Talk:Ford Bronco/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Facts

Um, you all need to get your facts correct. For an encyclopedia there are way too many errors of facts on this page for me to even want to check any other pages. I will never use this site for detailed complete information. The other engines offered in the full size Bronco are the 351 Windsor, 300 inline six, and the 351 modified/400 in edition to the engines you have stated. This is written to strongly suggest that the full size Bronco was not made for a solid 30 years, 1966-1996. You also forget to mention the k-5 Blazer as competition for the Bronco.There are 5 generations of Broncos as follows: 1966-77, 78-79, 80-86, 87-91, and 92-96. This article is so poorly written it infuriates me! There is plenty more information out there on Broncos. I wanted to give the writers of this a heads up and a few basic facts of the Bronco lineage. I have no more time to write about this.

Goatter-----owner 1986 full size Bronco

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.21.215 (talk • contribs) as of 01:47, January 28, 2005

Updated

I fixed some things. I still am looking for production figures, and a couple years powertrain offerings may be a little off but they are close.--Pmeisel 16:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errors in Bronco entry...

Too many errors. The categories are: '66-'77 (early Broncos), '78-'79 (full size Broncos), and the '80-'96 (also full size Broncos).

First, the '78-'79 was a different concept compared to the '80-'96 Bronco. The only engines available in '78-'79 were the 400/351M (not "modified" as sometimes described, but only a letter designation to differentiate it from the 351C (Cleveland) and 351W (Windsor)engines). The 351M and 400 engines are identical except for crankshaft throw and piston height.

The '80-'96 Broncos were designed to be more "boulevard" friendly, while the '78-'79 were considered to be "work" trucks. From '78 on to '96, the Bronco was largely based on the F-150 (not the F-100) pickup chasis and shared many body, suspension and drivetrain components.

Considerable, and accurate, technical information can be found at http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/index.php which is a board for Bronco enthusiasts.

I'm a former owner of a '79 Bronco Custom, and current owner of an '89 Bronco Eddie Bauer edition.

Most of the Bronco owners I know would argue that a Bronco is a truck, not an SUV. No cupholders. 24.178.126.182 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated

Not too many errors actually. If '78-'79 is a category based on some small changes, then we'd have to breakout parts of the '66-'77 too. No reason for it. It's all big bronco.

Signal Mirrors

Although introduced as an option for model year 1996, I owned an OEM 1995 Bronco XLT Sport that was equipped with the "signal mirror" option. The mirrors were a first for any production truck or SUV and unique in the fact that the passengers could not see the flashing "chevron" in the mirror when the turn signal or hazard lights were active. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebetter (talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"ouch"

"until its demise" ever been kicked by a bronc?? owner 96 351W "all she is one horse power-unnamed untamed-born to be wild- bronco" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.1.38 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture Submission for subcategory

I'd like to submit a picture of my 78 ford bronco for the second generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magley64 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They also need to update to the 2020 consept model Nathaniel Ivey (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

New section

can someone help me..how do I know what kind of engine I have in my 1995 Ford eddie bauer bronco 351 clevland or windsor

@Chicagokid80: Hello Chicagokid80, asking your question here might give you a better and quicker answer/response... Cheers. 208.54.5.229 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Bronco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160408051323/http://news.boldride.com/2015/11/ford-bronco-rare-centurion-classic/94489/ to http://news.boldride.com/2015/11/ford-bronco-rare-centurion-classic/94489/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

OJ Simpson case

Is it really relevant? I'm looking for information about a vehicle, not a murder case. 198.71.120.64 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I agree. When looking up an encyclopedia on a vehicle, it's not relevant to talk about a murder case that happens to involve said car.8panther2pride8 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently deleted it as UNDUE and OFFTOPIC -- of millions of hits about bronco, only a microsopic percentage involve OJ, and really those seem a side note in an OJ story, not a story about the car. I'll try again. Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Galobtter -- I'll detail why the Bronco is a tidbit for the OJ article, but not the other way around

• WP:UNDUE - googling, "Ford bronco" -simpson is 8.2 million hits, +simpson is 162 thousand ... less than 2%

(doing "OJ Simpson" -"ford bronco" is 318 thousand hits and +bronco is 285 thousand ... over 89%

