1966-1977 Bronco
- Thread starter xwerx
- Start date
Trailpsycho
Observer
Daniel-
Thanks, I appreciate that you think so. I am pretty pleased with how its turned/turning out...always something else to do, fix or reconfigure.
On our recent trip to CO from Indy, running safari style soft-top (no windows) with loaded-cooler out back up on the rack, gear piled up to 8-10" above the bedrail, me and my buddy running 70-85 mph we saw 10-11 mpg. Adding windows made maybe a 1 mpg improvement...maybe. Once in CO and running highway speeds, tooling around in the back-country, even running what few open passes we could find in 4WD (a few 'moderate' trails) we saw 14 mpg consistently. When my wife got there the next week, she and I had a lighter load, just backpacking gear and the cooler lightly loaded and we had a tank at 16 mpg (otherwise, we also saw 14 mpg on most of our side trips). On the way back, still heavy with gear, we saw 10.5-11.5 again...but much of I-70 through KS and MO is fairly hilly-rolling, sometimes steep grades...so your always in/out of the throttle.
Last year when we went to Key West, we saw mpg in the 13-14 mpg range running 70-80...modest load--less gear, more clothes. We had one tank at 15 mpg cruising across the Everglades.
Another road trip to AL earlier this spring saw 12.5-14 mpg depending on how fast I was going (at 70, probably in the 14 mpg range). Running 80-85, which the truck loves (~2800-2900 rpm), the truck has tons of power (torque) and throttle response but theres a price economy drops into the 11-12 range. At 2500 rpm (~72 mph), its fine on flats and modest hills, but its not quite into the powerband to pull grades very well.
The M416 trailer pulls like butter behind it. A body rotisserie is about the heaviest thing Ive hauled and the truck didnt seem to mind much, power-wise... it wasnt far enough to determine whether a loaded trailer will be a drag on the economy. My guess is a loaded trailer with a lid will probably pull more efficiently than the load we hauled to CO...at least thats what I am telling myself.
My advice to anyone considering outfitting an old Bronco is to keep it low. Stay with a 2.5 or 3.5" suspension lift. You can still fit 35" tires, if you have to...but 32 or 33"s with less lift will get you better economy while still keping you pretty capable (great flex and articulation is very possbile with long radius arms and 3.5" lift). With that in mind, I dont plan on dropping mine down...but its a lesson learned. My wife isnt thrilled about the economy...going in I told her in would be in the mid to upper teens...and it probably would be with alot less lift and smaller gears and tires...but whats the fun in that?
Hope I didnt regurgitate too much....I have that tendancy.
Best
John
Last edited:
24HOURSOFNEVADA
Expedition Leader
I find it interesting how many people have replied about the short wheel base being a negative for overland travel, while the Defender 90 has such a strong (If not Cult-like) following.
The 66-77 Bronco has a two inch longer wheel base than the D90. Am I missing something?
The 66-77 Bronco has a two inch longer wheel base than the D90. Am I missing something?
02TahoeMD
Explorer
Yes, the Bronco has F O R D written on the tailgate instead of Land Rover. :sombrero:
In due seriousness, the Defender has a long, legendary history writ large on fields of combat to the vast unexplored ends of the earth. Kind of hard to beat that kind of following with the relative newcomer that the Bronco is.
If I could afford to rehab a Bronco to modern condition I would use one for Overlanding in a heartbeat.
dsw4x4
Adventurer
Box styles make great expedition rigs I have two of them and they go anywhere. They are both built and when I put on my roof top tent it makes a great rig. They do not and never will get great gas milage. If you can get 15 your doing great. I have never even come close to that. One of these days I am going to swap in a cummins 4bt in the green one and see if I can make it a daily driver and get 25 mpg or more out of it.
The only digital pic I have of my top bunk but it is on our explorer
The only digital pic I have of my top bunk but it is on our explorer
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
Maybe they mean that there is less room to haul gear? 1966-77 Bronco is wider than a same year Jeep right? With the bit of added width and 92-inches should be fairly stable and a great all around off-highway rig, right? Being a full-sized truck guy for most of my life anything shorter than 130-inches or so is a relatively short wheelbase to me.
I've never owned anything shorter than 100-inches, but after being spoiled with less wheelbase by my last two rigs, think that 100-110 inches is a nice length. 92-inches is a bit shorter but wasn't it a bit long for a ‘jeep’ at the time introduced in 1966?
I've never owned anything shorter than 100-inches, but after being spoiled with less wheelbase by my last two rigs, think that 100-110 inches is a nice length. 92-inches is a bit shorter but wasn't it a bit long for a ‘jeep’ at the time introduced in 1966?
