Petersen 4x4, Slamming Broncos!!!

[broncow72]

"totally stock", This one gets me. To me this would mean bare minimum. The upgraded models used in his comparison use aftermarket parts and upgrades. I didn't see him use a Stroppe Bronco in his comparison. Didn't these come with cut rears? Modified suspension and stuff?
I do however think the Ranger is a very capable truck and has some great attributes, so under his description of "all types of off-road", I wouldn't fully disagree. Now if he used the Ranger in a Cool factor comparison... I might have to have him exiled from my kingdom of a$$holes anonymous

 

[74BroncoCO]

I don't intend to take anything away from a ranger, BUT all I am asking is that he simply gets his facts right when he's comparing. HOWEVER, with all the J**P guys reading that mag, they'll think they go whooped by a lowly bronco next time...

J.D.

 

[MarsChariot]

Well, I am not letting this move off the first page, so I am bumping this back up.

And I forgot to mention: In the Four Wheeler article the early Bronco was voted the best 4 wheeler of all time, not just the best Ford 4 wheeler, too.

 

[Slick]

%)

I got another reply from the author... seems he's a Dodge guy?!?!?! WORSE YET!!! There are NO FORD guys @ "I have a small "Peter-son's" so, ya... they blow!

What the heck is there 4x4 worth drive'n that dodge is responsible for anyhow??? The Power-wagon??? C-mon, those things are like H1's!!!! HUGE!!!

%) oops I forgot about the lil ram50's... silly me!

Ok, well at-least he isn't a blazer fan! even thought it would make SOME sence.....

oooooooooooooo well

i digress........

 

[73stallion]

i'm really surprised they didn't get the stats right. fred williams (another editor) told me just last month that one of the photographers there owns an EB. maybe he doesn't know shit about his either.

 

[SaddleUp]

Everyone needs to remember that the magazine has to keep their advertisers happy. This is just one example where they went out of their way to promote a newer vehicle that is worth more to them in advertising. Sure everyone looks in Awe at our EB's when we get out on the trails but in reality we are only a very small segment of the market and for this magazine it it so small that they are not really concerned about offending us. By promoting the FX4 version of the Ranger (even though it is also a small segment) they make all of the Ranger owners feel good about it. Even better for them when those same Ranger owners start comparing their Ranger with the FX4 and decide to make theirs the same. I.E. They run out to the advertisers the magazine lists and start buying upgrades so they can have an FX4 like Ranger also. I don't think the choice had anything to do with facts. More likely they all sat down and decided which Ford to promote that would boost advertising.

 

[Jeepster]

Everyone needs to remember that the magazine has to keep their advertisers happy. This is just one example where they went out of their way to promote a newer vehicle that is worth more to them in advertising. Sure everyone looks in Awe at our EB's when we get out on the trails but in reality we are only a very small segment of the market and for this magazine it it so small that they are not really concerned about offending us. By promoting the FX4 version of the Ranger (even though it is also a small segment) they make all of the Ranger owners feel good about it. Even better for them when those same Ranger owners start comparing their Ranger with the FX4 and decide to make theirs the same. I.E. They run out to the advertisers the magazine lists and start buying upgrades so they can have an FX4 like Ranger also. I don't think the choice had anything to do with facts. More likely they all sat down and decided which Ford to promote that would boost advertising.

Yep, Its all about the money. Personally I cant even see why anyone would even give that smuck who wrote that piece any credibility anyway. Really, who is he and why does he matter? What makes his words mean anything?
I wouldn't even waist my time even giving him the satisfaction of a reply.

Who cares?

 

[MarsChariot]

Yep, Its all about the money. Personally I cant even see why anyone would even give that smuck who wrote that piece any credibility anyway. Really, who is he and why does he matter? What makes his words mean anything?
I wouldn't even waist my time even giving him the satisfaction of a reply.

Who cares?

