Where did Ford miss the mark on first gen Bronco?

[ntsqd]

Ego and Accounting trump Engineering every time.

I've no doubt that the Economies of Scale would support a move to all 31 spline axles, but are EB axle shafts unique lengths, or are they shared with other FoMoCo products? There may be some loss of scale there.

In addition to Power Steering, Power Discs, Auto trans, 4 speed manual options I think that the interior finish was lacking. For instance, was there ever more than a headliner made for the hard-tops? By the debut of the Scout II even IH had interior panels for their hard-tops. I've yet to see anything like that offered even today, but such interior trim would go a long way towards making them civilized and quieter.

 

[toddz69]

You would know that...you're such a wealth of knowledge...I imagine the design team at Ford considered a lot of things noted above, and then promptly ruled them out for one reason or another, but mostly cost. Most "trucks" from that era are pretty sparse in the amenities department.

Yes, the Broncos were a very small bit of a very small department (Truck Engineering) at Ford. I was amazed when I first heard stories from "back in the day" about how few folks worked on trucks compared to the cars. The other thing that engineers I interviewed always stressed was how the early Bronco was "done on the cheap" with as simple a stampings as possible, etc.

Here's the words from the design document regarding why the HP44 wasn't used in the EB:

"Other than these rather obvious changes, the principal distinguishing feature of the F-100 4x4 axle is the usage of the "upside-down" carrier
concept, which is unique to this vehicle only because clearance problems for installation of the front drive shaft in the Bronco precluded its
adaptation for that vehicle."

Another interesting tidbit from that document was that Ford was initially planning on using the Dana Model 27 front axle in the Bronco (2000 lb capacity) and switched to the Dana 30 (2500 lb capacity) because it was being developed when the Bronco was under development. So I guess we should be thankful we got the Dana 30 to begin with!

Todd Z.

 

[toddz69]

Usually I agree, but today I'm going to take the other side.

I blame Product Management arrogance, and Engineering hubris. Let's take an obvious example. In 1966, the Bronco rear axle was specified to use the 28 spline shaft. The design, complexity, and implementation of the 31 spline shaft had already been implemented in the C4AW-B Nodular performance axle. So the 31 spline axle was available, and dare I say would cost zero incremental dollars to implement.

But here's what happens. Some pinhead Product Manager in some obscure division, (Like drivetrain engineering) says things like: "28 spline is adequate for a 2800 lb axle in a station wagon..." and justifies it with some engineering study and years of know-how. So the poor guy in design engineering just specifies the inadequate hardware. Then some guy in reliability testing says: "Hey...these axles are breaking." and the guy in Drivetrain says: "no they aren't..." And the product manager says: "I don't know..." and some freshly hired engineering manager transplant from Philco, or Delphi, or Magna says: "Good enough is more than good enough." And the product ships. Then the guy in durability testing says, "We are seeing early axle failure under harsh conditions." and the idiot in the drivetrain group says: "Well they should be ordering the 3300 lb axle" and then everybody recommends the big bearing housing, but the shafts still twist off. Then the warranty guy says "wow, we are seeing a LOT of failures..." and 11 years later, the axles are still too small.

Funny thing is that it is still happening 50 years later. Google "2021 F150 Max Tow 3/4 float recall with no end in sight..." and "lets add the 24-25 models to the list..." That axle costs MORE than the semi float that it replaces. So Ford spent more to get worse...

I can certainly see this being the case for axles, and a lot of other parts as well. I consulted the internets to try and determine the exact year Ford started using 31 spline axles in the F100s and results vary. Seems like most early sightings of them were in the late '60s or around 1970 so if the pickups didn't reliably have them across the board, there was no way the "little Bronco" was going to get them.

Interestingly, with the notable exception of Viva Broncos in the early 70s, the aftermarket didn't offer 31 spline axles for the EBs until the very late 80s/early 90s.

Todd Z.

 

[toddz69]

Ego and Accounting trump Engineering every time.

I've no doubt that the Economies of Scale would support a move to all 31 spline axles, but are EB axle shafts unique lengths, or are they shared with other FoMoCo products? There may be some loss of scale there.

To the best of my knowledge, the EB axle shafts are unique to the EB only, and even then, there are several different lengths depending on the brake package, etc. across the years.

In addition to Power Steering, Power Discs, Auto trans, 4 speed manual options I think that the interior finish was lacking. For instance, was there ever more than a headliner made for the hard-tops? By the debut of the Scout II even IH had interior panels for their hard-tops. I've yet to see anything like that offered even today, but such interior trim would go a long way towards making them civilized and quieter.

I've seen some interior hardtop panels to help clean things up but I'm drawing a blank on where I saw them. They probably would make things more civilized.

Todd Z.