• WP:OFFTOPIC the hits are stories of an OJ chase that happen to include small mention of Bronco, predominantly OJ and not talking about the vehicle, so they would belong there.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal. Springee (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The section re-appeared and I've again deleted it. Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Counterpoint: the OJ Simpson chase has given cultural significance to the Ford Bronco. If you say "White Ford Bronco" to anyone who saw that chase on TV, they will remember the incident. Apparently there is a 90s cover band called White Ford Bronco, an obvious reference to a car chase that helped define a decade. 10:55 September 25 2019 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:5500:C34F:EB00:343F:3D8:CD5B:A23E (talk)

Vandalism

It would really do well if registered and unregistered users alike, would refrain from making unsourced changes to the article. Not as a sole authority, but someone with an ear and an eye into the U725 program, I have to point out that it is not a 2020 model. Surely Sable932 is not enjoying having to keep reverting gaffes and tidy up the unnecessary, as neither do I. That time of ours can be better spent adding new content and be less tiring. Folks should be explaining what they're doing in edit summaries and not leave others to guess on some of these erroneous submissions.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Speculation

Considering that this is dealing with a future model has not been released officially by Ford, I really do believe I have the authority in this case to say that people should not be posting just anything about the next Bronco so loosely, that can prove to not be very credible. I am moderately informed about the Bronco U725 program due my varying proximity and accessibility, plus have seen it for the first time this month and next F-150 (P702) as well. Considering the nature of the model program at the moment, I am not going to violate any agreements made to not discuss this vehicle too in-depth (made with Ford Motor Company).
I will make it very clear though that the Everest and T6 Ranger (P375) are not the same basis as the new Bronco. The next Ranger (P703), 2021 Bronco, 2021 F-150 (P702), and 2023 Super Duty (P708) will be more closely related to each other than with the current T6 and P552/558.
I cannot and will not verify that with a direct source, as that is insider/internal Ford information, that Wikipedia has no business being privy to at this point in time. Stop alluding to the Everest and Bronco being related. It is simply hearsay, with a dubious citation. Not every source reads credible. WP:OR is not being violated here, because this article or section shouldn't even exist. Carmaker1 (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Most famous car, most famous car chase

Deleted from article (diff), moved to talk for discussion:

On June 17, 1994, a white 1993 Bronco owned and driven by Al Cowlings containing O. J. Simpson as a passenger attempted to elude the Los Angeles Police Department in a televised low-speed chase. Televised world-wide, with an estimated audience of 95 million people, the event was described as "the most famous ride on American shores since Paul Revere's". The Bronco chase was the sixth most "universally impactful" televised moment of the last 50 years, according to a 2014 CNN report on a survey by Nielsen and Sony. The O. J. Simpson "white Bronco" chase was "one of the most surreal moments in the history of Los Angeles criminal justice", according to the Los Angeles Times in 2014. "The Ford Bronco was forever ingrained in American pop culture" by "the World's most watched police chase", according to The Daily Caller in 2017. Cowlings' Bronco was "the most famous car in America" and the chase was "the most famous car chase in American history", according to CBS Sports in 2017.

References

• Support Highly significant event in the notoriety of the subject of the article. Prominent coverage in reliable sources, neutral summary of multiple noteworthy reliable sources including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times , CNN, and CBS. Inclusion compelled by core neutrality policy. EmParker6 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

striking comments of blocked sock editor Springee (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Slightly oppose Not questioning anything about the significance of the O.J. car chase, but the correct context for automobile articles (link: WP: CARTRIVIA) is listed below:

Wikipedia generally does not support the addition of trivia and pop-culture sections within articles. There is a tendency for such sections to degenerate into long lists of movie and TV show appearances, song lyrics, and the like. Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show—such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show.

In other words, to really expand this content into the main Ford Bronco article, we need to answer this primary question: Did the chase involving O.J.'s 1993 white Ford Bronco affect the design of later Ford Broncos? (from what the article says, no, and most likely, absolutely not). Did it affect sales of the vehicle? (Seeing as Ford was already developing the Expedition, I'm guessing it didn't matter anyways). In a similar context, while a 1993 Ford F700 did play a central part in the Oklahoma City bombing, the event did not affect the design or sales of the vehicle.