Well, my point exactly.If you want real data, do a survey of some kind. This was just an editorial. The problem is, some folks believe anything they read in print. Affects things in subtle ways in the long run. (It certainly affects their subscribers of 20 years in negative ways, at least for a small segments, as we shall see shortly - speaking personally.)
The moral of the story is pretty much what our mothers always told us: "If you can't say something nice, you are (far, far) better off not saying anthing about somebody (or, in our case, "some icon of early four wheel drives").

 

[bronco977]

I have dropped ALL of the subscriptions to magazines that are published by 'Primedia'. I got into a war of words a few years ago with the editors of CAR CRAFT about their biased coverage of Fords. The letters to the editor spat went on for months...
I even stopped and talked to Marlin Davis (the former tech editor) at a car show. He said there is a real dislike of anything wearing a blue oval, ever since Primedia gobbled up all of the mainstream auto enthusiast rags.
At another car show, I talked to the reps from HOT ROD. They giggled when I mentioned that I was a Ford fan.
It seems that it may be a sort of corporate favoritism.

 

[daj]

LET'S SEE A 40 YEAR OLD COMPARED TO SOMETHING NEW AND LET'S NOT PUT ANYTHING NEW ON THE OLD BUGGER. NOW LET'S RACE.
SOUNDS FARE.
d

 

[D-cannon]

A ranger has a better power to weight ratio.
That 4.0 makes 200 ish HP where the bronco made about 140.
QUOTE]

In 1970 Ford upgraded the 289 V-8 to 302 cid, giving the Bronco 205 hp at 4600 rpm and 300 lb-ft of torque at 2400 rpm. When Detroit's horsepower rating system changed from gross to net in 1972 and compression ratios fell due to unleaded fuel, the 1972 302's output dropped to 139 hp at 4000 rpm and 237 lb-ft at 2200 rpm. This info came from a good article on the eb at mph-online.com.

 

[SaddleUp]

A ranger has a better power to weight ratio.
That 4.0 makes 200 ish HP where the bronco made about 140.
QUOTE]

In 1970 Ford upgraded the 289 V-8 to 302 cid, giving the Bronco 205 hp at 4600 rpm and 300 lb-ft of torque at 2400 rpm. When Detroit's horsepower rating system changed from gross to net in 1972 and compression ratios fell due to unleaded fuel, the 1972 302's output dropped to 139 hp at 4000 rpm and 237 lb-ft at 2200 rpm. This info came from a good article on the eb at mph-online.com.

Only part of that was a true drop in power though. Under the same rating system the older ones would also have lower numbers.

 

[bmc69]

Hey Saddleup..not to digress..but I just read that piece-o-crap article agiain whilst taking a..well, anyways, I just noticed the comments on the IHC 345 being so obsolete that no parts can be had for it anymore. Wow..that sure would be news to the rest of the Binder world, where new cams, intakes (including a new mulit-port SEFI design) are coming out every day and all other internal/external parts can be had at Advance in 1-2 dys. %)

That whole piece looks like it was written 'off the top of his head' to create some filler to meet a deadline.

 

[Jeepster]

That whole piece looks like it was written 'off the top of his head' to create some filler to meet a deadline.

Hit the Nail on the head..........IMO 85% of the stuff in these rags is filler pages to have between the ads.

Thing about this: To those who subscribe to any 4x4/petersons/jeep/etc.....stack up mags by month/yr.....notice how lets say every may is "tire/wheel combo month" June is "lift/suspention" month July is "Body/paint" ...and MOAB,MOAB,MOAB,MOAB,MOAB BS........most is rehash of last years article with little new info.

 

[SaddleUp]

Hey Saddleup..not to digress..but I just read that piece-o-crap article agiain whilst taking a..well, anyways, I just noticed the comments on the IHC 345 being so obsolete that no parts can be had for it anymore. Wow..that sure would be news to the rest of the Binder world, where new cams, intakes (including a new mulit-port SEFI design) are coming out every day and all other internal/external parts can be had at Advance in 1-2 dys. %)

That whole piece looks like it was written 'off the top of his head' to create some filler to meet a deadline.