 

[Steve Tool]

Disc brakes on the front end have really helped the stability with braking at higher speeds, I like the 351 windsor heads over the stock 302. The windshield wipers still run off of vacuum and I haven't changed that but everything else is in its place, remember, these vehicles weren't invented to run up and down highways and burn the streets up, they were made for hunters, farmers and ranchers. O yeah, and mud racing dudes, those were the days, but if you were to start using the new Broncos made today the way we used these early models in the heavy mud, pulling equipment on the farms, heavy terrian fence fixing, they wouldn't hold up as well, I owned my '74 for 23 years, and made those basic changes on it, Still use it on the place, run through the woods and just love to wave at the guys in the new Broncos, those things are nice but just a later generation from mine. I guess its how we grew up in being born in the 60's.

 

[svobronco]

Should have offered overdrive transmissions.

I agree the disc brakes and power steering should have come much earlier.
And factory AC would have been nice.

Kinda hard to install technology that didn't exist at the time. AOD and SROD trans both came out in 1980 in the Bronco

 

[jamesroney]

Kinda hard to install technology that didn't exist at the time. AOD and SROD trans both came out in 1980 in the Bronco

The "technology" for a 4 speed automatic transmission with almost the exact same final ratios was available in the 1940 Oldsmobile Hydramatic.

Those ratios were 3.66, 2.53, 1.44, and 1.00. When coupled to a final drive ratio of 3.00, the final ratios were (11, 7.6, 4.3, and 3.)
The AOD ratios were 2.40, 1.47, 1.00, and .67. When coupled to a final drive ratio of 4.56, the final drive ratios were (11, 6.7, 4.6, and 3.)

An overdrive from Borg Warner was available in the 1938 Chrysler. Since OEM's had full design control, they would never intentionally design RWD transmission with an overdrive. Final drive ratio is the design constraint. Ideal cruise ratio is straight thru at 1:1 Overdrive is a marketing concession.

The Willys CJ5 was available starting in 1956 with a T98 4 speed. (similar to T18/NP435) And the Clark 280VO 5 speed overdrive existed in 1965. So the "technology" was most certainly available.

The choice to put the junk transmission in the Bronco is exactly the same compromise as the choice to put the T5 in the Fox Mustang. Same people using the same process to select the same inferior hardware to result in the same idiotic conclusion. You will notice that it was never a technical constraint to build the legendary Toploader 4 speed. It was in response to the always marginal Borg Warner T10. Again, it's Tier 1 suppliers lying to purchasing agents, and making promises that they simply have zero idea whether they are lying or not. They are forced to answer "yes." (see my sig line...)

The same application engineers created the woeful T84 3-speed. And the sub-standard T10, and the always broken t5. Bear in mind that they also produce the legendary T98, T18, and T176 (which you call a toploader) It's not that the tech doesn't exist, and it's not that the engineers don't know how to build a robust product. It's that the use-cases, and the QFD are inadequate. This is what gets you 2 degrees of caster in a 1977 power steering Bronco. Or aluminum steering knuckles on a 2026 Wrangler. Or broken steering racks on a 6G Bronco. Or Unit bearings falling off your F350.

When use-case data gets past the product management gauntet...things get fixed. Drag racing got you lots of improvement. Off road racing use too as well. Ford marketing despises feedback from Shelby, Stroppe, Holman & Moody, Roush etc. But the engineering team craves it. This is how specialty and homologation cars get built. And who doesn't love the Boss 302? Or a GT350? Or a Stroppe?

Gotta run...

 

[ntsqd]

Grandad's '62 F600 had a 5 speed manual behind a 292. It was a Clark, but I've no idea if it had an OD or not. As James said, the tech was there; the leverage to employ it was not.

 

[toddz69]

Kinda hard to install technology that didn't exist at the time. AOD and SROD trans both came out in 1980 in the Bronco

The AOD didn't make it into the Bronco until 1985.

Todd Z.

 

[Jakedog]

How about they should've kept building the original, and continued improving it while also introducing the big Bronco.

The CJ didn't have much competition after the original Bronco was gone.
Jeep never abandoned their CJ platform by turning it into a large SUV.

Imagine how cool the original could have become with continued improvements.
Coils at all 4 corners, EFI, better/safer seats (especially the rear), better braking, tilt steering, improved spare tire mount, etc.

The big Bronco should've been the Bronco ll.
Immediately fire the engineer who came up with TTB. He's probably the same guy who came up with the shitty "top hat" hubs that ford used for about a year and half.

 

[CaptainAwesome]

Not making a sup'd up version.
They gave one to Shelby.
They had the Boss Bronco.

Neither went anywhere.

 

[73azbronco]

I'll say it, powerstroke.

 

[.94 OR]

I'll say it, powerstroke.

I'm not sure I would be interested in a late 60's vintage diesel in a Bronco.
I test drove a 6.9 diesel years ago thinking it might fit my needs. It didn't have enough oomph to pull its own shadow.

 

[Johnnyb]

Wow, I stirred up a bit of a storm there, and then couldn't tune in for a week! I love all the idea and discussion.

-JB

 

[ntsqd]

I'm not sure I would be interested in a late 60's vintage diesel in a Bronco.
I test drove a 6.9 diesel years ago thinking it might fit my needs. It didn't have enough oomph to pull its own shadow.

