Where did Ford miss the mark on first gen Bronco?

[Johnnyb]

So they gave us a short wheel base, a narrow track, and a tight turning radius. Shortly thereafter they offered a V8 and then some years later they came out with power steering, automatic transmission and disc brakes.
The question is what could have Ford have done better during the 1966 to 77 run of the EB, based on realistic technology at the time?

For my two cents, they could have offered the NP435 as a stock option. It was a current transmission and it fits perfectly in the drivetrain. They could have probably also offered a top loader 4 speed.

Any other thoughts?

-JB

 

[thegreatjustino]

Would have been awesome if the EB was engineered to have a 300 straight six offered as an option.

A 300/NP 435 would have been an awesome combo.

 

[56f100bbw]

351 Windsor for me

 

[Jakedog]

Flared rear fenders.
Power disc brakes and an automatic by the late 60's.

 

[mdainsd]

Is A/C a bridge too far?

 

[tasker]

RUST resistant metal!

 

[Scoop]

Factory AC.

Auto tranny, power steering and power disk brakes EARLIER.

AM/FM radio option.

4 bbl carb option.

 

[Shimmy]

better quality control and consistency

 

[gnsteam]

Better wipers.

 

[WheelHorse]

Ford is ALWAYS late to the HP/technology game.

1. I'll agree a 351 would have been ideal, especially in the later years where HP was net 110hp 302. Even Pontiac kept the 455 alive way beyond most.
2. Creature comforts. Demographic was changing back then. Cruise-O-Matic should have been 1968 along with P/S and Powered Drums
3. Disc brakes should have been installed by 1970, not 76 option and 77 std.
4. Heat was great in a truck type, a wagon in a Minnesota winter, not so much. It was no Blazer sized heater core.
5. How vendors have the quarter panels with the front style lip for a bigger wheel opening, should have been invented by 1970 to allow for bigger tires. Jeep, Scout and Blazer had round rear openings.

 

[bronco italiano]

better quality control and consistency

You mean for the 1980 to current broncos

 

[powers4680]

Better door hinges


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SLOWnEASY]

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.

 

[Apogee]

High pinion D44 front axle...no brainer with the short wheelbase and something they were already doing with the F-100/150 platforms.

A wider frame rail spacing would not have been a terrible thing either IMO.

 

[jamesroney]

Hmmm...Straight 6, Fuel Injection, Dana 44 front, AC, Power Disc Brakes, Decent wipers, factory soft top, removable hard top. AT with OD, or 5 speed. Low range gears. Factory Lockers. Linked rear axle. 90 inch wheelbase on 33's.

So you basically specified a 2003 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon.

 

[bmbm]

So they gave us a short wheel base, a narrow track, and a tight turning radius. Shortly thereafter they offered a V8 and then some years later they came out with power steering, automatic transmission and disc brakes.
The question is what could have Ford have done better during the 1966 to 77 run of the EB, based on realistic technology at the time?

For my two cents, they could have offered the NP435 as a stock option. It was a current transmission and it fits perfectly in the drivetrain. They could have probably also offered a top loader 4 speed.

Any other thoughts?

-JB

From what I have read Ford originally intended usage to be a farm and ranch utility type vehicle and to compete with the current offerings from Jeep and Scout which were used by a lot of hunters and were pretty basic also. At least the 289/C4/3:50 ratio option became available in late 66 which gave it decent highway capability and increased overall usability. But the 200 would have have been somewhat better than the 170 for base engine in my opinion as a missed opportunity. The 300 would have been a great option but the engine bay design was a bit small for that unfortunately.

 

[toddz69]

High pinion D44 front axle...no brainer with the short wheelbase and something they were already doing with the F-100/150 platforms.

A wider frame rail spacing would not have been a terrible thing either IMO.

Ford considered the high-pinion axle early in the development process but rejected it due to oil pan clearance issues.

Todd Z.

 

[Apogee]

Ford considered the high-pinion axle early in the development process but rejected it due to oil pan clearance issues.

Todd Z.

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.

 

[jamesroney]

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.

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...

 

[Apogee]

James, you're not wrong, bad decisions get made all the time, and then doubled and tripled down on often for even worse reasons, spanning the course of many years and even decades. As for your point about the rear ends, the 31-spline 9" axle applications seemed reserved for the creme-de-la-creme of the higher-performance muscle cars, a select few full-size cars and the heavy-half ton full-size trucks (not F100?), so you're probably right that one or more individuals decided to stay the course and run 28-spline on anything that wasn't a BOSS or a big car/truck.

It reminds me of the old design adage about it costing the same to make an ugly car as it does to make a good looking one...I would think that spec'ing 31-spline axle blanks, bearings and seals for everything would have simplified production across multiple vehicle lines and actually been cheaper a the end of the day/year/decade when they were purchasing them by the millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) versus smaller and more varied batches.