I haven't been following the IHC aftermarket the last few years but I know the binder motors are about as tough as they get. How many other motors can you drive for 10 years with 10 lbs. of oil pressure. Certainly not the SBF. Heavy as they are you just can't kill em. It is too bad though when these big magazines can't spend the time and money to make sure they get their facts straight. Funny thing is even the obsolete IHC motors probably have a stronger aftermarket than the Ranger does. After all who really considers the Ranger to be the ultimate off road rig? I've always thought of it as a small economical pickup suitable for trips to the local home improvement store. They don't even work good in the winter on icy roads unless you throw a few hundred pounds of sand in the back let alone out on the trails.

 

[bandit]

Sometimes I think these guys are trying to get you ,Pissed off, especially by his reply .These guys act like latenight AM radio talk show hosts,and say things to purposely get you pissed off,it gets your attention.I cant believe anyone would recommend a Harvester motor for anything.They are huge ,very heavy,and very low horsepower for the cubic inches. The base truck was solid,but the engines were awful in my book.
BANDIT

 

[Blackcypress-EB]

I cant believe anyone would recommend a Harvester motor for anything.They are huge ,very heavy,and very low horsepower for the cubic inches. The base truck was solid,but the engines were awful in my book.
BANDIT

Nobody will hate on you for talking trash about binder engines on this site, but I will say that the 152 4 banger in my '64 scout 80 was the toughest damn engine I have had. It was a 304 cut in half and put in slant from the factory that had a caved in oil pan from the rubicon, the original oil filter that you had to repalce the element on, "I never did by the way", and the crankshaft pulley shook like Elvis on a good day. She fired up and purred like a singer sewing machine on the worst of days. Put out 92bhp from the factory and sounded like a pissed off bumble bee at 5 grand, NO SIR, They may be heavy but they were never junk.

 

[SaddleUp]

Sometimes I think these guys are trying to get you ,Pissed off, especially by his reply .These guys act like latenight AM radio talk show hosts,and say things to purposely get you pissed off,it gets your attention.I cant believe anyone would recommend a Harvester motor for anything.They are huge ,very heavy,and very low horsepower for the cubic inches. The base truck was solid,but the engines were awful in my book.
BANDIT

They were never built for horsepower. They did however have quite a bit of torque. Huge and heavy they certainly are. At the same time though they are very solid motors that no matter how hard you beat on them they just keep right on running. I don't consider them the best motor for a trail rig but the only reason for that is that they are so heavy. As I've mentioned before I would not be ashamed to have an old Scout parked in the driveway next to my EB and in the past I have owned more Scouts than Broncos. None of them were ever the trail rig my EB is but they also were nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Moaiz]

I wonder if the magazine has experienced a drop in Bronco specific advertising since the creation of Bronco Driver. No worry about alienating their market demographic with sheer ignorance if its dropping signifigantly.

 

[roundhouse]

A ranger has a better power to weight ratio.
That 4.0 makes 200 ish HP where the bronco made about 140.
QUOTE]

In 1970 Ford upgraded the 289 V-8 to 302 cid, giving the Bronco 205 hp at 4600 rpm and 300 lb-ft of torque at 2400 rpm. When Detroit's horsepower rating system changed from gross to net in 1972 and compression ratios fell due to unleaded fuel, the 1972 302's output dropped to 139 hp at 4000 rpm and 237 lb-ft at 2200 rpm. This info came from a good article on the eb at mph-online.com.

Funny how these are the almost exact numbers you get when you add a chip and performance injectors on a 1.9 litre VolksWagen TDI.

Wonder how a chipped TDI would do in a EB?

And I dont suscribbe to any mags, specially car mags
I go to B&N or Borders, buy a $3 cup of java, and read BAckwoods Home, Car&Driver, Hemmings CLassic Car, Hemmings Muscle Machine, Kit Car, & all the 4WD rags in a couple of hours.