A IMSA Showroom Stock team that I worked with in the late 80's bought a CC-Dually F-350 diesel to tow their 38' gooseneck enclosed transporter trailer. The crew chief was also their long distance driver. He told of the first trip to Atlanta (they were based in Sacramento) where he got passed by a guy on a bicycle while going over the Continental Divide. This reportedly happened as he was leaning out of the opened driver door, looking between the front wheels to steer, while trying to see if it had a pinched fuel line or something. When the team owner asked him if he wanted a turbo kit for the truck his reply was "Hell No! It adds a day each way that I don't have to be home with my wife!"
I'd toss the whole story in the BS file except that he was a very no BS kind of guy.

 

[BruiserOutdoors]

better welds (mostly on the frame!). more galvanized steel panels.


Best vehicle ever made. Fits me perfectly.

 

[toddz69]

Wow, I stirred up a bit of a storm there, and then couldn't tune in for a week! I love all the idea and discussion.

-JB

And lots of tangents - in the true CB way!

Todd Z.

 

[svobronco]

The "technology" for a 4 speed automatic transmission with almost the exact same final ratios was available in the 1940 Oldsmobile Hydramatic.

Those ratios were 3.66, 2.53, 1.44, and 1.00. When coupled to a final drive ratio of 3.00, the final ratios were (11, 7.6, 4.3, and 3.)
The AOD ratios were 2.40, 1.47, 1.00, and .67. When coupled to a final drive ratio of 4.56, the final drive ratios were (11, 6.7, 4.6, and 3.)

An overdrive from Borg Warner was available in the 1938 Chrysler. Since OEM's had full design control, they would never intentionally design RWD transmission with an overdrive. Final drive ratio is the design constraint. Ideal cruise ratio is straight thru at 1:1 Overdrive is a marketing concession.

The Willys CJ5 was available starting in 1956 with a T98 4 speed. (similar to T18/NP435) And the Clark 280VO 5 speed overdrive existed in 1965. So the "technology" was most certainly available.

The choice to put the junk transmission in the Bronco is exactly the same compromise as the choice to put the T5 in the Fox Mustang. Same people using the same process to select the same inferior hardware to result in the same idiotic conclusion. You will notice that it was never a technical constraint to build the legendary Toploader 4 speed. It was in response to the always marginal Borg Warner T10. Again, it's Tier 1 suppliers lying to purchasing agents, and making promises that they simply have zero idea whether they are lying or not. They are forced to answer "yes." (see my sig line...)

The same application engineers created the woeful T84 3-speed. And the sub-standard T10, and the always broken t5. Bear in mind that they also produce the legendary T98, T18, and T176 (which you call a toploader) It's not that the tech doesn't exist, and it's not that the engineers don't know how to build a robust product. It's that the use-cases, and the QFD are inadequate. This is what gets you 2 degrees of caster in a 1977 power steering Bronco. Or aluminum steering knuckles on a 2026 Wrangler. Or broken steering racks on a 6G Bronco. Or Unit bearings falling off your F350.

When use-case data gets past the product management gauntet...things get fixed. Drag racing got you lots of improvement. Off road racing use too as well. Ford marketing despises feedback from Shelby, Stroppe, Holman & Moody, Roush etc. But the engineering team craves it. This is how specialty and homologation cars get built. And who doesn't love the Boss 302? Or a GT350? Or a Stroppe?

Gotta run...

Allow me to clarify my statement with a question. What OD trans did Ford have available at the time and were installing in vehicles other than the Bronco? And no, the Pantera doesn't count....
Some of the Clark 5 speeds in the medium duty trucks were OD, but theres' no way that monster is fitting in an EB. They could have put Hone overdrives in them, but not a great idea with 4x4.
Fuel injection was available, but not in a Ford

 

[ntsqd]

Can get to the same overall ratio without OD if the trans has well thought out ratios in it. They really didn't need an OD if they'd have chosen reasonable ratios for the 4 speed manuals available then, and then chosen the axle ratio to work. My '67 289 Mustang was made with a 2.79 geared axle, so they could get there if they wanted to. T-98's of that era had a 4:1 first gear. (Or was that the T-19?) Obviously the more gears in the trans, the smaller the steps between the gears would be. Probably the biggest "push" would be getting an even lower low range gearing to work with the taller axle ratios.

 

[jamesroney]

Can get to the same overall ratio without OD if the trans has well thought out ratios in it. They really didn't need an OD if they'd have chosen reasonable ratios for the 4 speed manuals available then, and then chosen the axle ratio to work. My '67 289 Mustang was made with a 2.79 geared axle, so they could get there if they wanted to. T-98's of that era had a 4:1 first gear. (Or was that the T-19?) Obviously the more gears in the trans, the smaller the steps between the gears would be. Probably the biggest "push" would be getting an even lower low range gearing to work with the taller axle ratios.

Exactly. Thank you.
T98's were ~6. It's the T18's and T19's could come with either ~4:1 or ~6:1.