the reason is emissions related component shortages, or excess inventory. If anyone with a P8xxxx or higher can post their engine tag, or casting dates from the intake, or block that would tell a lot. If we assume it was to consume leftover engines...the blocks will have July- castings. If the goal was to relieve demand for constrained components...those blocks will have September+ castings. It is certainly possible that the engine plant over-forecasted and "overbuilt" Bronco calibrated 302's in anticipation of demand...and got stuck with them when automatics were unleashed with a different engine calibration. and it would not be unheard of for production planning to try to consume that excess inventory. But those would have to be sold and certified as 72's.

Once we acknowledge that Ford bucked and built 1972 Bronco's up thru October, then it's reasonable to try to figure out why.
If we insist that they did NOT buck and build 1972 Bronco's after July...then we have to start inventing failure modes, mitigations, boogeymen, dirt mountains, (and 634 posts...)

and there is no way I could have gotten to this conclusion without the Viperwolf1 data.
Gotta get back to work now.

 

[LUBr LuvR]

“If anyone with a P8xxxx or higher can post their engine tag, or casting dates from the intake, or block that would tell a lot. If we assume it was to consume leftover engines...the blocks will have July- castings”

Here’s the casting date and engine tag for
P88637, correct in that July is the casting date.

BTW, to fill in the missing info:
T-Shift
No fuel return
Has light bars
Has ambient temp sensor
DSO = 71

 

[jamesroney]

“If anyone with a P8xxxx or higher can post their engine tag, or casting dates from the intake, or block that would tell a lot. If we assume it was to consume leftover engines...the blocks will have July- castings”

Here’s the casting date and engine tag for
P88637, correct in that July is the casting date.

BTW, to fill in the missing info:
T-Shift
No fuel return
Has light bars
Has ambient temp sensor
DSO = 71

Awesome, this confirms it. Your crankshaft was placed in your engine block in September of 72. That shortblock was the basis for a 1972 Ford 302 from the Cleveland Engine Plant with change level 15, and configuration 296 for model year 1972.
(2bbl Autolite 302)

Date code 2J is September, 1972.

Thanks!

 

[behemoth]

Awesome, this confirms it. Your crankshaft was placed in your engine block in September of 72. That shortblock was the basis for a 1972 Ford 302 from the Cleveland Engine Plant with change level 15, and configuration 296 for model year 1972.
(2bbl Autolite 302)

Date code 2J is September, 1972.

Thanks!

I have a september 72 that is in the listing, power steering, t shift, light bars, ambient temp sensor, no fuel return p88634, I have another 72 march build, no power steering, no light bars, ambient temp sensor, both manual trans p37944

 

[Viperwolf1]

I have a september 72 that is in the listing, power steering, t shift, light bars, ambient temp sensor, no fuel return p88634, I have another 72 march build, no power steering, no light bars, ambient temp sensor, both manual trans p37944

I show P37944 in the list as a June '72 build.

 

[DirtDonk]

P89488 listed as a 72 just sold on BaT for 249k.
Guessing there might not be a lot of original stuff there to add to the database, but at least we know there is another high numbered P around.

 

[sprdv1]

P89488 listed as a 72 just sold on BaT for 249k.
Guessing there might not be a lot of original stuff there to add to the database, but at least we know there is another high numbered P around.

absolutely...

 

[sprdv1]

@toddz69 really appreciate your effort to define scope and keep me on track. (I have no issue with you whatsoever...)

He's a good man w/wealth of knowledge