If I were to bring something up about the event, instead of dedicating an entire section, I would limit it to a sentence or two. --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Per [1] it is possible that it increased sales somewhat. Agree on not needing so much on it as in that paragraph above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bronco and "Baby Bronco"

• Ford Bronco (sixth generation) (mid-size Bronco)
• Ford's "Baby Bronco" (compact SUV)

The "Baby Bronco" could be called Bronco Scout, Bronco Sport, Timberline, or Adventurer.--Fabian Bronco (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

When taking WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL into account, making a (stub) article at this point is premature (along with adding to this one). --SteveCof00 (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. automotive industry is back.--188.194.77.26 (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Here you can find all the latest information about the vehicle. The Bronco will debut in spring of 2020.--The Uninterested Aristocrat (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bronco R Prototype

By editing this article, I have added a new section on the recently released Ford Bronco R Prototype that Ford used in the Baja 1000 race. This edit includes information on how the race resulted as well as the mechanics of the prototype vehicle. The information in the new section is all factual information from reliable sources on the events that occurred during the Baja 1000 race as well as what the Bronco R was made for and how it performed for what it was needed for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfunderburk2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR

This edit summary, scolding others for not citing a source, while hypocritically failing to cite any source except personal expertise, violates WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:AGF. As you know, argument from authority carries no weight and serves only to intimidate others, violating the WP:OWN policy. See WP:EXPERT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There are no sources provided for the content in question, thus it was removed. If you believe the content to be true, you need to add a verifiable source to support it, instead of making empty claims. Signed, Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. It's obvious that I wasn't disputing the Fort Bronco years, and arguing that with me is beside the point. It is not an empty claim that you are asserting ownership over the article, and citing your own expertise as an argument to authority. You have been made aware on many occasions that you should cease attempting to intimidate others in this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Having been thanked for contributing to this article a few times, I don't recall owning this article nor implying that. I provided my Ford background simply. You have made that inference and are now commenting on me as the editor versus the content I have submitted. I take issue with the content and the lack of effort by others to remove it. Until now, I haven't referred to Mr. Robert Moore. I am well within my rights to do that (on content), but judging by what I have been told by some other users/administrators about you, I am not surprised you would make such an inference...Signed Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

U725 Generation 6 Dates

@Sable232: Is there a reason why you did not take any action in regards to these erroneous and misleading additions [2][3] to this article, all while being a Wikipedia user, who regular contributes to it [4][5] and seemingly monitors the edits of users (per diff history)?

There is no verifiable source nor even a link provided, it is inaccurate, and thus misinformation, not welcome one bit here due to WP:V. The dates in fact, pertain to our Bronco Sport code-named CX430 due to be built in Hermosillo Mexico from September 7, no longer July 13, 2020[6]. It can be deemed selective editing and monitoring of an article, based on solely biases (per edit/diff history). I deliberately added December 7, 2020 on 28 February 2020, only for it to be understandably removed by @Vossanova: on 4 March 2020 in having no outside source WP:OR. Myself as a senior level Ford PDC employee and enthusiast, is an expert in this area, but I also should not have to be responsible for finding these gaffes by myself, if we are all supposed to be working together.

It is tiring to be single handedly guarding against such errors, if yourself and others are part of this project too. I do not want a false narrative coming from this into the broader worldwide web, simply because some folks in media or in editing mixup our upcoming monocoque Bronco Sport (CX430) based on our C2 FWD architecture used by Escape (CX482) and Focus (C519), with our new midsize New T6 ladder architecture (heavily revised) debuting on the U725 Bronco in early 2021 and P703 Ranger in 2022. Blame our marketing division for that. This section shouldn't even exist, because of it being speculation mostly WP:CRYSTALBALL. I can't understand how such misleading, unsourced information went unchallenged. Do I have to be using this as evidence of editor bias, as enforcement of verifiability has to be objective and not biased/selective. Signed, Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"It is tiring to be single handedly guarding against such errors". Please read WP:NOTMANDATORY. Other editors are equally tired of undoing your edits. Which version to keep is determined via WP:CONSENSUS and the dispute resolution process. Complaining that your investment in time privileges your edits above others is irrelevant. If you are unhappy with your contributions to Wikipedia being changed by others, then you should not donate your content to Wikipedia.

