Why did Ford re-engineer the doors

[thegreatjustino]

All the years on this board and I've never seen any discussion as to why Ford re-engineered the Bronco doors in 1968. Seems odd that they'd go to the extent of re-design and creating new parts after just two years. Does anyone know why they did so?

 

[Broncobowsher]

Just knowing the mechanism inside, it was probably a cost savings.
With a second (probably better) theory of being safety with the early style easier to get pulled/pushed and the door open in an accident. The paddle requires a pretty deliberate action in order to make the door open. Not going to catch a coat sleeve on it.

I know the '67 mustang had a door handle very much like the Bronco. But I don't know interior door handles of Fords from the late 60's to know if it was a corporate wide change?

 

[toddz69]

As @Broncobowsher noted, it was mainly a safety change. The recessed door paddles were less likely to be accidentally actuated in an accident and since they didn't protrude as much, they were less likely to cause bodily injury, particularly when coupled with the larger padded armrests introduced for '68. It's also why the dash pad became more thickly padded in '68. It was all part of Ford's "Lifeguard" safety design program that was initiated in '67 for passenger cars - it's mentioned in the second edition of the '67 sales brochure and also in the
'68 brochure and then never mentioned again.

I mention a few more details of it on page 45 of my book.

Todd Z.

 

[thegreatjustino]

Interesting. So how does the safety issue play into the different location and shape of the striker post? Or was that change made for an unrelated reason?

 

[hyghlndr]

I heard the same, 1968 was a change point for a bunch of safety features in vehicles, the Mustang also had updated doors inside and addition of optional seat belt clipped over head to make 3 point belt.

 

[.94 OR]

The F series changed over about that time too didn't it?

 

[toddz69]

The F series changed over about that time too didn't it?

Yes, its change, AFAIK, coincided with the body style change in '67.

Interesting. So how does the safety issue play into the different location and shape of the striker post? Or was that change made for an unrelated reason?

I don't know the definitive answer to that one. My best guess, and it's only a guess, is that the change in door latches/linkages necessitated a change in the striker location. Someone with better knowledge of the linkage location/angles can tell us whether that theory holds water or not.

Todd Z.

 

[toddz69]

The F series changed over about that time too didn't it?

Correct - it had changes for '68 as well. This Fordification site details the '67-'68-newer changes quite nicely:

https://www.fordification.com/tech/67differences.htm

Even slight changes like the shape of the glovebox door button on the F-Series were made in the name of safety.

Todd Z.

 

[jamesroney]

As @Broncobowsher noted, it was mainly a safety change. The recessed door paddles were less likely to be accidentally actuated in an accident and since they didn't protrude as much, they were less likely to cause bodily injury, particularly when coupled with the larger padded armrests introduced for '68. It's also why the dash pad became more thickly padded in '68. It was all part of Ford's "Lifeguard" safety design program that was initiated in '67 for passenger cars - it's mentioned in the second edition of the '67 sales brochure and also in the
'68 brochure and then never mentioned again.

I mention a few more details of it on page 45 of my book.

Todd Z.

I did read the literature and the it's always fun to have a reason to get that book back on my coffee table.

But I remain skeptical. @thegreatjustino asks an interesting question that is actually quite complex. Why the change to the B-post? And why re-engineer / create new parts after just two years.

First, the fundamental door hardware / latch / lock hardware is shared across multiple platforms, and from an engineering perspective...it is "applied" rather than "engineered." (and no...application engineers are NOT the same as design engineers.) So it is worth pointing out that the Door Latch hardware on the 66-67 Bronco is the application of the C3OZ-6221812-F Door Latch, and the C2OZ-6222008-B Door Strike Post. So the 1966 Bronco door latch design was born in 1962 in a Falcon. The 68-77 Bronco door latch C8TZ-9721812-A uses the C5AZ-6222008-A door strike...which was designed to match the Full Size Door latch C5AZ-6221812-A That improved design was also deployed in the 1966 Falcon, then the 67 Mustang/Cougar, and later the 68 Bronco. So in different words...the 68 Bronco did not get a re-design of the latch. It received the improved latch from the 65 Galaxie, which is much larger, and has a relocated upper mounting screw, and the striker post went from round to oval and the flange got bigger.

It would have been reasonably easy to simply add the paddle door latch release handle and padded arm rest (interior safety) to the 66-67 latch mechanism and retain the legacy door post / strike. But this did not happen. You can also argue that the intent was to meet the FMVSS standards of 1968...but the design improvement was deployed in 1965. I wasn't there, and I don't know which came first...but I can deduce that the 1965 Galaxie door latch and strike design was a functional improvement AND a safety improvement over the 1962 Falcon design, and it is PROBABLY because of BOTH. It is also possible that the 62 Falcon Latch design did not meet the FMVSS standards for 1968...but I am not aware of any glaring design defeciency. Side impact and occupant retention would seem to be adequate. I THINK that the primary driver for the 65 Galaxie latch upgrade was to improve the reliability and durability of the latch and door shell. Again...I don't know.