"Do I have to be using this as evidence of editor bias". Please comment on content, not the contributor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"...equally tired of undoing your edits", a perfect example of what I am talking about. Good evidence and keep providing empty applications of WP templates. It's called "reaching" and hypocrisy. Signed Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I’m telling you is new to you. You have been admonished several times by community consensus to focus on content and to not attempt to discourage others from contributing. You are on record acknowledging your behavior and promising to cease. Being pig headed about it here doesn’t change that. If you posted only about content and not other editors, your comments would be 1/10th as long. Think of how much of your precious time that would save. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I have enough evidence here, being that you inserted yourself somewhere where I just happened to be actively involved and are looking for a fight. I am not going to entertain that. I think that you should focus on ways you can contribute to this page and be more useful. Signed Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Predecessor and Successor Sections

I'm seeing that it's really awkward, the placement of the Explorer (U152? in 2001) and the Expedition (UN93 in 1996) as predecessor and successor. I only can wonder how one should approach this in an effort to have more clarity?

I know that it's awkward for much of the public how Ford is going back to its roots and essentially skipping the 1977 to 1996 versions, something that can be seen in how we have to navigate around the switch to full size then to midsize. I'm not certain if it's better to just upon launch or reveal, create a separate article page for U725 Generation 6 and only list it there? Signed Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

I suggest that someone deletes the 6th generation section per WP:SPECULATION and etc, considering that I've been accused of being a conflict of interest[7]. I'll look into other processes to get feedback and/or this removal achieved, if no responses are provided within 24 hours (starting from 19:00 US Eastern Time). Should've wait until official announcement and press embargo, before even creating this section per guidelines--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree to Disagree I don't see this as a personal issue. While the content about the now-2021 vehicle has been in place for over two years before Ford announced the vehicle (back then would have been most appropriate for this discussion...), the format of the section came out of my restructuring the section headers of the article nearly 18 months ago (bringing the structure of this article in line with other automotive articles). I think while asking for a discussion on the deletion made sense (the collaboration of WP and all), my take on WP:SPECULATION is that it does not apply here for several reasons.

• The involved content is part of a section within a larger article (not the other way around).
• The 2021 Bronco does not exist as a rumor, having entered production as a prototype and has been photographed on the road (in disguised form).
  • While most factual information does remain under embargo, this proves the existence of the vehicle.
• (In line with the WP example of "scheduled/certain future events"), Ford has a website dedicated to the new Bronco that has been online for over a year.

This content remained in place once Ford confirmed the revival for the world (allowing it to be cited from reliable sources). In reality, this is a discussion that should have happened when this was still an internet rumor, but we all have our own opinions. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bronco Sport (CX430)

Any mention of production dates for this vehicle shouldn't be relevant to this page, considering it has its own article dedicated to it. I just removed the previously scheduled Job 1 date of September 7, 2020, as it's not only inaccurate now, but is not even needed on a page for the larger New T6 basis U725 Bronco. Such info, belongs in the infobox and prose of that very vehicle's article, which is why I deleted it over here. Carmaker1 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

People Guessing at Delays.

Based on my recent edit: Unless Ford personnel have been directly quoted in an article, stop adding stuff to this article that are essentially conjecture and do not provide any proof of any past production dates earmarked internally.
This is where I have a major issue, as we never marketed nor represented this vehicle as a 2020 model year vehicle ever nor did UAW tell you that in 2016.

U725 Production was always due to begin roughly 1.5 to 2 years after P375N Ranger (October 2018) in calendar year 2020, but never as a 2020 MY vehicle. This only slipped STRICTLY DUE to COVID-19! December 7, 2020 was set as Job 1 as of final design approval in mid-2018. Before that, it was July 2020 Job 1 for September 2020 launch as of December 2016.

The fact that I might have objectively corrected this months ago and yet someone undid that and reintroduced the contradictory information based on outsider provided guesses, is not only annoying, but unnecessary and misleading trivia that isn't even factual.

Stick to the facts per Ford-cited information, so that other news outlets stop coming here and lazily copying misleading text, creating rumor mills from erroneous edits. An outsider journalist is not going to know a date, just by guessing. It has to come directly from Ford/subject company or associated affiliates. Not some journalist making an uninformed guess. Unlike some subjects which can be 3rd party sourced, product planning information HAS to come from the company itself or an accurately paraphrased interview to a media source. I don't log in enough to be monitoring what is correct or false and would expect others to follow suit on keeping it accurate here. Stuff like this going unchecked really disappoints me, as this site has more than enough users to vet each others submissions 24/7.---Carmaker1 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To amend this, here is the PROOF 2020MY was misinterpreted by CAR AND DRIVER and NOT by more reputable sources. It is obvious C&D was incorrect, but I am already seeing typical semantics at reverting removal of the unnecessary text. It's irrelevant trivia we don't even need in the first place anyway, but here ya go: [8][9]Carmaker1 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It didn't appear that you considered it "irrelevant trivia" when you tried to tamper with the information the first time, but here we are.

Car and Driver is a reliable source, but clearly it and Automotive News contradict each other in this case so discussion is in order. I'd agree that Automotive News, as an industry-oriented publication, is the better source here and it's reasonable to take its information as correct.

Side note: You could have easily provided those sources the first time rather than making deliberately-unsourced changes that you knew would be reverted. --Sable232 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, I could have and followed suit. I am very disappointed Car and Driver would make such a careless mistake, as I trust their judgment 99% of the time. Just very disappointing all around, as now I have to second guess using them as a reliable source and magazines in general (see Motor Trend), if they are going to be making gaffes like this. We all should be careful trusting information on future product, if it is somewhat hearsay and unverified, because no one is perfect and can be prone to mistakes. Carmaker1 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sixth generation content duplicate

The article Ford Bronco (sixth generation) has emerged while the sixth generation section in this article is already quite shaping up. The problem is, this new, dedicated article is currently lacks in quality and is much shorter than the sixth generation section in this article. This needs to be solved, either to:

1. Move the sixth generation section in this article to the new article, or
2. Revert the new article back as a redirect

Opinions? Or is there any other options? Andra Febrian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect. A new article is far too premature for a vehicle that isn't even in production yet, especially when the length of the main article is hardly excessive. If there comes a point where there's enough content to split it off it can be revisited then, but right now there's no reason for a separate article to exist. --Sable232 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it time to reconsider now? At this point, I am thinking splitting it back may be a good option. Now that the vehicle is no longer secret, objective information is no longer speculative. The Jeep Wrangler (JK) and Jeep Wrangler (JL) articles (the latter, the direct competitor for the Bronco model line) would be a good idea of what a future article could shape up to be like if given the room to grow (over time, of course). Re-splitting also would give better balance to the article (to a point, I only see the 1966-1977 Bronco as ever having any other need for its own dedicated article). --SteveCof00 (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

B pillar metal fatigue recall

I think there should be mention about the design flaw that caused B-pillar metal fatigue cracks and body warpage to the point the tailgate alignment wouldn't shut correctly on the 1978-96 model years. Ford had a weakness in their removable hardtop Bronco engineering. They had essentially built a large unibody cab without any structural support behind the B-pillar. And mounted this large weakened unibody cab onto a truck frame that would flex, intending for a "body on frame" design. However all typical trucks can flex between the disconnected cab and bed at extreme off-road angles or a long service life of bumpy roads. The Bronco unibody had no C-pillar and had no place to allow for frame twist to dissipate tension. Nesbitt had designed a removable hardtop that did not leak, but the B pillar was not strong enough to handle torsional load when the frame deflected during extreme off-road angles or a long service life of bumpy roads. After several customer complaints, Ford used multiple Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) to their dealerships to fix cracks at the roofline of the metal B-pillar. TSB 96-20-11 was the final revision of Ford's best possible repair to help stiffen the Bronco unibody cab, but it covered ALL 1980-96 Bronco's as , as Ford never found a good solution for this problem. The repair involved cutting open the inside of the body, epoxying extra layers of steel into the B-pillar, then riveting and epoxying the service hole closed. This repair has mixed reviews from owners; those who never take their Bronco off-road say it fixed their problem, while those who did off-road claim this repair was inadequate.

https://manualzz.com/doc/6331325/bronco-roof-crack-repair FireguyRJM (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a section for roof leaks on ALL Ford Bronco model years?

Here is a forum post from many owners talking about how to fix roof leaks on their original 1965-77 Classic Bronco. https://classicbroncos.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57364

The above mentioned 1980-96 roof leak acknowledged by Ford with a warranty TSB repair. However the exact same hard top on body mounting design was used for the 1978-79 Broncos. https://manualzz.com/doc/6331325/bronco-roof-crack-repair

Here is a detailed article on the 1984-90 Bronco II leaks. https://www.broncocorral.com/tech_library/bronco_ii_water_leaks/

Here is a recent report accusing current 2021 Broncos of having hard top problems already. https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-bronco-hardtop-quality-issues-owner-report/ FireguyRJM (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)