But I do know that the 65 Galaxie design was deployed into the 68 Bronco, and I do know that the Bronco window glass support is right next to the door latch, and I do know that the updated latch has an additional mounting bolt above the latch...so the LATCH needed to be lowered by about 3/4 inch. The door strike post was lowered the same amount, and the bolt spacing was changed accordingly.

So, the answer is: "I don't know." But I've got a pretty good guess.

 

[toddz69]

I did read the literature and the it's always fun to have a reason to get that book back on my coffee table.

But I remain skeptical. @thegreatjustino asks an interesting question that is actually quite complex. Why the change to the B-post? And why re-engineer / create new parts after just two years.

First, the fundamental door hardware / latch / lock hardware is shared across multiple platforms, and from an engineering perspective...it is "applied" rather than "engineered." (and no...application engineers are NOT the same as design engineers.) So it is worth pointing out that the Door Latch hardware on the 66-67 Bronco is the application of the C3OZ-6221812-F Door Latch, and the C2OZ-6222008-B Door Strike Post. So the 1966 Bronco door latch design was born in 1962 in a Falcon. The 68-77 Bronco door latch C8TZ-9721812-A uses the C5AZ-6222008-A door strike...which was designed to match the Full Size Door latch C5AZ-6221812-A That improved design was also deployed in the 1966 Falcon, then the 67 Mustang/Cougar, and later the 68 Bronco. So in different words...the 68 Bronco did not get a re-design of the latch. It received the improved latch from the 65 Galaxie, which is much larger, and has an additional mounting screw, and the striker post went from round to oval and the flange got bigger.

It would have been reasonably easy to simply add the paddle door latch release handle and padded arm rest (interior safety) to the 66-67 latch mechanism and retain the legacy door post / strike. But this did not happen. You can also argue that the intent was to meet the FMVSS standards of 1968...but the design improvement was deployed in 1965. I wasn't there, and I don't know which came first...but I can deduce that the 1965 Galaxie door latch and strike design was a functional improvement AND a safety improvement over the 1962 Falcon design, and it is PROBABLY because of BOTH. It is also possible that the 62 Falcon Latch design did not meet the FMVSS standards for 1968...but I am not aware of any glaring design defeciency. Side impact and occupant retention would seem to be adequate. I THINK that the primary driver for the 65 Galaxie latch upgrade was to improve the reliability and durability of the latch and door shell. Again...I don't know.

But I do know that the 65 Galaxie design was deployed into the 68 Bronco, and I do know that the Bronco window glass support is right next to the door latch, and I do know that the updated latch has an additional mounting bolt above the latch...so the LATCH needed to be lowered by about 3/4 inch. The door strike post was lowered the same amount, and the bolt spacing was changed accordingly.

So, the answer is: "I don't know." But I've got a pretty good guess.

As always @jamesroney adds some more facts and good info on this stuff - your scenarios and ideas all sound perfectly reasonable to me. Oh to be retired and have time to dig through the MPCs to research this stuff .

I sure wish I had the correspondence/memos/design meeting packets from all those little changes from back in the day to understand how/why things were done. I'm guessing the Ford archives didn't ever receive/save any of that stuff.

Todd Z.

 

[fordfan]

One other thing to factor into the door latch/catch/striker post detail changes is the 'feel' of the door shutting. Designers probably spend more time on the feel of the door shutting than on the safety of the mechanism unfortunately. Yes, I'm with you James, Ford didn't 'engineer' this into the Bronco body, but used components that were already 'engineered".

The reason I'm bringing this up is because shutting the door on a '66 feels like a tin can compared to shutting the door on a well adjusted '68 or later Bronco! There's a huge difference in the 'feel' on the two designs.

For this reason, I think all '66 and '67 Bronco's should be Roadsters!!!!

 

[.94 OR]

Man, I'd sure feel better if I traded my '67 in on a '68. Safety first you know.

The '66 Galaxie had to have a pretty long and heavy doors in comparison. I'm guessing the attention to side impact may have had something to do with latch location and the ability to secure a bigger gate.

 

[Broncobowsher]

The Falcon parts were legacy parts when the Bronco was developed. Stacks of them available. That new Galaxie latch, just starting to ramp up production, fairly unknown item, and probably a bit more expensive. Takes a couple years to get production to the point it can feed multiple models. Trying to get the production costs as low as possible to justify the production run.

Considering the Bronco was launched as a roadster to compete against the Jeep, it was probably thought that a hardtop and doors were likely to be low production numbers for the special orders. Not realizing that the wagon would be the most common, and eventually the only body offered. Doors changed from a novility item to main stay as soon as orders started coming in.

 

[sprdv1]

As @Broncobowsher noted, it was mainly a safety change. The recessed door paddles were less likely to be accidentally actuated in an accident and since they didn't protrude as much, they were less likely to cause bodily injury, particularly when coupled with the larger padded armrests introduced for '68. It's also why the dash pad became more thickly padded in '68. It was all part of Ford's "Lifeguard" safety design program that was initiated in '67 for passenger cars - it's mentioned in the second edition of the '67 sales brochure and also in the
'68 brochure and then never mentioned again.

I mention a few more details of it on page 45 of my book.

Todd Z.

and such a good (Detailed) book too